This is incorrect. I've worked in finance/private equity my entire career so have seen comp structures of many industries and businesses large and small. One such structure includes a base salary and a revenue goal - over that goal an increasing % of generated revenue directly goes to the revenue generator.

Don't take my word for it look up the NBA and NFL revenue splits.

quote:
form together and abide by it's own set of rules to create a product/service

This is definitionally collusion under antitrust law and was directly addressed in the legal decisions. The judge's example was restaurants colluding to pay chefs less because it "makes the food taste better" - great argument.

You're effectively arguing for price fixing by saying it makes "college football taste better".

Collusion in Antitrust Law: Horizontal collusion exists where competitors at the same market level agree to fix or control the prices they will charge for their respective goods or services. For instance, two parties may collude by limiting or restricting supply, sharing insider information, or dividing the market.

If it creates more consumer protections then "collusion" can be allowable - for example industry standards. Whether that be around cleanliness of certain facilities, certification of technicians, or standardizating USB plugs. However, even this type of "collusion" can be challenged if it limits consumer choice, competition, etc.

This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 2:35 pm