American Needle’s Progeny? Tennis and Antitrust

Decided in the shadow of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2010 decision in American Needle v. NFL, Ryan M. Rodenberg and Daniel Hauptman analyze Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP World Tour (hereinafter DTB v. ATP) and aim to explain its implications for individual sports (e.g. tennis and golf) and sport governance generally. Treatment is afforded to both the District Court’s jury verdict and the Third Circuit’s appellate decision in DTB v. ATP. Despite being the first federal appellate sports antitrust decision rendered following American Needle, this article concludes that DTB v. ATP should not be considered an offspring of American Needle. More specifically, this article posits that the: (i) Third Circuit correctly applied relevant antitrust precedent in upholding the governing body’s unilateral decision to demote the German-based tournament to second-tier status as part of the ATP’s overall administration of men’s professional tennis globally; (ii) case would have been decided the same way notwithstanding American Needle; and (iii) DTB v. ATP holding is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Needle. Part II of this paper will provide background information on the ATP as well as the Sherman Act. Part III will discuss both court rulings – the jury trial in the District Court and the Third Circuit’s affirming opinion – in which the ATP prevailed. Next, Part IV will analyze the pivotal legal issue that ultimately led the case to be decided in favor of the defendants, as well as provisionally explore how this dispute may have been decided under EU competition laws. Finally, Part V will conclude by examining how this vital antitrust ruling has affected the Hamburg tennis tournament and the ATP

A Sure Thing? Online Gaming and Canada

The legal status of gaming activities on First Nations land within Canada is complicated. The foci of this paper are two-fold. First, we trace the origin and expansion of First Nations gaming. Second, we analyze the potential of First Nations as hubs for the growing global e-gaming industry, with an emphasis on Internet poker and online sports wagering. We conclude by positing that the Canadian regulatory scheme presents an opportunity to First Nations in connection with e-gaming

Tracking the Evolution of Stare Decisis

At the United States Supreme Court, what is old is new again. In a series of recent opinions,1 the justices have repeatedly offered differing views on how stare decisis should be positioned when tasked with justifying or rejecting existing precedent. Indeed, in three recent Supreme Court decisions the justices have wrestled with the effect of stare decisis on future decisions. Reversing a decision, according to Justice Kagan, “demand[s] a ‘special justification.’” In contrast, Justice Thomas posited that “[w]hen faced with demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.” Chief Justice Roberts, in explaining his switch in direction from a prior dissent, concluded that “[t]he legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.” The result is that some precedent is retained while other precedent is discarded, which ensues the debate over whether the justices “practice what they preach.