NFL Loses, Must Pay $5.5 Million to USFL : Football: Supreme Court lets stand a ruling that the league must pay legal fees in antitrust suit.

The Supreme Court today refused to free the National Football League from having to pay more than $5.5 million in legal fees to the defunct U.S. Football League.

The court, without comment, let stand a ruling that the NFL must reimburse the USFL for attorney fees the failed league incurred in winning only $3 in a much-publicized antitrust suit.

The USFL was formed in 1982 with 12 teams playing a spring-summer schedule. It collapsed in 1984 after the owners decided to switch to a fall schedule, a move that never materialized.

The USFL filed a $1.7-billion suit in 1984, accusing the NFL of federal antitrust violations in its treatment of player contracts, television coverage, stadium availability and other matters.

A jury found that the NFL deliberately acquired or maintained monopoly power over major league professional football but ruled against the USFL on other claims.

The jury awarded the USFL $1, and the presiding judge tripled that figure to $3 in accord with antitrust law.

The NFL claimed the lawsuit was an unsuccessful and unjust ploy to force a merger with the established league.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October upheld the award of $5.53 million in lawyer fees to the USFL, which had sought more than $7.6 million to pay its attorneys.

The appeals court said, “The jury found that the NFL’s monopolization of the United States major league professional football market injured the USFL. An injury having been found, the awarding of attorney’s fees to the USFL was compulsory.

“The award of only nominal damages to the USFL does not affect its right to attorney’s fees.”

Allowing recovery of the fees encourages “the detection and cessation of anti-competitive behavior” by assuring that when lawyers prevail they will be paid by the losing side, the appeals court said.

In another ruling today, the high court refused to kill a $100-million lawsuit against Dade County, Fla., and developers of Joe Robbie Stadium, home of the Miami Dolphins.

The justices, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling that three black residents of the stadium neighborhood can pursue in federal court their constitutional attack against the county and developers.

That portion of the suit revived by the appeals court alleges that the zoning changes made to accommodate construction of the stadium complex violated constitutional rights.

The suit says the zoning changes represented both a “taking” of private property without just compensation and “a stark pattern of discriminatory practices affecting the property and housing rights of black citizens.”