brand name mircette online order aldactone online no prescription with a mastercard doxycycline hyclate malaria instructions how long does it take strattera to start working brand levitra sale 100mg online pharmacy health benefits of aspirin topamax where to buy sale tretinoin 0,025 donepeil cardizem in the uk buy zyban patch cheap amaryllis bulbs uk buy vpxl online usa online mexican pharmacy hydrocodone does propecia work on receding hairlines billig clozaril online kaufen how to import dramamine realo discount drugs kinston nc what is zestoretic pills used for canadian drug laws what is triamterene hctz 37.5 25 mg myl amsa fast orlistat funcion best place to buy imuran us online pharmacy no prescription xeloda tricor online bestellen buy minocin 10 finpecia rx viagra mail order prescriptions levitra professional pct buy cost of alligator what does lotensin treat buy avodart online no prescription cheap price how long does it take for ceftin to work on a sinus infection periactin without prescription miami cloridrato de sertralina para emagrecer do you need rx haridra what types of nizagara are there buy cheap aceon pills power pill 100 head to head football stats fastest torsemide uk delivery acheter alphagan orlistat brands india viagra free sample canada trazodone 100 mg recreational keflex price australia wellbutrin dosage adhd naprosyn max dose is generic cipro available in usa ordering suprax here in canada get discount abilify neurontin medicine online to buy dulcolax in uk anti anxiety drugs for cats who spray puerto rico restaurant puerto rico buy over the counter actos online buy cafergot tablets us tadalafil 5 mg online what is amantadine medicine generic drug for actonel 35 mg buy antibiotics online overnight capoten bonus pills zolpidem 5mg tab motrin 800 no prescription safe propecia buy dapoxetine in the uk eu pharmacy online lisinopril hctz 10 12.5 picture low cost retin-a 0,05 low dosage levitra zofran melt 4mg order viagra online in canada unisom tablets us online erexor online usa no prescription lansoprazole nhs purchase actos 1 diabetes online canadian pharmacy buy cleocin gel long term side effects of taking mobic diclofenac cheapest online overnight little blue pill m 100 drugs for depression and anxiety list toradol im crestor 40 mg pharmacy dipyridamole in the uk now can take keflex urinary tract infection buying ciplox in manchester seroflo over counter uk augmentin mexico companies only buy hydrochlorothiazide 50 xenical spain in the uswhere can i buy the cheapest alli tinidazole woldwide shipping lamictal without prescription canada zenegra tablets for sale zetia without rx printable propecia coupons i pill clozaril website pharmacy zofran orally disintegrating tablets dose plendil generic release date rogaine 5 sublingual dosage suppliers of zyvox in us safe buy alesse online nexium 100 review diclofenac sodium side effects symptoms buy acai for daily use where is alli trippy from clomid trusted online drug stores in canada minocycline tablets purchase on line i pill mevacor website pharmacy cialis 50mg uk cheap kamagra supplier review sildenafil can you buy prevacid over counter canada generic revatio no prescription paroxetine consumer medicine information nexium generic equivalent zanaflex 4 mg price goodrx inc get valtrex prescription online can i get lopid mylan generic advair renagel tablets from buy tinidazole buy usa beat way to order rumalaya how to purchase procardia online finast in the uk now over the counter medicine that acts as tinidazole ranitidine liquid price stromectol rxlist what is thalidomide for zestoretic no prrescription acai sales crestor woldwide shipping online rocaltrol india cheap genuine dilantin online order allegra online no prescription with a mastercard discount coupons voltaren gel 2mg xanax high cheap bupropion 100 mg cheap viagra or cialis cymbalta discount plan confido women buy peut on acheter fucidine sans ordonnance india pharmacies online that sell actoplus met lexapro cheap uk seroquel cheap online viagra jelly fast usa tretinoin generic canada no prescription cheap proventil hfa meclizine and compazine buy cheap actoplus met online drug metoclopramide generic for buy metronidazole caps uk coreg suppliers overseas acivir pills maximum dosage long term side effects of keftab depo provera 100mg endep coupon code lipothin tablets for sale letrozole femara sale buy brand advair diskus in ireland order generic dulcolax diltiazem price buy eurax 40 erythromycin online order colchicine for sale is wellbutrin xl better than bupropion where to buy rythmol ceftin prices at costco cuanto sale orlistat argentina order retin-a 0,05 canada purchase generic diflucan how long do citalopram take to work to buy himcolin oral erythromycin dose acne buy risperdal 2mg what is cialis medicine used for acai berry diet cost why does viagra stop working benemid prices at costco rx all pills shop does micardis hct cause weight gain genuine viagra pills buy levothroid with no rx cialis voucher phone number overseas pharmacy no prescription indocin bactroban precio mexico cordarone drugs online purchases glycomet ordering no prescription where can i purchase tinidazole lamictal dose pack green dulcolax legal us can you only get snovitra super power on prescription valtrex herpes simplex treatment asacol 800 mg spc buy canada no prescription for rosuvastatin cheap gasex accepted low cost pills celadrin drug schedule forum buy deltasone online mg prednisone for cats dipyridamole weight gain provera online usa buy decadron boots pharmacy generic trileptal side effects buy brand aldactone rxlist valtrex dosage voveran gel price safe buy voveran online lov cost nizoral exelon employment chicago seroflo over the counter overnight buy amaryl generic relafen get you high leukeran drug classification unisom wiki target pharmacy amsterdam ny allegra 180 mg uses lotensin dosage route buy evecare online india order actos 5 mg avapro by mail order amaryl where to purchase viagra coupon free revatio health canada plavix costco cheapest betoptic tablets uk uroxatral online bestellen proventil inhaler for sale online nimotop mail order buy citalopram 20mg uk high-dose baclofen for suppression of alcohol dependence one guy one jar video como comprar ephedraxin vente de carafate au quebec best professional prices discount viagra 100mg what pain medicine does not contain aspirin para que se usa femara half price metformin aciphex us sales mail order meclizine ocean blue pillar candles prednisone 10mg dose pack dosing directions prednisone legal in england plendil delivery uk methotrexate shortage pills buy comprar haridra hong kong prescription phone in order for dulcolax generic lozol for sale on line doxycycline acne reviews discount sell amantadine online buy abana mg how to buy differin online long time side effects imitrex where can i buy mevacor epivir-hbv drugstore.com bentyl mg buy wellbutrin sr pharmacy tenormin order in the us amlodipine besylate 10mg cost prescription allegra canada fucidin h buy toradol order on web overstock drugstore free shipping code without a transcript order desyrel online pharmacy no prescription needed zovirax research grade carbozyne tinidazole buy online buy doxazosin online usa cipro 50mg tablets brand cipro buy what is viramune pills used for apcalis sx online ordering arjuna usa cialis cheap generic spironolactone hirsutism mechanism amoxil lawsuit blopress online cheap buy terramycin hong kong pharmacy that sells lozol trileptal side effects long term use cost of clomid privately buy lopressor without prescription from canada how to take finax mg reglan canadian pharmacy where is lapland located on map para que sirve el omifin 50 mg what is the drug pyridium used for best place to buy v-gel genuine claritin best price lithium battery florida vermox dose for tapeworm famotidine calcium carbonate magnesium hydroxide generic how to get lipothin on line clomid over counter medicine can i buy advair diskus in canada legal buy lamisil online canada where can i buy zanaflex tablets use of chloroquine phosphate tablets cymbalta reviews for fibromyalgia salep elocon untuk ibu hamil generic from phexin efeitos colaterais do cloridrato de sertralina probalan without insurance pletal drug schedule legitimate canadian online pharmacies buspar lowest price can order risperdal online adalat for sale buy generic skelaxin online midamor online usa costco pharmacy proscar price risperdal reviews ocd tricor price increase clozaril over counter canada buy topamax without prescription lithium social media monitoring reviews buy vpxl without a subscription tetracycline side effects on teeth why is there a shortage of finpecia albendazole reviews how to use minipress orlistat without perscription uk order phenergan on line canada prednisolone medicinenet cabergoline during ivf how to import pravachol digoxin tablets purchase on line what is mobic 7.5mg tablets cialis soft tab review buy diamox 100 i pill tadapox website buy nexium australia rosuvastatin how to buy buy grifulvin online safely before and after pictures of viagra use pilex medication online best drugstore liquid foundation for combination skin what is pariet taken for diflucan online ordering online relafen india can get accutane over counter cheap genuine rogaine 5 online is there a generic form for cymbalta cheap advair diskus mg medrol over the counter australia order levitra online discount pulmicort tablets uses propranolol drugstore.com diflucan 150 mg during pregnancy pramipexole dihydrochloride side effects z pack side effects itching edpills neurontin dose in renal failure buy yasmin canada generic pulmicort budesonide zantac tablets in pregnancy order suhagra from mexico without prescription online generic alesse buy ponstel tablets online cytotec prescription drug are canadian pharmacies online legitimate best vasodilan prices alavert d-12 reviews us pharmacy online brand levitra generic seroquel paypal lotensin generic substitute how to order deltasone online where to get exelon pct buy isoptin 200 buy sildenafil south africa indian generics online acticin where to buy cheap generic nolvadex buy trental uk donde puedo comprar cytotec sin receta en puerto rico generic viagra sold in canada to buy zithromax discount drugstore coupons salbutamol guaifenesin side effects where can i buy valium online uk premarin shortage 36 hr cialis dosage buy online cheap generic aciphex generic valacyclovir good valtrex buy fluoxetine with e check to buy lamisil what dose of clomid should i take for pct robaxin uk online buy tretinoin cream 0.05 cytotec canada prescription the online drugstore albendazole order seroquel online in usa buy zaditor online pharmacy buy generic flomax online diclofenac during breastfeeding cost of zithromax with insurance order vpxl from canada without prescription clomid to buy in australia propecia pl 1mg czy 5 mg zoloft without a prescription from canada discount prescription store is mail order alesse safe cialis vs levitra reviews leukeran uk buy buy rumalaya gel online reviews can i buy diclofenac over the counter do i need a prescription for lamisil lariam + price + australia buy cordarone discount how to use terramycin eye ointment gyne-lotrimin for sale penegra 50 mg india pharmacies online that sell albendazole claritin d 12 hour dosage instructions order avapro pill zofran coupon code mail-order voveran sr bringing prescription drugs back from mexico viagra for sale in ireland best place to buy cialis online uk side effects of long term prednisone use for asthma what does hyaluronic acid do order generic ampicillin where to buy orlistat mg buy evista boots pharmacy yasmin pill side effects australia order abilify 2mg canada aripiprazole flexeril side effects driving pantoprazole 40 mg natural over the counter viagra substitute how to import differin pharmacy mexico nootropil what is accutane therapy cheapest flomax in the uk buy feldene in australia advair diskus to buy in the usa without a prescription revatio online coupon code buy pain pills online cheap imitrex for migraines dosage tinidazole tablets 500 mg synthroid pills wiki buy amantadine capsules do you need rx beconase aq new alliance for food security and nutrition monsanto diarex buy no prescription where can i buy acai berries fruit online pharmacy tadalafil accutane no prescription uk 100 mg betnovate how to use viagra spray for men buy actoplus met online amazon can you buy nizoral at walmart safe place atarax online forum cheap prescription keppra negative reviews where can i buy zyrtec in the uk toprol xl perth australia costco pharmacy alphagan price bony acai usa clomid success rates for women who already ovulate speman tablets from buy neurontin discount pravachol on line purchase order amitriptyline uk doxycycline and ambien online what is adderall metformin australia pharmacy lithium medicine bipolar perfect image minoxidil 15 how to use clomid after a steroid cycle does zanaflex get you high didronel over the couter lanoxin where to purchase what types of topamax are there avodart on the internet buy pariet pills online propranolol with no prescription motrin tablets uk where can i buy alli in south africa buy topical diltiazem ointment pariet noprescrition needed uk online pharmacy best price nymphomax buy pravachol paypal accepted buy arimidex online india the online drugstore diclofenac grifulvin v 40mg how long does it take for ranitidine to start working buy diclofenac 100mg online generic zyvox 600 mg available finast online coupon code buying feldene mail order pharmacy jobs in maryland buy minipress new zealand online common side effects of levaquin abortion pill cytotec side effects donde comprar serophene en venezuela order allopurinol all rights canadian myaarpmedicare com pharmacy directory artane dublin 5 map what is the prescription protonix used for western drug baclofen generic lexapro not the same aciclovir.com how to import brand cialis bactroban ointment dosage and administration allegra without food erexin-v discount voucher oral isotretinoin acne canadian drugs online no prescription nike 95 air max black what is endep drugs iv cordarone dosage is zantac available over the counter in canada actos sales 2010 ginseng online forum female cialis pharmacy coupons order glucotrol xl 10 mg floxin best price testosterone cream for women dosage cialis soft online usa no prescription is motilium available in the usa buy voveran 200 buy amitriptyline usa bystolic buy cheap best place buy septilin pct should i take lexapro for anxiety estrace drugs for sale order online meds clonidine strattera side effects children how to use aciphex what is the dosage for zithromax to treat gonorrhea quickest delivery cheap benicar cod online maxaman india generic metformin zydus vitamin d and erectile dysfunction bactroban pediatric dose no rx zebeta online ventolin delivery london original keftab online sinemet for sale australia diclofenaco 50mg prescription metformin hydrochloride can you buy rhinocort in ireland flomax generic cost without prescription safe online pharmacy no prescription needed norvasc para que se usa biaxin no prescription needed canadian online pharmacy buy unisom from canada can i make zofran mircette for sale philippines wellbutrin side effects anger hostility order viagra super active online no prescription with a mastercard escitalopram online non prescription uk what is a prednisone dose pack can you buy azithromycin over the counter in australia ce parere aveti despre viagra revia order online buy chloramphenicol usa diprosone 0.05 pommade side effects prednisone medication lasuna medicine children decadron woldwide shipping generic metformin pictures birth control pills decadron aciclovir 20 mg better than retin-a 0,025 Purchase cephalexin 250mg capsules generic motrin called medicare viagra 2012 fosamax purchase get extendaquin las vegas prednisone visa buy alphagan eye drops prescription ordering ciplox buy vasodilan with paypal suppliers of yagara in us zestril generic for voveran order on web what does synthroid 100 mcg look like buy diclofenac 40 canada drug service of greenfield llc buy micardis from india ditropan over the counter canada purchase betapace online ic metronidazole 0.75 lotion lov cost retino-a cream 0,025 fucidin online forum luvox buy on line buy bactrim ds online no prescription can you get addicted to dramamine where to get lexapro cheap order allies what is a toxic reaction to chloromycetin cipla pharmaceuticals indore what types of lasix are there betnovate n cream for face acticin order insulin pen instructions cheap finasteride australia where can i buy furosemide in the uk fastest aldactone uk delivery acheter requip generic voltaren eye drops safe order cialis online amaryl uk brand name elocon generic name apcalis sx online coupon code reviews on brahmi amla hair oil what is the dosage for cytoxan revatio 20 mg tid buy online flomax generic suppliers of digoxin in us buy actoplus without prescription lipothin to purchase without a prescription avodart discount program differin reviews acne.org aristocort phone orders lowest price artane brand oxytrol buy zoloft dose can you drink on erythromycin tablets zoloft online ship worldwide buy tretinoin 0,025 bulk colospa lowest price buy aldactone tablets canadian proventil canada overnight delivery
Home BoB Documents Flood v. Kuhn

Like Shoot to Thrill - An AC/DC Tribute on Facebook!

An authentic tribute of AC/DC that covers the best of the Bon Scott era and the best of Brian Johnson's material

Who's Online?

We have 945 guests online

Atom RSS

Flood v. Kuhn PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 61
PoorBest 
Selection of Docs
Written by Court Ruling   
Sunday, 18 June 1972 12:00

407 U.S. 258

FLOOD v. KUHN ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 71-32.

Argued March 20, 1972
Decided June 19, 1972

Petitioner, a professional baseball player "traded" to another club without his previous knowledge or consent, brought this antitrust suit after being refused the right to make his own contract with another major league team, which is not permitted under the reserve system. The District Court rendered judgment in favor of respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The longstanding exemption of professional baseball from the antitrust laws, Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953), 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. Pp. 269-285.

It is a century and a quarter since the New York Nine defeated the Knickerbockers 23 to 1 on Hoboken's [407 U.S. 258, 261] 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.

And one recalls the appropriate reference to the "World Serious," attributed to Ring Lardner, Sr.; Ernest L. Thayer's "Casey at the Bat"; 4 the ring of "Tinker to [407 U.S. 258, 264] Evers to Chance"; 5 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." 6

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 error less 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. [407 U.S. 258, 265]

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. 8 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.

On appeal, the Second Circuit felt "compelled to affirm." 443 F.2d 264, 265 (1971). It regarded the issue of state law as one of first impression, but concluded that the Commerce Clause precluded its application. Judge Moore added a concurring opinion in which he predicted, with respect to the suggested overruling of Federal Baseball and Toolson, that "there is no likelihood that such an event will occur." 9 443 F.2d, at 268, 272. [407 U.S. 258, 269]

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. See also 259 U.S., at 201 -206.

"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 [407 U.S. 258, 270] 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 defendants, 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." 259 U.S., at 208 -209. 10 [407 U.S. 258, 271]

B. Federal Baseball was cited a year later, and without disfavor, in another opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes for a unanimous Court. The complaint charged antitrust violations with respect to vaudeville bookings. It was held, however, that the claim was not frivolous and that the bill should not have been dismissed. Hart v. B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange, 262 U.S. 271 (1923). 11

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. 12 For the most part, however, the Holmes opinion was generally and necessarily accepted as controlling authority. 13 And in the 1952 Report of the Subcommittee on Study of Monopoly Power of the House Committee on the Judiciary, H. R. Rep. No. 2002, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 229, 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 [407 U.S. 258, 273] struggle. The evidence adduced at the hearings would clearly not justify the enactment of legislation flatly condemning the reserve clause."

C. The Court granted certiorari, 345 U.S. 963 (1953), in the Toolson, Kowalski, and Corbett cases, cited in nn. 12 and 13, supra, and, by a short per curiam (Warren, C. J., and Black, Frankfurter, DOUGLAS, Jackson, Clark, and Minton, JJ.), affirmed the judgments of the respective courts of appeals in those three cases. 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," 346 U.S., at 357 , and:

". . . If the Toolson holding is to be expanded - or contracted - the appropriate remedy lies with Congress." 348 U.S., at 228 -230.

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." 348 U.S., at 240 -241. 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, 348 U.S., at 242 , 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, [407 U.S. 258, 277] but whether an exemption should be granted in the first instance. And that issue is for Congress to resolve, not this Court." 348 U.S., at 243 .

The Court noted the presence then in Congress of various bills forbidding the application of the antitrust laws to "organized professional sports enterprises"; the holding of extensive hearings on some of these; subcommittee opposition; a postponement recommendation as to baseball; and the fact that "Congress thus left intact the then-existing coverage of the antitrust laws." 348 U.S., at 243 -244.

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.'" 348 U.S., at 248 . He went on:

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 Baseball than in upholding a ruling which at best was of dubious validity." 352 U.S., at 450 . 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 [407 U.S. 258, 279] it should sustain the unequivocal line of authority reaching over many years.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented essentially for the reasons stated in his dissent in International Boxing, [407 U.S. 258, 280] 352 U.S., at 455 . Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, also dissented because he, too, was "unable to distinguish football from baseball." 352 U.S., at 456 . Here again the dissenting Justices did not call for the overruling of the baseball decisions. They merely could not distinguish the two sports and, out of respect for stare decisis, voted to affirm.

G. Finally, in Haywood v. National Basketball Assn., 401 U.S. 1204 (1971), MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, in his capacity as Circuit Justice, reinstated a District Court's injunction pendente lite in favor of a professional basketball player and said, "Basketball . . . does not enjoy exemption from the antitrust laws." 401 U.S., at 1205 . 15

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. 17 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. And the Act of Sept. 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87-331, 75 Stat. 732, and the merger addition thereto effected by the Act of Nov. 8, 1966. Pub. L. 89-800, 6 (b), [407 U.S. 258, 282] 80 Stat. 1515, 15 U.S.C. 1291-1295, were also expansive rather than restrictive as to antitrust exemption. 18

4. Other professional sports operating interstate - football, [407 U.S. 258, 283] boxing, basketball, and, presumably, hockey 19 and golf 20 - are not so exempt.

This emphasis and this concern are still with us. 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, [407 U.S. 258, 284] 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.

The conclusion we have reached makes it unnecessary for us to consider the respondents' additional argument that the reserve system is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining and that federal labor policy therefore exempts the reserve system from the operation of federal antitrust laws. 22

"Without re-examination of the underlying issues, the [judgment] below [is] 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." 346 U.S., at 357 .

[ Footnote 2 ] See generally The Baseball Encyclopedia (1969); L. Ritter, The Glory of Their Times (1966); 1 & 2 H. Seymour, Baseball (1960, 1971); 1 & 2 D. Voigt, American Baseball (1966, 1970).

[ Footnote 3 ] These are names only from earlier years. By mentioning some, one risks unintended omission of others equally celebrated.

[ Footnote 4 ] Millions have known and enjoyed baseball. One writer knowledgeable in the field of sports almost assumed that everyone did until, one day, he discovered otherwise:

[ Footnote 7 ] Concededly supported by the Major League Baseball Players Association, the players' collective-bargaining representative. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12.

[ Footnote 8 ] The parties agreed that Flood's participating in baseball in 1971 would be without prejudice to his case.

[ Footnote 9 ] "And properly so. Baseball's welfare and future should not be for politically insulated interpreters of technical antitrust statutes but rather should be for the voters through their elected representatives. If baseball is to be damaged by statutory regulation, let the congressman face his constituents the next November and also face the consequences of his baseball voting record." 443 F.2d, at 272.

Cf. Judge Friendly's comments in Salerno v. American League, 429 F.2d 1003, 1005 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, sub nom. Salerno v. Kuhn, 400 U.S. 1001 (1971):

"We freely acknowledge our belief that Federal Baseball was not one of Mr. Justice Holmes' happiest days, that the rationale of Toolson is extremely dubious and that, to use the Supreme Court's [407 U.S. 258, 269] own adjectives, the distinction between baseball and other professional sports is `unrealistic,' `inconsistent' and `illogical.'. . . While we should not fall out of our chairs with surprise at the news that Federal Baseball and Toolson had been overruled, we are not at all certain the Court is ready to give them a happy despatch."

[ Footnote 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 anti-trust 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).

[ Footnote 11 ] On remand of the Hart case the trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of the evidence. The Second Circuit affirmed on the ground that the plaintiff's evidence failed to establish that the interstate transportation was more than incidental. 12 F.2d 341 (1926). This Court denied certiorari, 273 U.S. 703 (1926).

[ Footnote 12 ] Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 93 (SD Cal. 1951), aff'd, 200 F.2d 198 (CA9 1952); Kowalski v. Chandler, 202 F.2d 413 (CA6 1953). See Salerno v. American League, 429 F.2d 1003 (CA2 1970), cert, denied, sub nom. Salerno v. Kuhn, 400 U.S. 1001 (1971). But cf. Gardella v. Chandler, 172 F.2d 402 (CA2 1949) (this case, we are advised, was subsequently settled); Martin v. National League Baseball Club, 174 F.2d 917 (CA2 1949).

[ Footnote 13 ] Corbett v. Chandler, 202 F.2d 428 (Ca6 1953); Portland Baseball Club, Inc. v. Baltimore Baseball Club, Inc., 282 F.2d 680 (CA9 1960); Niemiec v. Seattle Rainier Baseball Club, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 705 (WD Wash. 1946). See State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis. 2d 699, 144 N. W. 2d 1, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 990 (1966).

[ Footnote 14 ] The case's final chapter is International Boxing Club v. United States, 358 U.S. 242 (1959).

[ Footnote 15 ] See also Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 1049, 1060 (CD Cal. 1971); Washington Professional Basketball Corp. v. National Basketball Assn., 147 F. Supp. 154 (SDNY 1956).

[ Footnote 16 ] Neville, Baseball and the Antitrust Laws, 16 Fordham L. Rev. 208 (1947); Eckler, Baseball - Sport or Commerce?, 17 U. Chi. L. Rev. 56 (1949); Comment, Monopsony in Manpower: Organized Baseball Meets the Antitrust Laws, 62 Yale L. J. 576 (1953); P. Gregory, The Baseball Player, An Economic Study, c. 19 (1956); Note, The Super Bowl and the Sherman Act: Professional Team Sports and the Antitrust Laws, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 418 (1967); The Supreme Court, 1953 Term, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 105, 136-138 (1954); The Supreme Court, 1956 Term, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 94, 170-173 (1957); Note, 32 Va. L. Rev. 1164 (1946); Note, 24 Notre Dame Law. 372 (1949); Note, 53 Col. L. Rev. 242 (1953); Note, 22 U. Kan. City L. Rev. 173 (1954); Note, 25 Miss. L. J. 270 (1954); Note, 29 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 213 (1954); Note, 105 U. Pa. L. Rev. 110 (1956); Note, 32 Texas L. Rev. 890 (1954); Note, 35 B. U. L. Rev. 447 (1955); Note, 57 Col. L. Rev. 725 (1957); Note, 23 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 606 (1955); Note, 1 How. L. J. 281 (1955); Note, 26 Miss. L. J. 271 (1955); Note, 9 Sw. L. J. 369 (1955); Note, 29 Temple L. Q. 103 (1955); Note, 29 Tul. L. Rev. 793 (1955); Note, 62 Dick. [407 U.S. 258, 281] L. Rev. 96 (1957); Note, 11 Sw. L. J. 516 (1957); Note, 36 N.C. L. Rev. 315 (1958); Note, 35 Fordham L. Rev. 350 (1966); Note, 8 B. C. Ind. & Com. L. Rev. 341 (1967); Note, 13 Wayne L. Rev. 417 (1967); Note, 2 Rutgers-Camden L. J. 302 (1970); Note, 8 San Diego L. Rev. 92 (1970); Note, 12 B. C. Ind. & Com. L. Rev. 737 (1971); Note, 12 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 859 (1971).

[ Footnote 17 ] Hearings on H. R. 5307 et al. before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957); Hearings on H. R. 10378 and S. 4070 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958); Hearings on H. R. 2370 et al. before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) (not printed); Hearings on S. 616 and S. 886 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); Hearings on S. 3483 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960); Hearings on S. 2391 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); S. Rep. No. 1303, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964); Hearings on S. 950 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965); S. Rep. No. 462, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). Bills introduced in the 92d Cong., 1st Sess., and bearing on the subject are S. 2599, S. 2616, H. R. 2305, H. R. 11033, and H. R. 10825.

[ Footnote 18 ] Title 15 U.S.C. 1294 reads:

[ Footnote 20 ] Deesen v. Professional Golfers' Assn., 358 F.2d 165 (CA9), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 846 (1966).

[ Footnote 21 ] See Brief for Respondent in Federal Baseball, No. 204, O. T. 1921, p. 67, and in Toolson, No. 18, O. T. 1953, p. 30. See also State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis. 2d 699, 144 N. W. 2d 1, cert. denied, 385 U.S. 990 (1966).

[ Footnote 22 ] See Jacobs & Winter, Antitrust Principles and Collective Bargaining by Athletes: Of Superstars in Peonage, 81 Yale L. J. 1 (1971), suggesting present-day irrelevancy of the antitrust issue.

In 1922 the Court had a narrow, parochial view of commerce. With the demise of the old landmarks of that era, particularly United States v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 , Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 , and Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, the whole concept of commerce has changed.

Under the modern decisions such as Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 ; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 ; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 ; United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U.S. 533 , the power of Congress was recognized as broad enough to reach all phases of the vast operations of our national industrial system. [407 U.S. 258, 287] An industry so dependent on radio and television as is baseball and gleaning vast interstate revenues (see H. R. Rep. No. 2002, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 4, 5 (1952)) would be hard put today to say with the Court in the Federal Baseball Club case that baseball was only a local exhibition, not trade or commerce.

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. 3 H. R. Rep. No. 2002, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. [407 U.S. 258, 288] (1952). The only statutory exemption granted by Congress to professional sports concerns broadcasting rights. 15 U.S.C. 1291-1295. 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" 4 we would hold it to be subject to federal antitrust regulation. Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 452 . The unbroken silence of Congress should not prevent us from correcting our own mistakes.

[ Footnote 1 ] While I joined the Court's opinion in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 , I have lived to regret it; and I would now correct what I believe to be its fundamental error.

[ Footnote 2 ] Had this same group boycott occurred in another industry, Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 ; United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222 ; or even in another sport, Haywood v. National Basketball Assn., 401 U.S. 1204 (DOUGLAS, J., in chambers); Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 ; United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236 ; we would have no difficulty in sustaining petitioner's claim.

[ Footnote 3 ] The Court's reliance upon congressional inaction disregards the wisdom of Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 -121, where we said:

"Nor does want of specific Congressional repudiations . . . serve as an implied instruction by Congress to us not to reconsider, in the light of new experience . . . those decisions . . . . It would require very persuasive circumstances enveloping Congressional silence to [407 U.S. 258, 288] debar this Court from re-examining its own doctrines. . . . Various considerations of parliamentary tactics and strategy might be suggested as reasons for the inaction of . . . Congress, but they would only be sufficient to indicate that we walk on quicksand when we try to find in the absence of corrective legislation a controlling legal principle."

And see United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U.S. 533, 556 -561.

[ Footnote 4 ] This case gives us for the first time a full record showing the reserve clause in actual operation.

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 [407 U.S. 258, 290] federal antitrust laws. 3 The District Court thought itself bound by prior decisions of this Court and found for the respondents after a full trial. 309 F. Supp. 793 (1970). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. 443 F.2d 264 (1971). We granted certiorari on October 19, 1971, 404 U.S. 880 , 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." 259 U.S., at 208 . 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 reexamining 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 [407 U.S. 258, 291] 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." Id., at 357.

"Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms. . . . Implicit in such freedom is the notion that it cannot be foreclosed with respect to one sector of the economy [407 U.S. 258, 292] because certain private citizens or groups believe that such foreclosure might promote greater competition in a more important sector of the economy." United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 610 (1972).

This Court has faced the interrelationship between the antitrust laws and the labor laws before. The decisions make several things clear. First, "benefits to organized labor cannot be utilized as a cat's-paw to pull employer's chestnuts out of the antitrust fires." United States v. Women's Sportswear Manufacturers Assn., 336 U.S. 460, 464 (1949). See also Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 325 U.S. 797 (1945). Second, the very nature of a collective-bargaining agreement mandates that the parties be able to "restrain" trade to a greater degree than management could do unilaterally. United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 (1941); United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965); Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea, 381 U.S. 676 (1965); cf., Teamsters Union v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283 (1959). Finally, it is clear that some cases can be resolved only by examining the purposes and the competing interests of the labor and antitrust statutes and by striking a balance.

It is apparent that none of the prior cases is precisely in point. They involve union-management agreements that work to the detriment of management's competitors. In this case, petitioner urges that the reserve system works to the detriment of labor. [407 U.S. 258, 295]

[ Footnote 2 ] As MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN points out, the reserve system is not novel. It has been employed since 1887. See Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ewing, 42 F. 198, 202-204 (CC SDNY 1890). 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.

[ Footnote 3 ] Petitioner also alleged a violation of state antitrust laws, state civil rights laws, and of the common law, and claimed that he was forced into peonage and involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because I believe that federal antitrust laws govern baseball, I find that state law has been pre-empted in this area. Like the lower courts, I do not believe that there has been a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

[ Footnote 4 ] In the past this Court has not hesitated to change its view as to what constitutes interstate commerce. Compare United States v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895), with Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219 (1948), and United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).

[ Footnote 6 ] The lower courts did not reach the question of whether, assuming the antitrust laws apply, they have been violated. This should be considered on remand.

[ Footnote 7 ] Cf. United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 (1941).

[ Footnote 8 ] Jacobs & Winter, Antitrust Principles and Collective Bargaining by Athletes: Of Superstars in Peonage, 81 Yale L. J. 1, 22 (1971). [407 U.S. 258, 297]

 
 
Banner

Poll

Should MLB Force Jeffery Loria to Sell the Marlins?