Baseball Antitrust Exemption
As one of the oldest professional sports leagues, Major League Baseball encountered a host of historical landmarks that more modern sports did not go through in their history. The merging of American League and National League as a single sports league is one example. Divisional play emerged from competing leagues and was not strategically planned like it is today. MLB formed in 1901 and not until 2000 did the two leagues stop operating as independently run organizations. The unity also decreased bidding for player talent as the owners of these top franchises colluded against driving up salaries and contracts with a "reserve clause" in their contracts that locked players down to the teams that first
signed them. This merging of top baseball franchises also marginalized other professional baseball leagues as less, minor leagues. Quite predictably, contractual disputes soon occurred.
The Federal League formed in 1914 to directly compete with MLB. Accordingly, the Federal League recruited MLB talent with salaries above what MLB paid at the time. Perhaps because not enough players risked losing future MLB contracts due to the "reserve clause", the Federal League brought an antitrust lawsuit against MLB. Tthe Sherman Act states, "Every contract... in restraint of trade or commerce... is declared to be illegal" and the Clayton Antitrust Act states, "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce... where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." However the presiding judge was avid baseball fan (and future, first commissioner of baseball) Kenesaw Mountain Landis. The federal judge made no ruling in 1915 and the Federal League's financial constraints forced it into accepting a settlement. There was, however, an unequal distribution of outcomes for the Federal League owners. Some bought their way into MLB or had their franchises purchased by MLB owners. The Baltimore Terrapins received no such compensation and sued. This lawsuit culminated in the 1922 Supreme Court decision Federal Baseball Club v. National League. Where lower courts ruled in the Terrapins favor, the Supreme Court reversed those damages. Among the Supreme Court ruling are confusing remarks such "the exhibition, although made for money, would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words" and "restrictions by contract that prevented the plaintiff from getting players to break their bargains and the other conduct charged against the defendants were not an interference with commerce among the states." This case established the precedent that baseball teams could not effectively sue leagues for antitrust; simply put "action for triple damages under the Anti-Trust Acts could not be maintained by a baseball club against baseball leagues."
The Supreme Court exempted baseball from antitrust legislation after a bankrupted competitor to MLB sued for damages. Congress had no direct role in making this conclusion and neither did the president. The courts effectively called the sport was a game and not a business. According to baseball-reference.com over 8.8 million people attended games in 1922. Babe Ruth was pounding home runs for $52,000 per year at a time when the President Harding was paid $75,000. Clearly baseball was well-developed as an enterprise and hardly in the realm of backyard exhibitions, so the 1922 Supreme Court decision seems out of touch with reality. Nevertheless, this ruling prevailed two separate challenges decades later and remains in effect even until today.
In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled in Toolson v New York Yankees, Inc. that "Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws." The ruling stated inaction by Congress allowed the industry to have antitrust exemption; "Congress has had the ruling under consideration, but has not seen fit to bring such business under these laws by legislation having prospective effect. The business has thus been left for thirty years to develop on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation... We think that, if there are evils in this field which now warrant application to it of the antitrust laws, it should be by legislation." In 1972, the Supreme Court ruling in Flood v. Kuhn was more explicit; "The longstanding exemption of professional baseball from the antitrust laws... is an established aberration, in the light of the Court's holding that other interstate professional sports are not similarly exempt, but one in which Congress has acquiesced, and that is entitled to the benefit of stare decisis. Removal of the resultant inconsistency at this late date is a matter for legislative, not judicial, resolution." In the dissension to this ruling, Thurgood Marshall stated: "... this Court should correct its error. We do not lightly overrule our prior constructions of federal statutes, but when our errors deny substantial federal rights, like the right to compete freely and effectively to the best of one's ability as guaranteed by the antitrust laws, we must admit our error and correct it. We have done so before, and we should do so again here... Baseball should be covered by the antitrust laws beginning with this case and henceforth, unless Congress decides otherwise.
Outside of the Supreme Court decisions, the Major League Baseball Players Association took matters into its own hands and leveraged consideration for many otherwise disputable issues into the Collective Bargaining Agreement that nearly assures MLB owners will review with players before making changes. The CBA serves as the legal grounds for players to pursue litigation. However, the players association only covers major league talent and the same goes for the CBA. The ancient "reserve clause" remains a key contractual clause for the entire MLB minor league system. Eliminating the "reserve clause "could potentially escalate minor league salaries as teams compete for talent like the Federal League did, or minor league teams could be subject to a class action lawsuit claiming collusion and wage control. Another area of the antitrust exemption that benefits MLB owners is the tight control over franchise ownership. Teams are sold through a political process that claims the best interests of the sport instead of selling to the highest bidder. Mark Cuban was blocked from ownership and has no legal grounds to complain about that under the antitrust exemption.
The Federal League formed in 1914 to directly compete with MLB. Accordingly, the Federal League recruited MLB talent with salaries above what MLB paid at the time. Perhaps because not enough players risked losing future MLB contracts due to the "reserve clause", the Federal League brought an antitrust lawsuit against MLB. Tthe Sherman Act states, "Every contract... in restraint of trade or commerce... is declared to be illegal" and the Clayton Antitrust Act states, "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce... where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." However the presiding judge was avid baseball fan (and future, first commissioner of baseball) Kenesaw Mountain Landis. The federal judge made no ruling in 1915 and the Federal League's financial constraints forced it into accepting a settlement. There was, however, an unequal distribution of outcomes for the Federal League owners. Some bought their way into MLB or had their franchises purchased by MLB owners. The Baltimore Terrapins received no such compensation and sued. This lawsuit culminated in the 1922 Supreme Court decision Federal Baseball Club v. National League. Where lower courts ruled in the Terrapins favor, the Supreme Court reversed those damages. Among the Supreme Court ruling are confusing remarks such "the exhibition, although made for money, would not be called trade of commerce in the commonly accepted use of those words" and "restrictions by contract that prevented the plaintiff from getting players to break their bargains and the other conduct charged against the defendants were not an interference with commerce among the states." This case established the precedent that baseball teams could not effectively sue leagues for antitrust; simply put "action for triple damages under the Anti-Trust Acts could not be maintained by a baseball club against baseball leagues."
The Supreme Court exempted baseball from antitrust legislation after a bankrupted competitor to MLB sued for damages. Congress had no direct role in making this conclusion and neither did the president. The courts effectively called the sport was a game and not a business. According to baseball-reference.com over 8.8 million people attended games in 1922. Babe Ruth was pounding home runs for $52,000 per year at a time when the President Harding was paid $75,000. Clearly baseball was well-developed as an enterprise and hardly in the realm of backyard exhibitions, so the 1922 Supreme Court decision seems out of touch with reality. Nevertheless, this ruling prevailed two separate challenges decades later and remains in effect even until today.
In 1952, the Supreme Court ruled in Toolson v New York Yankees, Inc. that "Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws." The ruling stated inaction by Congress allowed the industry to have antitrust exemption; "Congress has had the ruling under consideration, but has not seen fit to bring such business under these laws by legislation having prospective effect. The business has thus been left for thirty years to develop on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation... We think that, if there are evils in this field which now warrant application to it of the antitrust laws, it should be by legislation." In 1972, the Supreme Court ruling in Flood v. Kuhn was more explicit; "The longstanding exemption of professional baseball from the antitrust laws... is an established aberration, in the light of the Court's holding that other interstate professional sports are not similarly exempt, but one in which Congress has acquiesced, and that is entitled to the benefit of stare decisis. Removal of the resultant inconsistency at this late date is a matter for legislative, not judicial, resolution." In the dissension to this ruling, Thurgood Marshall stated: "... this Court should correct its error. We do not lightly overrule our prior constructions of federal statutes, but when our errors deny substantial federal rights, like the right to compete freely and effectively to the best of one's ability as guaranteed by the antitrust laws, we must admit our error and correct it. We have done so before, and we should do so again here... Baseball should be covered by the antitrust laws beginning with this case and henceforth, unless Congress decides otherwise.
Outside of the Supreme Court decisions, the Major League Baseball Players Association took matters into its own hands and leveraged consideration for many otherwise disputable issues into the Collective Bargaining Agreement that nearly assures MLB owners will review with players before making changes. The CBA serves as the legal grounds for players to pursue litigation. However, the players association only covers major league talent and the same goes for the CBA. The ancient "reserve clause" remains a key contractual clause for the entire MLB minor league system. Eliminating the "reserve clause "could potentially escalate minor league salaries as teams compete for talent like the Federal League did, or minor league teams could be subject to a class action lawsuit claiming collusion and wage control. Another area of the antitrust exemption that benefits MLB owners is the tight control over franchise ownership. Teams are sold through a political process that claims the best interests of the sport instead of selling to the highest bidder. Mark Cuban was blocked from ownership and has no legal grounds to complain about that under the antitrust exemption.
respond or e-mail this post:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home