ket but rather a submarket cognizable to antitrust analysis, if they had supported that allegation factually. See NCAA, 468 U.S. at 104 n. 26, 104 S.Ct. 2948 (“Per se rules may require considerable inquiry into market conditions before the evidence justifies a presumption of anticompetitive conduct.”). Defining a submarket is a fact-driven inquiry into such practical indicia as industry or public recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity, the product’s peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); see also North Am. Soccer League v. NFL, 670 F.2d 1249, 1260 (2d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has explained that the
holding that where the plea agreement required the government to inform the sentencing court of all defendants cooperation the issue  is not whether the prosecutor enthusiastically disclosed his cooperation but whether the prosecutor disclosed all cooperation holding that trial court acted within its authority in rejecting a plea bargain in a capital case holding that the record of the case disclosed a distinct submarket for sports capital and skill recognizing women as a distinct group holding that the judge must allow the attorneys the opportunity to be heard on an initial 3850 motion in a capital case for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion