“Defendants are free to publish accounts of the tournaments in newspapers and television, to interview the players and coaches, and even to display up to two minutes of live video coverage of any game. In fact, the internet streaming policy does not prohibit defendants from expressing a single thought, opinion, or analysis about a game,” Conley wrote.
The defendants also complained that the sports association didn’t use an open bidding process in selecting the production company, amounting to a violation of the equal protection clause.
Conley said the group did not have a duty to open up bids and simply accepted a lucrative contract when no one else was interested. Moreover, the defendants haven’t suggested they could have bettered the production company’s offer, the judge wrote.
- New research challenges fears about AI in the classroom - February 5, 2026
- How the FY25 funding freeze impacts students across America - July 24, 2025
- ‘Buyer’s remorse’ dogging Common Core rollout - October 30, 2014