part of the respective suppliers), such sports-related organizations should have the right to determine for themselves the set of rules that they believe best advance their respective sport (and therefore their own business interests), without undue and costly interference on the part of courts and juries. 3. Antitrust Injury We next come to the question of antitrust injury and standing. To establish antitrust injury, a plaintiff must show harm to competition, not just harm to the plaintiff competitor. See Brunswick Corp., 429 U.S. at 488, 97 S.Ct. 690. We agree with the District Court that STA does not satisfy this requirement. It is well established that competition among businesses to serve as an exclusive supplier should actually be encouraged. See, e.g., Menasha, 354 F.3d at 663 (<HOLDING>). In Section III. B.l, supra, this Court
recognizing that in the face of a powerful combination of threats and promises even a defendant who is completely innocent might well confess recognizing that conflict preemption precludes laws that under the circumstances of a particular case stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress omission alteration internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that competition to become exclusive supplier is a vital form of rivalry and often the most powerful one which the antitrust laws encourage rather than suppress citation omitted recognizing that dismissal is warranted only in extreme cases citation omitted recognizing in the context of damages that antitrust cases often involve tracing a cost increase through several levels of a chain of distribution