Thread by @matthewstoller

Why a Pro-Monopoly Supreme Court Ruled Against the NCAA Monopoly mattstoller.substack.com/p/why-a-pro-mo…

While the NCAA ruling was narrow and full of consumer welfare nonsense - the court is bad after all - there are some useful parts to take away. First, the court ruled that suppressing labor competition is an antitrust harm.

Second, the court narrowed the cross-balancing test involved in AMEX by saying that any cost to one set of stakeholders had to have a direct connection to benefits to others. The NCAA can't claim that not paying student athletes is good for fans unless they directly prove it.

Three, product design is a legitimate area for judges in antitrust cases. The NCAA claimed its compensation to athletes was part of 'amateur athletics. The court said a monopolist cannot "relabel a restraint as a product feature and declare it “immune from §1 scrutiny.”’

Finally, the court is unwittingly revealing that consumer welfare is sophistry. There's simply no way to argue for labor harms as a part of consumer welfare.

https://twitter.com/johnmarknewman/status/1407024649427472384

Here is how @MikeLeeforUtah defines consumer in his new antitrust bill codifying 'consumer welfare.'

"In this section, the term ‘consumer’ includes buyers and sellers.’"

Sorry, but that's just sophistry.