The 2018 City of Oakland v. Raiders case highlights the clash between antitrust law, public investments, and professional sports relocations (1). The city of Oakland sued the National Football League (NFL) and the NFL Team the Raiders in 2018, claiming that the league violated its relocation policies, specifically Article 4.3 of the NFL constitution and bylaws, “which states that no team has an ‘entitlement’ to relocate solely based on perceived revenue opportunities elsewhere” (2). The city argued that the NFL ignored its relocation policy by approving the Raiders’ move to Las Vegas for financial gain, despite Oakland’s substantial efforts and public fundings to operate the teams activities. Oakland had invested $200 million in stadium renovations in 1995 to bring the Raiders back to the city and proposed an additional $1.3 billion plan for further improvements to keep the team (3). Oakland also pointed to the significant financial losses caused by the relocation, including an unpaid loan that accumulated to $189 million by June 2020 (4). 

Oakland contended that the NFL operates as a monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which prohibits interstate commerce and competition in the marketplace (5). The city accused the NFL of using its control over team relocations to engage in anti-competitive practices that harm host cities. Oakland argued that the League’s relocation process lacked transparency and accountability, prioritizing profits over the interests of communities that invest in the teams. The case raises three critical legal questions: first, whether cities have standing to challenge a league’s relocation decisions depends on whether they can demonstrate a direct injury, such as economic harm or loss of public investment. Second, whether antitrust law applies to internal league policies, and whether cities should have legal recourse when public resources are invested in these teams. Under antitrust laws, if the NFL’s relocation rules are found to be unfair, giving the league unchecked power to go to the market and find a higher bidding city at the expense of loyal fan bases. 

The stakes of the case were significant, as Oakland sought compensation for its financial losses which included millions of dollars in public funds invested in the Oakland Coliseum and other economic benefits such as job creation, tourism revenue, sponsorships, merchandise sales, and tax revenue (6). The city’s investment in the Raiders was beyond financial contributions, as it fostered a dedicated fan base and created a sports culture that would be missed without the team. Losing the team could mean not just an immediate economic hit but also long term damage to the city’s ability to attract future investments and maintain its reputation as a sports market. Harming competition in legal terms refers to actions that: unfairly restrict consumer choice, create a monopolistic control, or manipulate the market to limit fair business opportunities. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case in 2021, ruling that Oakland could not prove the Raiders’ actions harmed competition; this case is particularly relevant given the growing trend of team relocations and the economic impacts they generate. Some recent relocations include the Oakland Athletics of Major League Baseball’s move to Las Vegas in 2028 (7), and the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League’s move to Los Angeles in 2016 (8). The case highlights how antitrust law could serve as a tool to hold leagues accountable for relocation decisions that disproportionately harm cities. Additionally, Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate professional sports relocations under the Commerce Clause (9), as outlined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. “United States v. Darby affirmed Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce (10). Professional sports teams relocations fall within this scope because they significantly impact interstate commerce through ticket sales, national media contracts, merchandise distribution, sponsorships, and national television agreements. Given the interconnected and national nature of the NFL, Congress has the ability to intervene in matters of franchise location to prevent turmoil to a city’s economic market. 

Under current legal standards, cities face significant challenges in establishing jurisdiction to contest a league’s relocation decisions. The Sherman Antitrust Act requires claimants to prove injury to competition, not merely to themselves, making it difficult for cities like Oakland to succeed. In City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, the court ruled Oakland lacked standing as it was not a direct participant in the NFL’s market. Oakland argued it was an intended third-party beneficiary under the NFL’s relocation policy, which requires teams to demonstrate good faith efforts to remain in their host city. However, courts deemed the policy non-binding, limiting Oakland’s ability to claim a breach of duty. This dismissal reflected a narrow interpretation of cities’ roles, leaving communities without meaningful recourse despite substantial investments in stadiums and infrastructure to retain teams​. The court determined that the Relocation Policy does not establish any binding obligation for the defendants to consider specific factors, nor does it create a duty to negotiate in good faith. Instead, the policy allows its member clubs to optionally take such considerations into account. The factors outlined in the policy are intended only to guide the judgement of member clubs when evaluating relocation proposals and do not impose any enforceable requirements or duties. 

A breach of contract claim was successfully pursued by the city in the 2017 Pudlowski v. St, Louis Rams LLC case. The city argued that the Rams violated specific promises under the NFL’s relocation policy and negotiated a $790 million settlement without resorting to antitrust law. Oakland’s failure to reach a settlement shows the need for stronger legal protections for host cities against abrupt relocation attempts. Courts should recognize that cities are essential stakeholders in these disputes, particularly when public funds are involved. Dismissing Oakland’s case put the financial burden on taxpayers while letting the NFL avoid responsibility.

Antitrust law, as interpreted under the Sherman Act, applies when there is an unreasonable restraint on trade or competition (11). In relocation disputes, leagues like the NFL often defend their policies as pro-competitive, arguing that maintaining collective decision-making enhances league stability, and courts have generally hesitated to extend antitrust scrutiny to league policies.

Nonetheless, the NFL’s structure and operations suggest it functions like a monopoly. The League controls its teams, markets, and revenue streams, concentrating power in the hands of a few team owners. An example of the NFL operating as a monopoly is the 2019 Ninth Inning, Inc. v. DirecTV (12), when the NFL was ordered to pay $4.7 billion in damages to residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers for violating antitrust laws with the out-of-market TV streaming package and only allowing the package to DirecTV subscribers (13). This exclusive arrangement with DirecTV restricted consumer choice and allowed the NFL to maintain control over how its games were distributed, reinforcing its dominance in the sports market. Additionally, the centralized structure of the NFL, where all 32 teams collectively negotiate media rights, further consolidates its power and limits competition among teams for broadcasting deals. This just highlights how the League leverages its position to control access to its product, suppress competition, and maximize its profits at the expense of consumer options. While its collective bargaining agreements and relocation policies are framed as promoting competitive fairness, they often reinforce the League's dominance and shut out smaller markets or owners from key decisions. For example, the high relocation fees discourage competition and ensure that moves primarily benefit the League's financial goals. This control resembles the market dominance that antitrust laws aim to prevent. 

Courts should allow cities to argue their cases when sports leagues make relocation decisions that harm the cities. Oakland invested millions in the Raiders, yet the NFL was able to move the team without consequences. Cities should have standing in these cases because they lose jobs, tax revenue and community identity when teams leave. The NFL’s relocation rules also raise antitrust concerns, as they give the league too much control over where teams go, creating an unfair market. Sports leagues should not be exempt from laws that prevent monopolies and protect fair competition. When cities spend public money on teams whether it’s for stadiums or infrastructure, they should have legal protections. Oakland’s case showed how leagues take advantage of cities and use their resources while putting their own profits first. Dismissing Oakland’s lawsuit was a mistake which let the NFL and the Raiders avoid responsibility. The issue isn’t just about sports but rather is about holding powerful organizations accountable when they exploit public resources.