Brief In Support Of Motion To Dismiss And Response In Opposition To Application For Preliminary Injunction, p. 4. This Court agrees with the Defendants on this point. There is no dispute that “[wjhile organized as a non-profit organization, the NCAA—and its member institutions—are, when presenting amateur athletics to a ticket-paying, television-buying public, engaged in a business venture of far greater magnitude than the vast majority of ‘profit-making’ enterprises.” Hennessey, 564 F.2d at 1149 n. 14. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the NCAA's television restrictions are subject to antitrust scrutiny because those regulations are commercial in nature. See NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85, 104 S.Ct. 2948, 82 L.Ed.2d 70 (1984) (<HOLDING>). However, there is a clear difference between
holding ban violated the sherman act holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act holding that uniteds lease provisions violated  4 of the sherman act holding ncaas television restrictions violated  1 of the sherman act