In the 1956 case of Radovich v. National Football League et al., William "Bill" Radovich, a professional football player, sued the National Football League (NFL) for blacklisting him after he left his team to play in another league that offered higher pay. He argued that this action violated antitrust laws and sought damages from the NFL. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Radovich, stating that professional sports leagues were subject to federal antitrust laws and could be held accountable for monopolistic practices. This decision marked an important shift in how these laws applied to professional sports organizations and set a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Radovich v. National Football League, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to exclude professional football from antitrust laws was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding other professional sports. He contended that there was no logical reason to treat football differently than baseball, which had been granted an exemption from these laws in a prior case (Federal Baseball Club v. National League). Furthermore, he believed it should be up to Congress rather than the courts to determine whether certain industries should be exempted from antitrust legislation. By making this decision themselves, he felt that the Supreme Court was overstepping its bounds and interfering with legislative matters.