SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge overseeing the City of Oakland's lawsuit against the National Football League and the Raiders over the team's impending move to Las Vegas has left just a sliver of running room for the city's antitrust claims.

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero announced at a court hearing Friday morning that he was inclined to grant the league and team's motion to dismiss the case and grant the city leave to amend their complaint.

But he made it clear that he was skeptical of the city's claims that, by voting to bless the team's move, the league and its teams had illegally constrained trade in any way.

“Why is it anti-competitive to allow teams to do what they want?” asked Spero rhetorically at one point late in the hearing.

The city sued the Raiders, the NFL and its remaining 31 teams late last year, claiming they conspired to “boycott” Oakland, in violation of federal antitrust laws and in breach of the league's own relocation policies in signing off on the team's upcoming move to Las Vegas. The city claims the $378 million “relocation fee” that the team paid acted as “supra-competitive cartel payments” to the other teams' owners.

But Spero said Friday that he wasn't persuaded that the payment could provide the basis for an antitrust claim, calling it a “disincentive” to the team's move.

When one of the city's lawyers, Berg & Androphy's James Quinn, said that it would be fans in Las Vegas rather than the team itself that ended up paying for the fee, Spero responded skeptically.

“That's a ridiculous argument. That's true of every product,” said Spero, noting the companies will always charge prices that consumers are willing to pay to fund the cost of doing business.

The judge, however, did indicate that restrictions on the number of teams in the league could possibly provide the basis for an antitrust claim. But he warned the city's lawyers that they will have to show that the league's current 32-team restriction is “an unreasonable constraint on trade” and that Oakland would be in line to keep the Raiders or add a new franchise “but for” the league's restrictions.

“I have my own personal feelings on whether this is good for the game or good for municipalities or good for the country. Those are beside the point at the moment.” —U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero

In the motion to dismiss, filed by the team's lawyers at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer and the league's lawyers at Covington & Burling, the defendants claimed that the city is attempting “to turn antitrust on its head.” They contend that the team's move was prompted by inter-city competition for an NFL franchise and that the opportunity for the team in Las Vegas is so much more attractive than the team is willing to pay the fee to move.

“In a free market, a product or service flows from a willing seller to the willing buyer who values it most,” the defendants' lawyers wrote. “No one has impeded that competitive process here.”

Lawyers for both the league and the team Friday attempted to get Spero to stick with his initial tentative ruling to dismiss the city's breach of contract claims based on the league's written relocation policy without leave to amend.

Another of the city's lawyers, Bruse Simon of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, convinced the judge to back away from dismissing the contract claims for good arguing there were issues of fact over whether the city was meant to be a third-party beneficiary under the written policy. Spero ultimately said that he'd allow the city's lawyers to amend their contract claims but reassured the defense lawyers.

“They know I'm skeptical on this subject,” Spero said of the city's legal team.

Although the Oakland's lawyers took the brunt of the judge's hits during the hearing, Spero did grant them 15 days longer than the typical 30-day turnaround to amend their complaint. The judge also at one point appeared to express some sympathy for the jilted city's position.

“I have my own personal feelings on whether this is good for the game or good for municipalities or good for the country,” Spero said. “Those are beside the point at the moment.”

A lawyer from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, which had asked to weigh in on an issue in the case, was present in the courtroom but did not speak during arguments.

Read more: