Case4:14-md-02541-CW Document60 Filed07/11/14 Page1 of 173 1 Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 2 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 3 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 4 [email protected] 5 Bruce L. Simon (96241) William J. Newsom (267643) 6 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 7 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 8 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 [email protected] 9 [email protected] 10 Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel 11 [Additional counsel on signature page] 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 OAKLAND DIVISION 15 IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE No. 4:14-md-2541-CW 16 ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST 17 LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 18 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 CLASS ACTION 21 22 This Document Relates to: 23 ALL ACTIONS EXCEPT Jenkins v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 24 Case No. 4:14-cv-02758-CW 25 26 27 28 010271-11 701445V1 Case4:14-md-02541-CW Document60 Filed07/11/14 Page2 of 173 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 4 II. THE PARTIES ........................................................................................................................ 9 5 A. Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................... 9 6 B. Defendants ................................................................................................................. 25 7 C. Co-Conspirators ......................................................................................................... 36 8 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................ 37 9 IV. THE RELEVANT MARKETS IMPACTED BY DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ACTS ............................................................................................................. 39 10 A. The NCAA Division I Football Labor Market .......................................................... 39 11 1. The Football Bowl Subdivision Labor Market has Distinct 12 Competition for Players’ Athletic Services ................................................... 40 13 2. Grants-in-Aid are Commercial Transactions ................................................. 42 14 3. The Football Bowl Subdivision Labor Market Constitutes a Separate Market from NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, 15 NAIA, and Community /Junior Colleges ...................................................... 43 16 4. There Is Robust Competition Among NCAA Members in the Football Bowl Subdivision Labor Market to Recruit and Retain 17 College Football Players ................................................................................ 46 18 5. NCAA Members’ Competition for Class Members’ Labor Services Is Constrained by the Unlawful Athletics Grant-in-Aid Cap ........................ 47 19 6. The Relevant Geographic Market ................................................................. 49 20 B. The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Labor Market ........................................... 51 21 1. The Division I Men’s Basketball Labor Market Is Distinct .......................... 51 22 2. Grants-in-Aid are Commercial Transactions ................................................. 54 23 3. The Division I Men’s Basketball Labor Market Constitutes a 24 Separate Market from NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, NAIA, and Community/Junior Colleges ....................................................... 54 25 4. There Is Robust Competition Among NCAA Members in the 26 Division I Labor Market to Recruit and Retain College Basketball Players ......................................................................................... 56 27 28 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No.: 14-md-2541 CW -i- 010271-11 701445V1 Case4:14-md-02541-CW Document60 Filed07/11/14 Page3 of 173 1 5. NCAA Members’ Competition Is Constrained by the Unlawful Athletics Grant-in-Aid Cap ........................................................................... 56 2 C. Women’s Division I Basketball ................................................................................. 57 3 1. The Division I Women’s Basketball Labor Market Is Distinct ..................... 57 4 2. Grants-in-Aid are Commercial Transactions ................................................. 59 5 3. The Division I Women’s Basketball Labor Market Constitutes a 6 Separate Market from NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, NAIA, and Community/Junior Colleges ....................................................... 60 7 4. There Is Robust Competition Among NCAA Members in the 8 Division I Labor Market to Recruit and Retain Women’s College Basketball Players ............................................................................ 62 9 5. NCAA Members’ Competition Is Constrained by the Unlawful 10 Athletics Grant-in-Aid Cap ........................................................................... 62 11 V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................ 62 12 A. An Overview of the NCAA ....................................................................................... 62 13 1. The NCAA’s History. .................................................................................... 62 14 2. The NCAA’s Basic Structure. ....................................................................... 64 15 3. The NCAA’s Purpose. ................................................................................... 66 16 4. The NCAA’s Detailed Governance Structure. .............................................. 66 17 5. The NCAA Manual. ...................................................................................... 67 18 6. The NCAA’s Enforcement Structure. ........................................................... 68 19 B. The NCAA Bylaw Challenged in this Litigation ...................................................... 71 20 1. Numerous reasonable and less-restrictive alternatives exist. ........................ 76 21 C. The NCAA’s Public Statements Regarding the Pro-competitive Nature of the Proposed Stipend and Absence of Pro-competitive Justifications for 22 Capping Compensation at Current Levels ................................................................. 85 23 1. 2014 Statements. ............................................................................................ 85 24 2. 2013 Statements. ............................................................................................ 87 25 3. 2012 Statements. ............................................................................................ 89 26 4. 2011 Statements. ............................................................................................ 89 27 5. 2003 Statements. ............................................................................................ 91 28 6. The recent history of the latest stipend proposal. .......................................... 92 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT Case No.: 14-md-2541 CW -ii- 010271-11 701445V1 Case4:14-md-02541-CW Document60 Filed07/11/14 Page4 of 173 1 D. NCAA Conferences’ Statements Regarding the Stipend Proposal ........................... 98 2 1. The Pac-12. .................................................................................................... 98 3 2. The Southeastern Conference. ..................................................................... 102 4 3. The Big Ten. ................................................................................................ 105 5 4. The Big 12. .................................................................................................. 110 6 5. The Atlantic Coast Conference. .................................................................. 111 7 6. Additional Admissions By Defendant Conferences and Their Members that the Challenged Restraint Injures Competition ..................... 111 8 a. American Athletic Conference. ....................................................... 111 9 b. Conference USA. ............................................................................. 112 10 c. Sun Belt Conference. ....................................................................... 113 11 d. Mountain West Conference. ............................................................ 113 12 e. Mid-American Conference. ............................................................. 113 13 7. Additional Admissions From Other Division I Conferences and 14 Their Members that The Challenged Restraint Injures Competition .......... 114 15 a. Atlantic 10 ....................................................................................... 114 16 b. Big East Conference ........................................................................ 114 17 c. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference ................................................ 114 18 d. Horizon League ............................................................................... 115 19 E. Football Bowl Subdivision Football Players Seek the Ability to Compete without Anticompetitive Restraint in the Football Bowl Subdivision Labor 20 Market ...................................................................................................................... 115 21 F. Other Statements Supporting the Stipend Proposal ................................................