PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 14, 2001
Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS) Act of 2001 - Amends the Clayton Act to provide that the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements (conduct) of persons in the business of organized professional major league baseball directly relating to or affecting the elimination or relocation of a major league baseball franchise are subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent that such conduct would be subject to such laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.Declares that: (1) no court shall rely on the enactment of this Act as a basis for changing the application of the antitrust laws to any other conduct; and (2) this Act does not create, permit, or imply a cause of action by which to challenge under the antitrust laws, or otherwise apply the antitrust laws to, any conduct that does not directly relate to or affect the elimination or relocation of a major league baseball franchise.Grants standing to bring action under this Act based on such violation to any person (including any major league or minor league baseball player; any Federal, State, or local government, and any stadium authority) injured by a violation of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2078)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3288 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3288 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3288 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3288 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.