Amici urge affirmance for three principal reasons. First, we elaborate a point to dispel Appellant's suggestion that antitrust somehow does not belong here. Second, we show that ordinary rule of reason treatment was appropriate. Relying rather daringly on a case that it overwhelmingly lost, Appellant asks this Court to find within NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), a rule that its "amateurism" or "eligibility" restraints are "valid...as a matter of law." NCAA Br. at 14, 22. Board of Regents did not say that, and even Appellant's own amici admit it. See Wilson Sonsini Br. at 5 & n. 2. Last, but most important, having shown that no special rule applies, we show ample grounds to affirm within the district court's opinion. Of fundamental importance is the court's finding that anticompetitive harm outweighed the minor benefits that Appellant could show.