Varsity Nears Trial in Latest Cheer Antitrust Suit. Will It Proceed?

Why It Matters

A verdict could force Varsity to alter its business model, potentially lowering event fees and expanding competition in a $2‑billion U.S. cheer industry. The case also tests how private‑equity‑owned sports enterprises are regulated under antitrust law.

Key Takeaways

• Varsity faces first antitrust trial after two settlements
• Trial set for June 9 in Amarillo, Texas
• Plaintiffs allege illegal rebates and exclusive contracts
• Potential injunction could reshape all‑star cheer market
• Ownership shift to KKR adds strategic uncertainty

Pulse Analysis

The upcoming Varsity antitrust trial arrives at a crossroads for the rapidly expanding all‑star cheer market, which now generates roughly $2 billion annually in the United States. While previous lawsuits ended in settlements—$43.5 million in 2023 and $82.5 million in 2024—this case is the first to survive procedural hurdles and reach a jury. Legal scholars note that the allegations echo classic monopoly tactics: tying rebates to event participation and mandating apparel purchases, thereby inflating costs for independent gyms. A ruling against Varsity could dismantle these practices, prompting a wave of new event organizers and potentially driving down registration fees for athletes and their families.

Beyond the immediate financial stakes, the trial highlights the growing tension between private‑equity ownership and sport governance. Varsity’s recent acquisition by KKR follows a broader trend of PE firms buying into niche sports properties, seeking scalable revenue streams through licensing, media rights, and merchandise. Critics argue that such ownership structures prioritize profit over fair competition, especially when the same entity controls both event promotion and the sanctioning federation, USASF. If the court imposes a permanent injunction, it may force KKR to divest certain control mechanisms, setting a precedent for how PE‑backed sports brands must separate commercial and regulatory functions.

For the broader cheer ecosystem, the outcome could reshape the competitive landscape. An injunction limiting exclusive contracts would likely lower barriers for regional promoters, fostering a more diversified event calendar and encouraging innovation in competition formats. Conversely, a verdict favoring Varsity could reinforce the status quo, cementing its market dominance and possibly prompting further consolidation. Stakeholders—from gym owners to sponsors and athletes—should monitor the trial closely, as its ramifications will extend well beyond the courtroom, influencing pricing, participation rates, and the overall health of the sport.