15 U.S.C. § 1293

Intercollegiate and interscholastic football contest limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

The first sentence of section 1291 of this title shall not apply to any joint agreement described in such section which permits the telecasting of all or a substantial part of any professional football game on any Friday after six o’clock postmeridian or on any Saturday during the period beginning on the second Friday in September and ending on the second Saturday in December in any year from any telecasting station located within seventy-five miles of the game site of any intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest scheduled to be played on such a date if—(1) such intercollegiate football contest is between institutions of higher learning both of which confer degrees upon students following completion of sufficient credit hours to equal a four-year course, or(2) in the case of an interscholastic football contest, such contest is between secondary schools, both of which are accredited or certified under the laws of the State or States in which they are situated and offer courses continuing through the twelfth grade of the standard school curriculum, or the equivalent, and(3) such intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest and such game site were announced through publication in a newspaper of general circulation prior to August 1 of such year as being regularly scheduled for such day and place.(Pub. L. 87–331, § 3, Sept. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 732; Pub. L. 89–800, § 6(b)(3), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1515.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1966—Pub. L. 89–800 substituted “The first sentence of section 1291 of this title” for “Section 1291 of this title” at beginning of section, extended limitation granted for football contests on game sites located within 75 miles of telecasting stations to include interscholastic contests, redesignated cl. (2) as (3), added a new cl. (2), and, in cl. (3) as so redesignated, substituted “newspaper of general circulation prior to August 1” for “daily newspaper of general circulation prior to March 1” as description of the type newspaper required for the announcement of the game site of intercollegiate or interscholastic football games.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1981–1988 · leading case: Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984). · cites it 4× “See 15 U. S. C. § 1293 . [48] We approved of the District Court's reliance on the greater revenue-producing potential and higher television ratings of championship events as opposed to other events to support its market definition.”

United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F. Supp. 1155 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). · cites it 3× “87-331, § 2 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1293 ). In 1966, when the NFL and the AFL merged, Congress amended § 1291 to provide antitrust immunity to the merger agreement itself.”

Wtwv, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League & Miami Dolphins, Ltd., 678 F.2d 142 (11th Cir. 1982). “The legislative history indicates that Congress intended to codify Judge Grim’s 1953 decree sanctioning the NFL’s then existing blackout rule which was based on station location. In response the defendant argues along the following lines.”

United States Football League v. Nat'l Football League, 842 F.2d 1335 (2d Cir. 1988). “§ 2 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 1293 (1982)). The first NFL pooled-rights contract was with CBS.”

Colorado High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Nat'l Football League, 711 F.2d 943 (10th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “However, this exemption is limited by 15 U.S.C. § 1293 (1976), which was enacted to prevent such package contracts from impairing “college football gate receipts through network telecasts of professional football games at times when college games are normally played.”

Colorado High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Nat'l Football League, 524 F. Supp. 60 (D. Colo. 1981). “Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on 15 U.S.C. § 1293 , which establishes procedural prerequisites conditioning the plaintiffs’ rights to pursue federal antitrust claims against these defendants.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.