Three justices dissented, finding the majority arbitrary and inconsistent in refusing football the exemption it had upheld five years previously in Toolson v. New York Yankees (346 U.S. 356 (1952)).

The majority admitted that the similarity between the two sports from a legal standpoint would probably have denied baseball the exemption as well were it sought afresh, but existing case law had tied their hands in the absence of any congressional action.

Many of these actions have been accompanied by lawsuits brought against the NFL (often successfully) by competing leagues, public stadium-management authorities and its own owners.

In 1938 undrafted University of Southern California graduate William "Bill" Radovich began his NFL career as a guard with the Detroit Lions.

[2] The next year, he asked to be traded to the Los Angeles Rams, or be better paid, as his father, who lived near that city, was seriously ill and he wanted to be able to spend more time with him.

After learning that the NFL had indeed blacklisted Radovich due to his play in the AAFC and would punish any club that did hire him, however, the Clippers withdrew their offer.

Ultimately the AAFC collapsed due to the dominance of the Cleveland Browns, who won all four of its championships, and financial problems and instability at some of its weaker franchises.

[6] The defendants, primarily the NFL, argued in a pretrial motion that the antitrust exemption for baseball should apply equally to football, barring the lawsuit, and that even if it did not, it should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

[7] The federal government, interested in not further restricting the jurisdiction of the Sherman Act, filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Radovich, drafted by Solicitor General J. Lee Rankin.

On the other side, Felix Frankfurter wrote an opinion reiterating his dissent in International Boxing Club, and John Marshall Harlan II was joined by new justice William Brennan in another.

"[9] He admitted that this was at odds with the reality, but defended the reliance on a congressional remedy as a better process than a judicial one: If this ruling is unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical, it is sufficient to answer, aside from the distinctions between the businesses, that were we considering the question of baseball for the first time upon a clean slate we would have no doubts.

"Full respect for stare decisis does not require a judge to forgo his own convictions promptly after his brethren have rejected them", he concluded.

He and the NFL would meet again in antitrust court, most notably as adversaries when he successfully represented Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission in its suit that cleared the way for the Oakland Raiders' move to that city.

But he also successfully defended it against a suit brought by disgruntled Boston Patriots' quarterback Joe Kapp, and represented Philadelphia Eagles' owner Leonard Tose in an unsuccessful action against the bankers he alleged had conspired to try to force him to sell the team in the late 1970s.

His successor, Pete Rozelle, continued the effort, but was only able to get limited exemptions to allow sharing of television revenues (the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961) and, later, the merger with the American Football League (AFL).

Since the Court's ruling means professional football is covered under antitrust law, the NFL has faced a number of competing leagues and lawsuits it would not otherwise be subject to.

To secure the antitrust exemptions that made the merger possible, Rozelle promised Louisiana congressman Hale Boggs the NFL would expand into New Orleans, and the Saints and Cincinnati Bengals were added to the league shortly thereafter.

The jury concluded that the NFL was indeed violating antitrust laws but refused to tear up the broadcast contracts (noting that a last-ditch effort to move the league's season to autumn forced out numerous major market teams that would have made a television package more appealing) and only awarded a token $3 judgment in the USFL's favor.

In 2001, NBC, shut out of its TV contract with pro football for the first time since the 1960s, formed the XFL as a joint venture with the World Wrestling Federation.

The first was from the North American Soccer League (NASL), which challenged an NFL policy, never formally adopted, barring owners from having interests in other professional team sports.

[17] Opposing them were Hunt, Miami Dolphins' owner Joe Robbie and Edward Bennett Williams, who at the time owned the Baltimore Orioles as well as the Redskins.

[18] The NASL brought suit against the NFL, arguing that its restrictions on cross-ownership were an unfair trade practice to deny other sports and leagues full access to the pool of experienced franchise owners.

Davis had also been incensed that the league had allowed the LA Coliseum's previous NFL team, the Los Angeles Rams, to move to Anaheim Stadium despite his abstention from the vote.

The LAMCC's suit was the NFL's most notable use of the "single entity" defense: that despite being composed of more than two dozen separate member teams it was one business for purposes of the Sherman Act.

[21] Rozelle's complaint received some support in the 1990s when sports-law expert Gary Roberts testified to Congress that sports-related antitrust decisions, including many of those above, had been "inconsistent, often unjustifiable, and generally counterproductive".