Ted Tatos’s Testimony Cited as Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against NCAA

EconOne Expert Ted Tatos offered initial and reply declarations as well as testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing in the matter of Lorient et al. v. NCAA. Mr. Tatos addressed the issues of market power, including direct and indirect evidence. The District Court cited Mr. Tatos’ testimony in issuing an order for the Plaintiffs, enjoining the NCAA from excluding four athletes at West Virginia University from participating in their respective sports. The Court found that,

Mr. Tatos has extensively studied and written academically concerning the antitrust relevant market definition for Division I intercollegiate athletics for years. He opines that other NCAA Divisions are not viable substitutes for Division I and professional leagues such as the NBA and NFL do not discipline the NCAA’s monopsony power. His declaration supports those opinions with evidence addressing the “market realities for college sports,” and that includes “cold, hard data.”… The Court agrees with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have defined their market as the labor market for NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics, with each athlete participating in the sport-specific submarket applicable to his or her sport. This definition identifies both the “product market”—labor—and the “geographic market”—Division I athletics in the United States. Plaintiffs also address, through Mr. Tatos’s declaration and the quantitative data therein, the “reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between” NCAA Division I athletics and divisional or professional substitutes.

The evidence likewise addresses contemporary changes in the market. Mr. Tatos’s declaration provides “cold, hard data” that “grapple[s] with recent changes” in the relevant market, including changes in market realities since Alston, To the contrary, Mr. Tatos identifies and relies upon evidence from which he draws conclusions concerning the relevant market. At this stage, that evidence is sufficient. It is current, empirical, and directed to whether Division I athletics has “good substitutes”.

Read the full Memorandum Opinion and Order