Does MiM/G7 violate antitrust law?

[Pete Freedman]

I was surprised to discover that non-profit entities can and do violate antitrust laws and are often prosecuted for it.

While I am no attorney, my sense is that anti-competitive practice occurs when one or more competitors conspire to exclude other competitors from a market. I'd appreciate any input from someone who knows more about this.

As I see it, if a store owner decides to sell Coke and Pepsi, but excludes RC Cola because it's market share is too low, that's fine. But if Coke and/or Pepsi induce that decision in some way, they violate the law.

So, for DCI and/or show promoters to decide on their own to create divisions, or to exclude competitors from a finals competition based on performance in a preliminary contest, that's fine. But if certain corps induce DCI to exclude other corps from competition, they might be violating antitrust law. That's what I'm wondering.

Though I found threads on G7 that mention antitrust law, the references always seemed to be about something else, as if people assumed it doesn't apply to non-profits, or performing arts groups, or whatever. Looks to me like there are no such exceptions.

One further thought: if MiM as a separate entity from DCI creates its own shows and excludes non-MiM corps, that might be fine*, but for those same corps to ask DCI to exclude other DCI corps from contests would be the problem, as I see it.

(* Although if the show used to be a DCI show and MiM induced a show promoter to switch to MiM, thus excluding former competitors, that could get sticky, perhaps?)

Anyone know if this has been discussed or better yet established conclusively before?

[garfield]

A DCI member corps is not allowed to perform with another DCI member corps without the express consent of DCI which is, in case anyone forgets, the corps directors themselves.

To now, those corps are not willing to risk their DCI membership status and everything that comes with it for the possible benefit of keeping more of the gate.

[Jeff Ream]

seeing as the DCI BOD is ok with how the MIM/G7 thing is playing out, at least in public, I don't see an issue. And last year they did let some non G7 corps in.

[Pete Freedman]

seeing as the DCI BOD is ok with how the MIM/G7 thing is playing out, at least in public, I don't see an issue. And last year they did let some non G7 corps in.

Yes, but that's like the store owner being ok with Coke and Pepsi asking them to exclude RC. The question is, does RC mind? RC is the victim, not the store owner.

Similarly, does Jersey Surf mind being excluded from TOC shows? That's where the question comes in. DCI isn't the victim, it's the excluded corps, especially since a stated reason for the exclusion is money, as I understand MiM's motives. The DCI BOD voting for it is part of the collusion against the lower corps.

[Pete Freedman]

A DCI member corps is not allowed to perform with another DCI member corps without the express consent of DCI which is, in case anyone forgets, the corps directors themselves.

To now, those corps are not willing to risk their DCI membership status and everything that comes with it for the possible benefit of keeping more of the gate.

I think you're saying there are no separate MiM shows outside of DCI, right? OK. Still, it's the TOC shows that represent the problem.

[Pete Freedman]

As to the points about the DCI BOD consisting of a set of the directors, and TOC including some other corps, the answer is the same. Many or most corps directors did not approve TOC shows, and most could not attend them. Even those that did could only attend one each as I recall, hardly a fair market. But most were simply excluded without permission (even if they were on the board and voted, they might have been outvoted).

Markets are not democracies. You cannot be excluded because your competitors vote you out. Right?

[garfield]

As to the points about the DCI BOD consisting of a set of the directors, and TOC including some other corps, the answer is the same. Many or most corps directors did not approve TOC shows, and most could not attend them. Even those that did could only attend one each as I recall, hardly a fair market. But most were simply excluded without permission (even if they were on the board and voted, they might have been outvoted).

Markets are not democracies. You cannot be excluded because your competitors vote you out. Right?

I don't think you have this right, at least not from the understanding I've been given. Or it's of course possible that I'm misreading your comments.

The TOC had already existed and, using that basic structure, was a way for the Seven to produce shows and keep the full gate for themselves. It may not have been accepted by all directors but the voting members certainly gave TOC its blessing.

Frankly, I think at the time it actually was an appeasement of the Seven, with a healthy dose of "prove it" thrown in, along with a healthy anticipation that possibly the Seven's version of show production would succeed and lead the activity forward. The Seven wanted to produce, market, and pay for the show and keep the gate to themselves.

I don't know anyone who knows the financial success of TOC and has spoken about it with authority. I hear conjecture and anecdotal experiences, and I'm sure DCI wants to keep the finances to themselves.

Recently, the Seven have let non-Seven corps compete in TOC shows. I think this is great. But I don't know if it results from pressure to let them in, scheduling holes in the Seven's tour schedule, or the Seven wanting to "Share the Success" with other corps.

Edited November 21, 2014 by garfield

[BRASSO]

Recently, the Seven have let non-Seven corps compete in TOC shows. I think this is great. But I don't know if it results from pressure to let them in, scheduling holes in the Seven's tour schedule, or the Seven wanting to "Share the Success" with other corps.

No.... the G7 did not " let "the non 7 Corps in the TOC shows. The inclusion was the aftermath of talks and then a negotiated settlement that was agreed to within the parameters of the DCI bylaws, and under an agreement that all the DCI Directors... both the G7 and the non G7.... signed off on.

Edited November 21, 2014 by BRASSO

[Pete Freedman]

I don't think you have this right, at least not from the understanding I've been given. Or it's of course possible that I'm misreading your comments.

The TOC had already existed and, using that basic structure, was a way for the Seven to produce shows and keep the full gate for themselves. It may not have been accepted by all directors but the voting members certainly gave TOC its blessing.

Frankly, I think at the time it actually was an appeasement of the Seven, with a healthy dose of "prove it" thrown in, along with a healthy anticipation that possibly the Seven's version of show production would succeed and lead the activity forward. The Seven wanted to produce, market, and pay for the show and keep the gate to themselves.

I don't know anyone who knows the financial success of TOC and has spoken about it with authority. I hear conjecture and anecdotal experiences, and I'm sure DCI wants to keep the finances to themselves.

Recently, the Seven have let non-Seven corps compete in TOC shows. I think this is great. But I don't know if it results from pressure to let them in, scheduling holes in the Seven's tour schedule, or the Seven wanting to "Share the Success" with other corps.

I get that the BOD voted for the TOC shows, possibly with some enthusiasm that it would innovate and create new opportunities for all shows (and for the record, I think it has. The I&E displays during intermissions is a wonderful opportunity for fans to get up close and even chat with performers. Cool stuff that can be done at all DCI shows.)

However, the BOD is maybe 10 directors (I don't know the exact number), of which as few as six would be a majority. Clearly, well over 30 drum corps are excluded from those shows, and lose appearance fees and souvenir sales as a result. I don't think it matters whether the intent was to harm the smaller corps, only whether it would harm them.

[Slingerland]

In the retail world, brands decide who can and can't sell their product all the time, and one of the considerations IS what competing brands are being sold (both at that location and at any nearby locations). It's not anti-trust for manufacturers (which is what the corps are) to decide who, what, and how their product is sold.

DCI only exists because the corps themselves allow it to exist; they don't exist to support DCI.