Title: AIAW v
Author: lisamc
Last saved by: Kamande
Company: Human Kinetics

Case AIAW V. NCAA

Name
Institution of Affiliation
Professor
Date

AIAW v. NCAA, 735 F.2d 577 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

1. State the names of the plaintiff and defendant, the volume number, page number and name of the reporter, and the court that decided the case.

Plaintiff = ASSOCIATION FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS FOR WOMEN (AIAW)
Defendant =NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA)
Volume = 735
Page = 577
Reporter = Federal reporter Second Series
Court = United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

2. Describe the facts of the case. 
Since 1961, the commission for intercollegiate Athletics for women (CIAW) governed and managed women athletics. In 1971, CIAW changed to AIAW. The NCAA was only sponsoring men's athletics from 1906 to 1980. In the fall of 1981, NCAA began sponsoring women sports resulting in significant losses for AIAW.

3. What was the cause of action?
In October 1918 AIAW filed a suit against NCAA at the U.S District Court of Columbia alleging that NCAA violated sections 1, 2 and 3 of Sherman Act.

4. What was the court’s disposition of the case?
The court noted that NCAA could not be subjected to liability because of its conduct alone, intent for its actions should be sufficiently proved. The plaintiff failed to show monopoly power used by NCAA adequately.

5. What do the first three sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act provide?
Section 1 forbids consensus between two or more entities to restrain entities unreasonably. Section 2 prohibits monopolization or any attempt to monopolize a firm. Part 3 extends the boundaries of chapter one to the U.S territories and the District of Columbia.

6. What evidence did the plaintiff put forth in an attempt to prove that the disputed use of monopoly power by the NCAA was unlawful and caused an economic injury? What was the response of the court?

AIWA suffered a significant drop in membership, and forty-nine per cent of institutions left AIWA for NCAA significantly affecting their revenue. AIAW also suffered promotional losses as NBC focused NCAA entry into the women sports arena.

The evidence provided by AIWA was not sufficient to prove that NCAA intended and achieved to monopolize power in women sports.

7. Why was it necessary to consider whether a restraint on trade operates on a profession as opposed to a business?

It guides one on the rules of engagement, especially in the event of termination of the contract for whatever reason.

8. Is anti-competitive intent essential to finding antitrust liability?
No, a firm intent is applicable when it helps to forecast the likely competitive impact of the practice in dispute.

9. What is "attempted monopolization" and why was it essential to this case?

Attempted monopolization means any attempt to control price, service provision or product acquisition exclusively. It is vital in this case because AIAW accused NCAA of trying to monopolize women athletics thereby reducing its revenues