How do professional sports leagues in the U.S. avoid anti-trust action?
<p>The National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Hockey League (NHL) are, essentially, professional sports monopolies. How have they avoided anti-trust action by the federal government? (Or have they?)</p>

<p>Well <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/07/baseballs_con_game.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">baseball</a> for historical and frankly crazy decisions of SCOTUS is exempt because it is not a business that crosses state lines (by definition of the court if by no one else's).</p>
<p>The other sports have had their run-ins with <a href="http://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues-in-sports/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">antitrust laws</a>; some they've won and some they've lost.</p>
<p>All of these have been to do with antitrust provisions in restraint of trade between leagues and clubs and clubs and players.</p>
<p>As for monopoly powers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The elements of monopolization are twofold:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>possession of monopoly power in a relevant market; and</p>
</li>
<li><p>willfully acquiring or maintaining that power.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>There are two clear defences to allegations of running a monopoly:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the definition of the market - if the market is defined as &quot;baseball&quot; then there is a clear monopoly, however, if the market is &quot;professional sports&quot; it is not so clear that there is a monopoly. Certainly, both definitions of market are arguable.</p>
</li>
<li><p>that the monopoly was &quot;the result of superior skill, foresight, and industry&quot;. These types of monopoly are allowed as the acquisition of monopoly power was not willfull.</p>
</li>
</ul>

united-states antitrust-law