With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conflict with the long-term interests of the league as a whole. That is, the policy avoids a detrimental conflict of interests between team shareholders and the league. We disagree, however, that these factors are sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the NFL’s ownership policy does not unreasonably restrain trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. The holdings in Broadcast Music, Rothery Storage, and Northwest Stationers, do not throw the “rule of reason” out the window merely because one establishes that a given practice among joint venture participants is ancillary to legitimate and efficient activity — the injury to competition must still be weighed against the purported benefits under the rule of reason. See, e.g., Broadcast Music, 441 U.S. at 24, 99 S.Ct. at 1565 (<HOLDING>); Northwest Stationers, 472 U.S. at 293-98, 105

A: holding a concerted boycott to be a per se violation of  1 of the sherman act
B: holding that a state as a purchaser of asphalt was a person when suing under the sherman act for restraint of trade
C: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
D: holding only that a particular ancillary restraint did not constitute a per se violation of the sherman act and remanding for a determination  of the case under a rule of reason analysis
D.