期刊名称：Utah OnLaw: The Utah Law Review Online Supplement
出版年度：2013
卷号：2013
期号：1
语种：English
出版社：Faculty of Education
摘要：One of the joys of the academic life is being paid a good salary to read important and provocative articles, such as Michael LeRoy’s latest contribution to the debate about the extent to which antitrust law should constrain owners in monopoly sports leagues from limiting competition among themselves for the services of players. This particular article reminded me of a prior job as an attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee. My first assignment was to participate in negotiations on amendments to shipping laws that granted antitrust exemptions for agreements in that industry. An attorney for the Senate Commerce Committee kept referring to the Shipping Act as “our law” and, sneering at me and my Judiciary Committee colleagues, referring to the Sherman Act as “your law.” Professor LeRoy, a distinguished scholar of labor law and empirical research on the effect of labor law on labor relations, clearly prefers that “his law” should govern sports league labor disputes, and that “my law” should stay out. Although his empirical work is a useful contribution to the literature that will serve as a valuable reference for other scholars, the evidence about what is —that federal courts often grant antitrust remedies in sports labor disputes—tells us nothing about what should be . Namely, in Professor LeRoy’s words, whether “federal jurisdiction properly extends to antitrust lawsuits filed by union-represented athletes who challenge labor market restrictions imposed by their league.”
