NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, which were designed to prohibit group actions that restrained open competition and trade.

The case dealt with television rights to college football games, which were controlled by the NCAA and limited the appearance of university teams in each season.

The NCAA believed that their control of television rights protected live attendance, which was disputed by a number of colleges.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted in 1890 to oppose the use of combinations, monopolies or cartels that harmed free and open trade.

The Clayton Act allows for private parties to bring suit for treble damages and for injunctive relief.

Beginning in 1952 and continuing through 1957, the NCAA commissioned a study by National Opinion Research Center to determine the effect of televising college football games on a number of areas, including live attendance.

[9] The initial restriction was supported by all of the NCAA member schools[fn 4] with the exception of Pennsylvania, who stated that they would continue to televise their home games.

The NCAA declared that Pennsylvania was a member in bad standing, and the four schools scheduled to play them at home refused to do so.

[13] On learning of the CFA's negotiations, the NCAA issued an "Official Interpretation" stating that "The Association shall control all forms of televising of the intercollegiate football games of member institutions during the traditional football season..."[14] The CFA continued to work on a contract with NBC and came to an agreement on August 8, 1981.

[fn 6][15] On being filed on September 8, 1981, District Judge Lee Roy West recused himself from the case, being an alumnus of the University of Oklahoma for both his undergraduate and law degrees.

[14] Burciaga found that not only did the NCAA engage in price fixing, they acted to limit production by restricting the number of games that could be broadcast.

In the appeal, the NCAA argued that Oklahoma and Georgia did not have standing to bring the suit, claiming that the schools suffered no actual injury.

The United States Solicitor General, Rex E. Lee, filed an amicus curae brief in support of Oklahoma and Georgia, and argued the cause to the court.

[21] Stevens determined that since the NCAA restrained price and output, it created a system that was unrelated to a free and competitive market.

White, a former college football star at Colorado, stated that while intercollegiate athletics bore a superficial resemblance to professional sports, it was clear that other, non-commercial goals played the main role.

[30] The major conferences have reshuffled multiple times, most dramatically in the early 2010s and the 2020s, and the landscape of college football has changed significantly.

[31] In 2023, Andy Coats, the lawyer who had represented Oklahoma and Georgia, admitted to NBC News that the ruling "screwed up college football across the board ... [B]ut I don't think anyone could have predicted what would happen".