With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". policy. The NFL asserts that the Supreme Court’s holding in Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984), controls the facts of this case and overturns prior caselaw holding that NFL clubs do not constitute a single enterprise but rather, are separate entities which were capable of conspiring with each other under § 1. See L.A. Coliseum, 726 F.2d at 1387-90; NASL, 670 F.2d at 1256-58. We do not agree that Copperweld, which found a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary to be a single enterprise for purposes of § 1, Copperweld, 467 U.S. at 771, 104 S.Ct. at 2741, applies to the facts of this case or affects the prior precedent concerning the NFL. See McNeil v. National Football League, 790 F.Supp. 871, 879-80 (D.Minn.1992) (<HOLDING>). Copperweld’s holding turned on the fact that

A: holding that the department of the treasury and the internal revenue service are not entities subject to suit and they should be dismissed
B: holding that a member of a golf club was charged with knowledge of an indemnity clause in the clubs membership handbook
C: holding that copperweld did not apply to the nfl and its member clubs and finding the clubs to be separate entities capable of conspiring together under  1
D: holding that the gtla does not apply to contract claims against governmental entities
C.