Mr.
Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
For the third time in 50 years the Court is asked
specifically to rule that professional baseball's reserve system is within the
reach of the federal antitrust laws.[1] . . .
I
The Game
It is a century and a quarter since the New York Nine
defeated the Knickerbockers 23 to 1 on Hoboken's Elysian Fields June 19, 1846,
with Alexander Jay Cartwright as the
instigator and the umpire. The teams
were amateur, but the contest marked a significant date in baseball's
beginnings. That early game led ultimately to the development of professional
baseball and its tightly organized structure.
The Cincinnati Red Stockings came into existence in 1869
upon an outpouring of local pride. With
only one Cincinnatian on the payroll, this professional team traveled over
11,000 miles that summer, winning 56 games and tying one. Shortly thereafter,
on St. Patrick's Day in 1871, the National Association of Professional Baseball
Players was founded and the professional league was born.
The ensuing colorful days are well known. The ardent follower and the student of
baseball know of General Abner Doubleday; the formation of the National League
in 1876; Chicago's supremacy in the first year's competition under the
leadership of Al Spalding and with Cap Anson at third base; the formation of
the American Association and then of the Union Association in the 1880's; the
introduction of Sunday baseball; interleague warfare with cut-rate admission
prices and player raiding; the development of the reserve 'clause'; the
emergence in 1885 of the Brotherhood of Professional Ball Players, and in 1890
of the Players League; the appearance of the American League, or 'junior
circuit,' in 1901, rising from the minor Western Association; the first World
Series in 1903, disruption in 1904, and the Series' resumption in 1905; the short-lived Federal League on the majors'
scene during World War I years; the troublesome and discouraging episode of the
1919 Series; the home run ball; the shifting of franchises; the expansion of
the leagues; the installation in 1965 of the major league draft of potential
new players; and the formation of the Major League Baseball Players Association
in 1966.
Then there are the many names, celebrated for one reason or
another, that have sparked the diamond and its environs and that have provided
tinder for recaptured thrills, for reminiscence and comparisons, and for
conversation and anticipation in-season and off-season: Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth,
Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Henry Chadwick, Eddie Collins, Lou Gehrig, Grover
Cleveland Alexander, Rogers Hornsby, Harry Hooper, Goose Goslin, Jackie
Robinson, Honus Wagner, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Deacon Phillippe, Rube
Marquard, Christy Mathewson, Tommy Leach, Big Ed Delahanty, Davy Jones, Germany
Schaefer, King Kelly, Big Dan Brouthers, Wahoo Sam Crawford, Wee Willie Keeler,
Big Ed Walsh, Jimmy Austin, Fred Snodgrass, Satchel Paige, Hugh Jennings, Fred
Merkle, Iron Man McGinnity, Three-Finger Brown, Harry and Stan Coveleski,
Connie Mack, Al Bridwell, Red Ruffing, Amos
Rusie, Cy Young, Smokey Joe Wood, Chief Meyers, Chief Bender, Bill Klem, Hans
Lobert, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Roy Campanella, Miller Huggins, Rube
Bressler, Dazzy Vance, Edd Roush, Bill Wambsganss, Clark Griffith, Branch
Rickey, Frank Chance, Cap Anson, Nap Lajoie, Sad Sam Jones, Bob O'Farrell,
Lefty O'Doul, Bobby Veach, Willie Kamm, Heinie Groh, Lloyd and Paul Waner,
Stuffy McInnis, Charles Comiskey, Roger Bresnahan, Bill Dickey, Zack Wheat,
George Sisler, Charlie Gehringer, Eppa Rixey, Harry Heilmann, Fred Clarke,
Dizzy Dean, Hank Greenberg, Pie Traynor, Rube Waddell, Bill Terry, Carl
Hubbell, Old Hoss Radbourne, Moe Berg, Rabbit Maranville, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty
Grove. The list seems endless.
And one recalls the appropriate reference to the 'World
Serious,' attributed to Ring Lardner, Sr.; Ernest L. Thayer's 'Casey at the
Bat'; the ring of 'Tinker to Evers to Chance';
and all the other happenings, habits, and superstitions about and around
baseball that made it the 'national pastime' or, depending upon the point of
view, 'the great American tragedy.'
II
The Petitioner
The petitioner, Curtis Charles Flood, born in 1938, began
his major league career in 1956 when he signed a contract with the Cincinnati
Reds for a salary of $4,000 for the season.
He had no attorney or agent to advise him on that occasion. He was traded to the St. Louis Cardinals
before the 1958 season. Flood rose to fame as a center fielder with the
Cardinals during the years 1958--1969. In those 12 seasons he compiled a
batting average of .293. His best
offensive season was 1967 when he achieved .335. He was .301 or better in six
of the 12 St. Louis years. He
participated in the 1964, 1967, and 1968 World Series. He played errorless ball in the field in 1966,
and once enjoyed 223 consecutive errorless
games. Flood has received seven Golden Glove Awards. He was co-captain of his
team from 1965--1969. He ranks among
the 10 major league outfielders possessing the highest lifetime fielding
averages.
Flood's
St. Louis compensation for the years shown was:
1961 $13,500 (including a bonus for signing)
1962 $16,000
1963 $17,500
1964 $23,000
1965 $35,000
1966 $45,000
1967 $50,000
1968 $72,500
1969 $90,000
These figures do not include any so-called fringe benefits or World Series shares.
But at the age of 31, in October 1969, Flood was traded to
the Philadelphia Phillies of the National League in a multi-player
transaction. He was not consulted about
the trade. He was informed by telephone
and received formal notice only after the
deal had been consummated. In December
he complained to the Commissioner of Baseball and asked that he be made a free
agent and be placed at liberty to strike his own bargain with any other major
league team. His request was denied.
Flood then instituted this antitrust suit in January 1970 in federal court for the
Southern District of New York. The defendants (although not all were named in
each cause of action) were the Commissioner of Baseball, the presidents of the
two major leagues, and the 24 major league clubs. In general, the complaint charged violations of the federal
antitrust laws and civil rights statutes, violation of state statutes and the
common law, and the imposition of a form of peonage and involuntary servitude
contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment . . . .
Flood declined to play for Philadelphia in 1970, despite a
$100,000 salary offer, and he sat out the year. After the season was concluded, Philadelphia sold its rights to Flood to the Washington
Senators. Washington and the petitioner
were able to come to terms for 1971 at a salary of $110,000. Flood started the season but, apparently
because he was dissatisfied with his performance, he left the Washington club
on April 27, early in the campaign. He
has not played baseball since then.
III
The Present
Litigation
Judge Cooper, in a detailed opinion, first denied a
preliminary injunction, observing on the way:
'Baseball has been the national pastime for over one
hundred years and enjoys a unique place in our American heritage. Major league professional baseball is avidly
followed by millions of fans, looked upon with fervor and pride and provides a special
source of inspiration and competitive team spirit especially for the young.
'Baseball's status in the life of the nation is so
pervasive that it would not strain credulity to say the Court can take judicial
notice that baseball is everybody's business.
To put it mildly and with restraint, it would be unfortunate indeed if a fine sport and
profession, which brings surcease from daily travail and an escape from the
ordinary to most inhabitants of this land, were to suffer in the least because
of undue concentration by any one or any group on commercial and profit
considerations. The game is on higher
ground; it behooves every one to keep it there.' . . .
Trial to the court took place in
May and June 1970. An extensive record
was developed. In an ensuing opinion,
Judge Cooper first noted that:
'Plaintiff's witnesses in the main concede that some form
of reserve on players is a necessary element of the organization of baseball as
a league sport, but contend that the present all-embracing system is needlessly
restrictive and offer various alternatives which in their view might loosen the
bonds without sacrifice to the game. . . .
'Clearly the preponderance of credible proof does not favor
elimination of the reserve clause. With
the sole exception of plaintiff himself, it shows that even plaintiff's
witnesses do not contend that it is wholly undesirable; in fact they regard
substantial portions meritorious. . . .'
He then held that Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), and
Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953),
were controlling; that it was not necessary to reach the issue whether
exemption from the antitrust laws would result because aspects of baseball now
are a subject of collective bargaining; that the plaintiff's state-law claims,
those based on common law as well as on statute, were to be denied because
baseball was not 'a matter which admits of diversity of treatment,' that the
involuntary servitude claim failed because of the absence of 'the essential
element of this cause of action, a showing of compulsory service,' and that
judgment was to be entered for the defendants. . . . On appeal, the
Second Circuit felt 'compelled to affirm.' . . .
The Legal Background
A. Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259
U.S. 200 (1922), was a suit for treble damages
instituted by a member of the Federal League (Baltimore) against the National
and American Leagues and others. The
plaintiff obtained a verdict in the trial court, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The main brief filed by the plaintiff with
this Court discloses that it was strenuously argued, among other things, that
the business in which the defendants were engaged was interstate commerce; that
the interstate relationship among the several clubs, located as they were in
different States, was predominant; that organized baseball represented an
investment of colossal wealth; that it was an engagement in moneymaking; that
gate receipts were divided by agreement between the home club and the visiting
club; and that the business of baseball was to be distinguished from the mere
playing of the game as a sport for physical exercise and diversion.
Mr. Justice Holmes, in speaking succinctly for a unanimous
Court, said:
'The business is giving exhibitions of base ball, which are
purely state affairs. . . . But the
fact that in order to give the exhibitions the Leagues must induce free persons to cross state lines
and must arrange and pay for their doing so is not enough to change the
character of the business. . . . [T]he transport is a mere incident, not the
essential thing. That to which it is incident, the exhibition, although made
for money would not be called trade or commerce in the commonly accepted use of
those words. As it is put by the defendant,
personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce. That which in its consummation is not
commerce does not become commerce among the States because the transportation
that we have mentioned takes place. To
repeat the illustrations given by the Court below, a firm of lawyers sending
out a member to argue a case, or the Chautauqua lecture bureau sending out
lecturers, does not engage in such commerce because the lawyer or lecturer goes
to another State.
'If we are right the plaintiff's business is to be
described in the same way and the 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.'10
. . .
B. . . . In the years that followed, baseball continued to
be subject to intermittent antitrust attack.
The courts, however, rejected these challenges on the authority of
Federal Baseball. In some cases stress was laid, although unsuccessfully, on
new factors such as the development of radio and television with their
substantial additional revenues to baseball.
For the most part, however, the Holmes opinion was generally and necessarily
accepted as controlling authority. And in
the 1952 Report of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power of the House
Committee on the Judiciary, . . . it was said, in conclusion:
'On the other hand the overwhelming preponderance of the
evidence established baseball's need for some sort of reserve clause.
Baseball's history shows that chaotic conditions prevailed when there was no
reserve clause. Experience points to no
feasible substitute to protect the integrity of the game or to guarantee a
comparatively even competitive
struggle. The evidence adduced
at the hearings would clearly not justify the enactment of legislation flatly
condemning the reserve clause.'
C. [In] Toolson
v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953),
Federal Baseball was cited as holding 'that the business of providing public
baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players was
not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws,' and:
'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. The present cases ask us to overrule the prior decision and, with retrospective effect, hold the legislation applicable. 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. Without re-examination of the underlying issues, the judgments below are affirmed on the authority of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, supra, so far as that decision determines that Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.'
This quotation
reveals four reasons for the Court's affirmance of Toolson and its companion
cases: (a) Congressional awareness for three decades of the Court's ruling in Federal Baseball,
coupled with congressional inaction. (b) The fact that baseball was left alone
to develop for that period upon the understanding that the reserve system was
not subject to existing federal antitrust laws. (c) A reluctance to overrule
Federal Baseball with consequent retroactive effect. (d) A professed desire
that any needed remedy be provided by legislation rather than by court
decree. The emphasis in Toolson was on
the determination, attributed even to Federal Baseball, that Congress had no
intention to include baseball within the reach of the federal antitrust laws. .
. .
E. United States v. International Boxing Club,
348 U.S. 236 (1955), was a companion to Shubert and
was decided the same day. This was a civil antitrust action against defendants
engaged in the business of promoting professional championship boxing
contests. Here again the District Court
had dismissed the complaint in reliance upon Federal Baseball and Toolson. The
Chief Justice observed that 'if it were not for Federal Baseball and Toolson, we think that it would be too
clear for dispute that the Government's allegations bring the defendants within
the scope of the Act.' . . . He pointed out that the defendants relied on
the two baseball cases but also would have been content with a more restrictive
interpretation of them than the Shubert defendants, for the boxing defendants
argued that the cases immunized only businesses that involve exhibitions of an
athletic nature. The Court accepted
neither argument. It again noted . .
.that 'Toolson neither overruled Federal Baseball nor necessarily reaffirmed
all that was said in Federal Baseball.' It stated:
'The controlling consideration in Federal Baseball and Hart was, instead, a very practical one--the degree of interstate activity involved in the particular business under review. It follows that stare decisis cannot help the defendants here; for, contrary to their argument, Federal Baseball did not hold that all businesses based on professional sports were outside the scope of the antitrust laws. The issue confronting us is, therefore, not whether a previously granted exemption should continue, but whether an exemption should be granted in the first instance. And that issue is for Congress to resolve, not this Court.’
Mr.
Justice Frankfurter, joined by Mr. Justice Minton, dissented. 'It would baffle
the subtlest ingenuity,' he said, 'to find a single differentiating factor
between other sporting exhibitions . . . and baseball insofar as the conduct of
the sport is relevant to the criteria or considerations by which the Sherman
Law becomes applicable to a 'trade or commerce." . . .
F. The parade
marched on. Radovich v. National Football League, 352
U.S. 445 (1957), was a civil Clayton Act case testing
the application of the antitrust laws to professional football. The District Court dismissed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part on the
basis of Federal Baseball and Toolson. The court did not hesitate to 'confess
that the strength of the pull' of the baseball cases and of International Boxing
'is about equal,' but then observed that '(f)ootball is a team sport' and
boxing an individual one. . . .
This Court reversed
with an opinion by Mr. Justice Clark.
He said that the Court made its ruling in Toolson 'because it was
concluded that more harm would be done in overruling Federal Base Ball than in
upholding a ruling which at best was of dubious validity.' He noted that Congress had not acted. He then said:
'All this, combined with the flood of litigation that would
follow its repudiation, the harassment that would ensue, and the retroactive
effect of such a decision, led the Court to the practical result that it should
sustain the unequivocal line of authority reaching over many years.
'(S)ince Toolson and Federal Base Ball are still cited as
controlling authority in antitrust actions involving other fields of business,
we now specifically limit the rule there established to the facts there
involved, i.e., the business of organized professional baseball. As long as the Congress continues to
acquiesce we should adhere to--but not extend--the interpretation of the Act
made in those cases. . . .
'If this ruling is unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical,
it is sufficient to answer, aside from the distinctions between the businesses,
that were we considering the question of baseball for the first time upon a
clean slate we would have no doubts.
But Federal Base Ball held the business of baseball outside the scope of
the Act. No other business claiming the coverage of those cases has such an adjudication. We therefore, conclude that the orderly way
to eliminate error or discrimination, if any there be, is by legislation and
not by court decision. Congressional
processes are more accommodative, affording the whole industry hearings and an
opportunity to assist in the formulation of new legislation. The resulting
product is therefore more likely to protect the industry and the public
alike. The whole scope of congressional
action would be known long in advance and effective dates for the legislation
could be set in the future without the injustices of retroactivity and surprise
which might follow court action.’. . .
I. Legislative proposals have been numerous and persistent.
Since Toolson more than 50 bills have been introduced in Congress relative to
the applicability or nonapplicability of the antitrust laws to baseball. A few of these passed one house or the other.
Those that did would have expanded, not restricted, the reserve system's
exemption to other professional league sports. .
. .
V
In
view of all this, it seems appropriate now to say that:
1. Professional
baseball is a business and it is engaged in interstate commerce.
2. With its reserve system enjoying exemption from the federal antitrust laws, baseball is, in a very distinct sense, an exception and an anomaly. Federal Baseball and Toolson have become an aberration confined to baseball.
3. Even though
others might regard this as 'unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical,' . . .
the aberration is an established one, and . . .[i]t is an aberration that has
been with us now for half a century, one heretofore deemed fully entitled to
the benefit of stare decisis, and one that has survived the Court's expanding
concept of interstate commerce. It
rests on a recognition and an acceptance of baseball's unique characteristics
and needs.
4. Other
professional sports operating interstate--football, boxing, basketball, and,
presumably, hockey and golf--are not so exempt.
5. The advent of
radio and television, with their consequent increased coverage and additional
revenues, has not occasioned an overruling of Federal Baseball and Toolson.
6. The Court has
emphasized that since 1922 baseball, with full and continuing congressional
awareness, has been allowed to develop and to expand unhindered by federal legislative action.
Remedial legislation has been introduced repeatedly in Congress but none has
ever been enacted. The Court,
accordingly, has concluded that Congress as yet has had no intention to subject
baseball's reserve system to the reach of the antitrust statutes. This,
obviously, has been deemed to be something other than mere congressional
silence and passivity. . . .
7. The Court has
expressed concern about the confusion and the retroactivity problems that
inevitably would result with a judicial overturning of Federal Baseball. It has
voiced a preference that if any change is to be made, it come by legislative
action that, by its nature, is only prospective in operation. . . .
We continue to be loath, 50 years after Federal Baseball
and almost two decades after Toolson, to overturn those cases judicially when
Congress, by its positive inaction, has allowed those decisions to stand for so
long and, far beyond mere inference and implication, has clearly evinced a
desire not to disapprove them legislatively.
Accordingly, we adhere once again to Federal Baseball and Toolson and to their application to professional baseball. We adhere also to International Boxing and Radovich and to their respective applications to professional boxing and professional football. If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress and not by this Court. If we were to act otherwise, we would be withdrawing from the conclusion as to congressional intent made in Toolson and from the concerns as to retrospectivity therein expressed. Under these circumstances, there is merit in consistency even though some might claim that beneath that consistency is a layer of inconsistency. . . .
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Mr.
Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN concurs, dissenting.
This Court's decision in Federal Baseball
Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, made in 1922,
is a derelict in the stream of the law that we, its creator, should remove.
Only a romantic view of a rather dismal
business account over the last 50 years would keep that derelict in midstream.
. . .
Baseball is today big business that is packaged with beer,
with broadcasting, and with other industries.
The beneficiaries of the Federal Baseball Club decision are not the Babe
Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and Lou Gehrigs.
The owners, whose records many say reveal a proclivity for
predatory practices, do not come to us with equities. The equities are with the victims of the reserve clause. I use the word 'victims' in the Sherman Act
sense, since a contract which forbids anyone
to practice his calling is commonly called an unreasonable restraint of trade. . . .
If congressional inaction is our guide, we should rely upon
the fact that Congress has refused to enact bills broadly exempting
professional sports from antitrust regulation.
. . . I would not ascribe a broader
exemption through inaction than Congress has seen fit to grant explicitly.
There can be no doubt 'that were we considering the
question of baseball for the first time upon a clean slate' we would hold it to be subject to federal antitrust regulation. . . . The unbroken silence of Congress should not
prevent us from correcting our own mistakes.
Mr.
Justice MARSHALL, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
Petitioner was a major leagues baseball player from 1956,
when he signed a contract with the Cincinnati Reds, until 1969, when his
12-year career with the St. Louis Cardinals, which had obtained him from the
Reds, ended and he was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies. He had no notice that the Cardinals were
contemplating a trade, no opportunity to indicate the teams with which he would
prefer playing, and no desire to go to Philadelphia. After receiving formal notification of the trade, petitioner
wrote to the Commissioner of Baseball protesting that he was not 'a piece of
property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes,'1 and urging that he had the right
to consider offers from other teams than the Phillies. He requested that the Commissioner inform
all of the major league teams that he was available for the 1970 season. His request was denied, and petitioner was
informed that he had no choice but to play
for Philadelphia or not to play at all.
To non-athletes it might appear that petitioner was
virtually enslaved by the owners of major league baseball clubs who bartered
among themselves for his services. But,
athletes know that it was not servitude that bound petitioner to the club
owners; it was the reserve system. The
essence of that system is that a player is bound to the club with which he
first signs a contract for the rest of his playing days.2 He cannot escape from the club except by
retiring, and he cannot prevent the club from assigning his contract to any
other club.
Petitioner brought this action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. He alleged, among other
things, that the reserve system was an unreasonable restraint of trade in
violation of federal antitrust laws. The District Court thought itself bound by
prior decisions of this Court and found for the respondents after a full
trial. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
We granted certiorari on October 19, 1971, in order to take a further
look at the precedents relied upon by the lower courts.
This is a difficult case because we are torn between the principle
of stare decisis and the knowledge that the decisions in Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259
U.S. 200 (1922), and Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953),
are totally at odds with more recent and better
reasoned cases.
In Federal Baseball Club, a team in the Federal League brought
an antitrust action against the National and American Leagues and others. In his opinion for a unanimous Court, Mr.
Justice Holmes wrote that the business being considered was 'giving exhibitions
of base ball, which are purely state affairs.' Hence, the Court held that baseball was not within the purview
of the antitrust laws. Thirty-one years
later, the Court reaffirmed this decision, without re-examining it, in Toolson,
a one-paragraph per curiam opinion.
Like this case, Toolson involved an attack on the reserve system. The Court said:
'The business has . . . been left for thirty years to
develop, on the understanding that it was not
subject to existing antitrust legislation. The present cases ask us to overrule the prior decision and, with
retrospective effect, hold the legislation
applicable. 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.'
Much more time has passed since Toolson and Congress has not acted. We must now decide whether to adhere to the reasoning of Toolson--i.e., to refuse to re-examine the underlying basis of Federal Baseball Club--or to proceed with a re-examination and let the chips fall where they may. . . . .
The importance of the antitrust laws to every citizen must not be minimized. They are as important to baseball players as they are to football players, lawyers, doctors, or members of any other class of workers. Baseball players cannot be denied the benefits of competition merely because club owners view other economic interests as being more important, unless Congress says so.
Has Congress acquiesced in our decisions in Federal Baseball Club and Toolson? I think not. Had the Court been consistent and treated all sports in the same way baseball was treated, Congress might have become concerned enough to take action. But, the Court was inconsistent, and baseball was isolated and distinguished from all other sports. In Toolson the Court refused to act because Congress had been silent. But the Court may have read too much into this legislative inaction.
Americans love baseball as they love all sports. Perhaps we become so enamored of athletics that we assume that they are foremost in the minds of legislators as well as fans. We must not forget, however, that there are only some 600 major league baseball players. Whatever muscle they might have been able to muster by combining forces with other athletes has been greatly impaired by the manner in which this Court has isolated them. It is this Court that has made them impotent, and 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. . . .
To the extent that there is concern over any reliance
interests that club owners may assert, they can be satisfied by making our
decision prospective only. Baseball
should be covered by the antitrust laws beginning with this case and
henceforth, unless Congress decides otherwise.
[1] The reserve system, publicly introduced into baseball contracts in 1887, see Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ewing, 42 F. 198, 202--204 (C.C.SDNY 1890), centers in the uniformity of player contracts; the confinement of the player to the club that has him under the contract; the assignability of the player's contract; and the ability of the club annually to renew the contract unilaterally, subject to a stated salary minimum. Thus
A. Rule 3 of the Major League Rules provides in part: '(a) UNIFORM CONTRACT. To preserve morale and to produce the similarity of conditions necessary to keen competition, the contracts between all clubs and their players in the Major Leagues shall be in a single form which shall be prescribed by the Major League Executive Council. No club shall make a contract different from the uniform contract or a contract containing a non-reserve clause, except with the written approval of the Commissioner. . . .
'(g) TAMPERING. To preserve discipline and competition, and to prevent the enticement of players, coaches, managers and umpires, there shall be no negotiations or dealings respecting employment, either present or prospective, between any player, coach or manager and any club other than the club with which he is under contract or acceptance of terms, or by which he is reserved, or which has the player on its Negotiation List, or between any umpire and any league other than the league with which he is under contract or acceptance of terms, unless the club or league with which he is connected shall have, in writing, expressly authorized such negotiations or dealings prior to their commencement.'
B. Rule 9 of the Major League Rules provides in part:
'(a) NOTICE. A club may assign to another club an existing contract with a player. The player, upon receipt of written notice of such assignment, is by his contract bound to serve the assignee. 'After the date of such assignment all rights and obligations of the assignor clubs thereunder shall become the rights and obligations of the assignee club . . ..'
C. Rules 3 and 9 of the Professional Baseball Rules contain provisions parallel to those just quoted.
D. The Uniform Player's Contract provides in part:
'4. (a) . . . The Player agrees that, in addition to other remedies, the Club shall be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent a breach of this contract by the Player, including, among others, the right to enjoin the Player from playing baseball for any other person or organization during the term of this contract.'
'5. (a). The Player agrees that, while under contract, and prior to expiration of the Club's right to renew this contract, he will not play baseball otherwise than for the Club, except that the Player may participate in post-season games under the conditions prescribed in the Major League Rules. . . .'
'6. (a) The Player agrees that this contract may be assigned by the Club (and reassigned by any assignee Club) to any other Club in accordance with the Major League Rules and the Professional Baseball Rules.'
'10. (a) On or before January 15 (or if a Sunday, then the next preceding business day) of the year next following the last playing season covered by this contract, the Club may tender to the Player a contract for the term of that year by mailing the same to the Player at his address following his signature hereto, or if none be given, then at his last address of record with the Club. If prior to the March 1 next succeeding said January 15, the Player and the Club have not agreed upon the terms of such contract, then on or before 10 days after said March 1, the Club shall have the right by written notice to the Player at said address to renew this contract for the period of one year on the same terms, except that the amount payable to the Player shall be such as the club shall fix in said notice; provided, however, that said amount, if fixed by a Major League Club, shall be an amount payable at a rate not less than 80% of the rate stipulated for the preceding year. '(b) The Club's right to renew this contract, as provided in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph 10, and the promise of the Player not to play otherwise than with the Club have been taken into consideration in determining the amount payable under paragraph 2 hereof.'
10 'What really saved baseball, legally at least, for the next half
century was the protective canopy spread over it by the United States Supreme
Court's decision in the Baltimore Federal League antitrust suit against Organized Baseball in 1922. In it Justice Holmes, speaking for a
unanimous court, ruled that the business of giving baseball exhibitions for
profit was not 'trade or commerce in the commonly-accepted use of those words'
because 'personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of
commerce'; nor was it interstate, because the movement of ball clubs across
state lines was merely 'incidental' to the business. It should be noted that,
contrary to what many believe, Holmes did call baseball a business; time and
again those who have not troubled to read the text of the decision have claimed
incorrectly that the court said baseball was a sport and not a business.' 2 H.
Seymour, Baseball 420 (1971).
1 Letter from Curt Flood to Bowie K. Kuhn, Dec. 24, 1969, App. 37.
2 As Mr. Justice BLACKMUN points out, the reserve system is not novel. It has been employed since 1887. The club owners assert that it is necessary to preserve effective competition and to retain fan interest. The players do not agree and argue that the reserve system is overly restrictive. Before this lawsuit was instituted, the players refused to agree that the reserve system should be a part of the collective-bargaining contract. Instead, the owners and players agreed that the reserve system would temporarily remain in effect while they jointly investigated possible changes. Their activity along these lines has halted pending the outcome of this suit.