Antitrust suit against Raiders tossed, but it can be revised

Oakland’s uphill legal claim for damages from the Raiders’ impending move to Las Vegas got steeper this week when a federal magistrate dismissed, for now, the city’s lawsuit against the National Football League.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero ruled Thursday that Oakland hasn’t shown how it is harmed by the NFL’s limit of 32 teams, a central issue in the city’s antitrust suit. But he also gave the city until Sept. 9 to file a revised suit to address that and other objections. A lawyer said Friday the city can meet that deadline.

“We feel very confident that we can address a number of the issues that he raised,” said attorney Bruce Simon. He said the amended suit would also strengthen Oakland’s claim, rejected by Spero, that it has a right to damages under a provision of the NFL’s relocation policy requiring each team to “advance the interests of the League in its home territory.”

Lawyers for the league and the teams could not be reached for comment.

The Raiders plan to move to Las Vegas for the 2020 season, although a recent agreement with the OaklandAlameda County Coliseum Authority could keep the team in Oakland for that season if its new stadium in Las Vegas is

not ready.

It’s not the first time Oakland has sued over the team’s move. As the Raiders prepared to leave for Los Angeles in 1982, the city sought to prevent the move by trying to take ownership of the team through eminent domain. The suit failed, and the Raiders stayed away for 13 years before returning in 1995.

The current suit does not seek to block the move but claims damages — more than $240 million, plus loss of tax revenue and reductions in the Coliseum’s property value. The city says it invested those millions in the Coliseum and other projects based on its expectation that the team would remain in Oakland. Damages for any proven antitrust violations would be tripled under federal law.

President Trump’s Justice Department sought to take part in the case, opposing Oakland’s claim for lost tax revenue from economic activity related to the Raiders’ presence. Trump has feuded with Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf over immigration raids and has sought to lower taxes on businesses. Spero agreed with the NFL’s argument on the issue and said he did not have to decide whether the federal government could intervene in the case.

One claim in the suit is that the NFL’s 32team limit unduly restricts competition, increasing the amount of public funding that teams can demand for stadiums while preventing cities like Oakland from hosting a new team. But Spero said the city hadn’t shown that it paid any inflated stadium costs, or that it is being deprived of a team because of the league’s rules.

He said the suit failed to specify whether there were potential team owners who would come to Oakland if the limit were lifted, whether those owners might have established a team in Las Vegas before the Raiders left, or whether Oakland has made any effort to attract an existing NFL team or to establish an expansion team to replace the Raiders.

Spero also said Oakland has not explained what the NFL would have to do differently.

“Do the antitrust laws require the NFL to admit any team interested in joining?” he asked. “If not, what number would be an allowable limit, and would Oakland have fared differently if the limit had been set at that number?”

Spero also said Oakland has not yet shown that the Raiders’ move, approved on a 311 vote of team owners in 2017, violates rights the city claims under the NFL’s relocation policy.

Although the policy requires teams to advance the league’s interests “in its home territory,” Spero said, it also states that the teams owe that duty to the NFL and “to all other member clubs” and does not mention any obligation to local governments.

“The policy repeatedly reinforces the conclusion that its overriding motivation is the NFL’s business interests,” Spero said. He also noted that the NFL adopted its current policy after a federal appeals court ruled in 1994 that the previous policy, which gave the league absolute authority to block franchise relocations, violated antitrust law.

If the current policy was enacted “to avoid antitrust scrutiny,” Spero said, that “only reinforces the conclusion that it was intended solely to benefit the NFL and its member teams, not host cities.”