Judge Rejects USFL’s Claim but Allows Suit Against NFL to Proceed

A federal judge in New York Thursday let stand, for now, the National Football League’s television contracts with ABC, NBC and CBS, rejecting the United States Football League’s claim that the NFL is legally limited to one network deal at a time.

U.S. District Judge Peter K. Leisure ruled that the USFL, which seeks to nullify the NFL-network deals as part of a $1.32-billion antitrust case, must first prove that the NFL contracts have the “intent or effect” of preventing competing leagues from getting their own network contracts.

“It is this court’s determination that the fact of the three NFL network contracts does not by itself constitute a violation of the antitrust laws,” Leisure wrote in his decision.

“Whether the intent or effect of such arrangements are to exclude a competing league, such as the USFL, from selling any of its television rights presents material questions of fact . . . (that) will be addressed, presumably, in the upcoming trial in this case.”

Leisure, who is to preside at the trial of the USFL suit starting May 12, issued three related decisions in which he threw out many of the USFL charges against the NFL but said other allegations raise issues that must be decided by a jury.

In the rulings, Leisure:

--Dismissed claims that the NFL tried to hasten the demise of the All America Football Conference, which folded in 1950, and the American Football League, which merged into the NFL in 1970. But he said the USFL can present arguments that the older league pressured CBS into not granting a contract to the World Football League, which closed in 1975.

--Barred the USFL from citing an array of earlier antitrust suits against the NFL, including several dealing with player contracts and the move of the former Oakland Raiders franchise to Los Angeles. The judge said those cases are irrelevant to the dispute between the two leagues.

--Rejected USFL contentions that the NFL illegally conspired to deny the USFL access to big-city stadiums, that it wrongly “disparaged” the USFL and that it monopolized the market for qualified game officials. However, Leisure said the USFL can point to any NFL disparagement as evidence of anti-competitive efforts directed against the new league in other areas.

Both sides said they considered the ruling a victory.

“My reaction is very positive,” USFL Commissioner Harry Usher said. “I really regard it as a major victory. In a case that was considered as having no merit way back when, he’s now saying it can go to a jury.”

Usher said that Al Davis, the Raiders’ managing general partner, and Howard Cosell will testify against the NFL.

“There’s been an effort by the city of Oakland, we believe in concert with the NFL, to diminish the importance of the Oakland Invaders, the USFL franchise, because they want to keep the area unplanted, if you will, emotionally and physically, to get the Los Angeles Raiders back to Oakland,” Usher said.

“The effort of the NFL through the city of Oakland, and with the city of Oakland, is what Al Davis would testify to. He has given his deposition in our case, and my understanding is he’s willing to testify.”

At the recent NFL owners’ meeting, Davis signaled his willingness to testify on behalf of the USFL.

Usher said Cosell similarly has given a deposition and will testify that the NFL has hurt the USFL.

NFL spokesman Joe Browne, meanwhile, said the league was “gratified” by Leisure’s rulings on TV contracts, stadiums, game officials and “irrelevant NFL history.”

“We are prepared to begin defense of this suit,” he said.