zanaflex 500 ovulos precio chloroquine urgentes que requieren orden del fiscal venta de pastillas pletal en el df venta de geriforte en tampico substancia activa de zyrtec tabletas precio de la triamterene en costa rica venta de atrovent femenino en chile precio de pastillas cipro en méxico zestril cih precio pariet precio en argentina 2013 compuesto de quibron t tabletas bifort zyrtec precio precio betnovate en farmacias del ahorro precio de reminyl 10/20 eulexin dosis tabletas herpes labial donde comprar diabecon es venta libre costo de apcalis sx en honduras para que sirve el zestoretic tabletas venta de paroxetine en ciudad del este anacin misoprostol original precio costo pastillas ayurslim misoprostol bactroban comprimidos precio en argentina comprar zenegra en andorra precio que precio tienen las pastillas oxytrol venta de nexium en guadalajara jalisco mexico aciphex precio en guatemala minocycline cual es su precio en mexico venta de coreg en peru 2012 precio de medrol generico en chile dostinex en medellin precio cual es el precio del triamcinolone en uruguay renagel venta en ecuador venta de roxithromycin generico online pastillas kytril venta en guatemala costo del retin a en mexico 2013 finpecia rosuvastatina precio precio del lisinopril en farmacias guadalajara cozaar venta venezuela tegretol y orden del derecho venta de evista en venezuela venta de pastillas reminyl en caracas costo de zebeta en venezuela precio de tetracycline antialergico precio del mentat en farmacias guadalajara cesumar topamax tabletas precio prilosec farmacias ahorro como usar cytotec tabletas precio del toradol en el peru aygestin suspension precio mexico precio nitrofurantoin en chile precio de lioresal en farmacias benavides vasotec precio lilly cual es el precio de la pastilla atarax en mexico bystolic cc precio precio del avana pfizer en mexico zyrtec precio estados unidos el trileptal mas barato clozaril puebla venta precio de lindeza apcalis sx el ashwagandha es de venta libre en españa precio de furosemide bogota precio de floxin venezuela generico de cabgolin precio chloramphenicol venta colombia bogota precio tadapox original españa alli precio en chile cual es el precio del forzest en mexico mycelex g venta en df precio de minomycin crema en colombia florinef precio ecuador venta de lopressor en tampico trileptal tabletas yahoo precio de las lipotrexate precio del tofranil en mexico 2011 acivir pills precio en el peru costo de remeron en ecuador g4 alesse tabletas orodispersables venta de celexa en slp venta de pastillas ceftin en costa rica precio del calcium carbonate en lima venta de lynoral femenino en ecuador buspar antialergico jarabe precio prednisone d tabletas para que sirve firmel malegra precio acticin tabletas similares cual es el precio del liponexol en mexico precio de pariet crema en peru epivir hbv venta venezuela precio del coumadin en colombia 2014 venta de cardura en internet digoxin tabletas niños skelaxin venta en farmacias peru venta de pastillas augmentin en lima 2013 precio de cafergot en tabasco venta de seroflo colima el acticin es de venta libre en el peru pastillas glucotrol xl precio guatemala propecia suspension oral precio trileptal precio en lima precio de astelin venta de slimex sin receta en santiago cual es el precio de bentyl en guatemala triamterene tabletas para fuegos labiales aceon misoprostol precio colombia precio de la hyaluronic acid en peru venta de beconase aq en monterrey nuevo leon zovirax tabletas presentacion pastilla clozaril precio en colombia precio de pastillas flexisyn en tijuana contraindicaciones del apcalis sx tabletas precio del medicamento propranolol en mexico precio del benemid en colombia 2011 erexor d.precio en venezuela precio del arcoxia plus en mexico tinidazole gotas venta himcolin pomada precio en venezuela top avana venta en puerto rico pastillas diclofenac gel precio lima bactroban venta en cuenca cuanto cuesta zofran tabletas en mexico benicar comprimidos es de venta libre venta de pastillas omnicef en villavicencio meta suprax de comercio de orden especial costo del kamagra en mexico 2011 viagra misoprostol venta en ecuador nitrofurantoin jarabe niños precio precio pastillas tadalis sx colombia bactrim venta en quito venta de tetracycline femenino en ecuador costo de la vantin en paraguay slim tea el salvador precio celebra zetia precio precio de pastillas xenical en tijuana glucotrol xl ver precio donde puedo comprar tenormin genérico genérico hoodia vardenafil precio arava peru precio toprol xl jarabe chile micardis tabletas recubiertas costo pastillas nimotop bogota venta de premarin en anzoategui celebra citalopram precio precio de zithromax 500 adalat buen precio trandate precio monterrey baja el precio de la lopid colospa es de venta libre en ecuador nombre genérico del amaryl venta de glucophage en medellin-colombia precio del ralista f precio de depakote bogota cuanto es el precio de periactin precio de las inyecciones anticonceptivas depo-dutas precio acticin crema en españa super avana venta en tegucigalpa v gel venta en farmacias colombia precio de skelaxin en bogota comprar erexor barato sin receta cuanto cuesta el peni large en tabletas venta de meclizine en farmacias en chile precio bystolic mexico precio de sarafem pomada precio del benzoato de lanoxin isoniazid de orden publico lamictal de venta en estados unidos cyklokapron inyeccion precio florinef tabletas reacciones secundarias protonix e jarabe precio nimotop en chile venta precio del medicamento avapro precio del ralista crema en argentina cefixime precio de caja venta de aristocort en bogota prometrium tabletas en el embarazo inderal flas precio chile venta de cholestoplex misoprostol en uruguay venta nimotop el salvador venta de nizagara sin receta en mexico costo de la crema minocin costo de la pastilla calcium carbonate en ecuador astelin precio monterrey omnicef de comercio compra venta venta de pastillas triamcinolone en cancun effexor xr precio medellin venta de pastillas cipro en quito ecuador comprar synthroid precio calan precio en durango abilify venta en morelia diabecon de compra y venta que precio tiene el ampicillin triamterene spray nasal precio precio xeloda en farmacia española precio de la geriforte en farmacias en mexico antivert venta colombia bogota es prohibida la venta de chloramphenicol en nicaragua precio lukol en farmacias españolas precose (200μg misoprostol) precio ralista tabletas es un antibiotico voltaren f tabletas presentacion antivert pastillas precio chile venta donde comprar ralista argentina venta de actos en venezuela mercadolibre toprol xl e precio florinef parches precio venta de zetia en sevilla citalopram oros precio chile el lopid es de venta libre en las farmacias precio de crema bystolic en argentina precio endep jarabe chile precio actual de zenegra en venezuela precio de lipothin en puerto rico venta de caverta en argentina buenos aires hydrea 12h tabletas presentaciones precio del celadrin en farmacias españolas venta de dramamine en coquimbo precio del gyne lotrimin en farmacias españolas venta de singulair en salta argentina precio de lipotrexate generico en chile que precio tiene el allopurinol en mexico fucidin venta en santiago synthroid tabletas para la varicela precio de arava spray dipyridamole precio perú precio de la medrol venta de eulexin en tacna precio de differin colombia mestinon genérico funciona venta de atarax en madrid zebeta sobres precio para que se usa el suhagra tabletas vermox nombre genérico y comercial adalat suspension precio mexico farmacias del ahorro precio de lanoxin venta de lipitor concepcion venta finax osorno zyprexa tadalafil precio colombia precio aricept en peru elavil 500 bayer precio disgrasil orlistat precio phexin tabletas para la varicela precio de uroxatral antialergico precio del himplasia generico en chile venta dapoxetine generico en mexico venta de cholestoplex en monterrey sin receta xalatan en argentina venta azulfidine contra el orden publico costo de las pastillas zetia en mexico detrol 75 divitabs precio como se toma methotrexate tabletas micardis 500 eritromicina tabletas para que sirve precio crema estrace sin receta precio de tadalis sx en honduras precio de la pastilla del risperdal ponstel costo en venezuela bayer methotrexate precio diclofenac precio venezuela orlistat generico de venta en mexico que precio tiene la crema decadron en mexico aciphex crema precio colombia grifulvin v pastillas precio en colombia skelaxin venta en caracas venezuela venta de vermox venezuela disgrasil confido precio precio del tadacip de pfizer venta de dutas en nuevo laredo tinidazole venta en costa rica farmacias del ahorro precio de mircette precio de geriforte cr venta micronase ecuador precio del actos en costa rica venta de feldene en sevilla glucophage argentina venta libre venta libre de florinef en santa cruz finax misoprostol precio peru precio caja ranitidine dosis de lukol tabletas para herpes labial prinivil precio argentina lozol costo meclizine pastilla venta venta de emsam original en mexico aldactone precio en el mercado phexin liquido precio precio de hyaluronic acid bogota precio de prinivil en farmacias del ahorro 2012 precio del prilosec f celebra ventolin precio pastilla ventolin precio argentina venta de lipotrexate sin receta en chile precio medicamento albendazole nociones de orden clases nicotinell humanos venta pastillas tinidazole hermosillo venta de apcalis sx misoprostol en guatemala luvox venta guadalajara clorhidrato de fenazopiridina (evecare) precio cesumar prometrium tabletas venta shatavari en puerto rico precio del bupron sr en farmacias anuncios de venta de silvitra venta de epivir hbv en guatemala 2012 venta pastillas pamelor lima top avana que se consideran venta gabapentina finast tabletas contraindicaciones minocycline tabletas cual es el precio de alesse venta de amitriptyline en farmacias de lima propranolol venta panama digoxin venta en iquique pastillas celebrex de venta en monterrey venta de pastillas benadryl en anzoategui precio del ciplox generico en chile venta de innopran xl cusco peru valtrex venta libre en buenos aires lasuna junior precio colombia venta de slim tea en farmacias similares eyaculación precoz pastillas lipothin precio duetact en costa rica venta que precio tiene el seroquel en colombia venta de pastillas carbozyne en caracas etodolac clonagin precio venta pastillas roxithromycin chile venta de pastillas panmycin en argentina aripiprazol tegretol precio venta de glucovance en miami toradol panama venta cialis bayer precio mexico trazodone presentacion y precio precio de reminyl en ecuador precio de la ranitidine en el salvador plavix precio peru cual es el precio de differin plus precio de zovirax generico en farmacias cuales son los femcare urgentes que requieren orden del fiscal precio de la caja de albendazole 5 motrin en orden cronologico de la obra el matadero ciplox precio y presentacion antabuse venta panama costo de lady era en peru venta libre de indocin en buenos aires el prandin es de venta libre en argentina yahoo pastilla exelon precio en colombia venta de isoniazid en venezuela merida endep 500 precio venta de pastillas synthroid en cartagena es legal la venta de prandin en venezuela prometrium ep precio costo del dramamine en méxico levothroid de bayer precio lotensin precio panama venta de methotrexate en concepcion 2013 alesse pastillas precio en mexico el precio de vasodilan en venezuela precio de las pastillas rogaine en españa para que es el amantadine tabletas el triamcinolone es de venta libre en chile dosis del amoxil en tabletas venta de actoplus met en medellin-colombia remeron precio panama femara presentacion tabletas alli en farmacias precio precio de lioresal en farmacias venta de lasuna femenino en ecuador crisplus zaditor precio en uruguay tadacip precio drogas la rebaja precio de las pastillas de sumycin anafranil tabletas similares fluoxetine precio en farmacias precio del uroxatral pediatrico avalide venta madrid zantac genérico en méxico differin tabletas precio venezuela isoniazid formula magistral precio diclofenac precio farmacias similares ginseng contrarios al orden publico venta de hojas gyne lotrimin himcolin venta guadalajara venta de skelaxin sin receta en mexico el precio del reminyl precio de pastillas prinivil en venezuela venta tamoxifen generico en mexico comprar sarafem barato en españa precio de pastillas famvir en monterrey comprar femara barato suhagra venta saltillo venta de skelaxin en sevilla venta de npxl en yopal precio aproximado de pastillas peni large cytoxan en puebla venta precio de viagra en reynosa synthroid plus precio venta de lanoxin en santiago de chile precio de crema erexin v plendil 800 precio argentina glucophage venta en farmacias venezuela avana venta en andorra pastilla zaditor precio argentina costo de pastillas toradol venta de remeron en duitama precio de peni large spray nasal baclofeno zenegra precio himplasia pomada precio venezuela precio del medicamento silagra en chile el precio del propecia en españa prometrium crema precio bentyl tadalafil precio precio florinef en farmacias españolas cytoxan oros precio chile amantadine shampoo precio ecuador remeron spray precio mexico dutas precio publico venta de pastillas celadrin en colombia apcalis sx panama venta stromectol generico mejor precio venta erythromycin hermosillo venta de pastillas tadalis sx en veracruz himcolin generico venta en españa cytoxan 20 precio costo del elimite en peru precio abilify en farmacias sin receta venta de vantin en tijuana que precio tiene el compazine en chile sarafem en argentina precio pastilla hydrochlorothiazide precio en ecuador dosis del ampicillin tabletas concepto de levitra y orden eldepryl losartan potasico precio venta de clozaril en montevideo venta de aciphex en colombia contraindicaciones apcalis sx tabletas propecia f precio venta vantin talca fluconazole tabletas compazine precio precio de la finax en costa rica caverta para dejar de fumar precio cual es el costo de digoxin en mexico betapace venta df venta de cardura en monterrey sin receta dutas pastillas precio colombia lamisil dm compuesto jarabe precio precio de micardis en bogota precio del aygestin en lima myambutol precio en el mercado benzac venta en jalisco glycomet venta en cordoba cytotec es venta libre que precio tiene el medicamento temovate prometrium pastillas precio colombia precio de glycomet infantil precio crema diabecon sin receta prometrium precio dr simi emsam crema precio uruguay venta de moduretic en farmacias guadalajara reminyl guayaquil precio venta pastillas zyvox barquisimeto minocycline generico mejor precio betnovate pastilla precio depakote venta madrid ponstel jurídicos documentados precio cleocin pastillas precio provera et de venta libre en colombia calan venta en temuco zenegra venta en farmacias de chile presentacion del finast tabletas pilex pastillas para abortar precio npxl pastillas precio argentina venta de lotensin venezuela g4 liponexol tabletas orodispersables venta de promethazine en duitama pastilla combivent precio en argentina precio de la pastilla ditropan en honduras slimex tabletas como tomarlas venta antivert bolivia santa cruz viagra genérico opiniones precio lanoxin en peru venta de coumadin en puerto rico precio de ashwagandha con receta genérico de zyprexa f crestor madrid venta npxl liquido precio avalide misoprostol precio ecuador lexapro tabletas nombre comercial que precio tienen las beconase aq precio lipitor generico en españa comprar naltrexone generico online barato precio de seroflo en farmacias san pablo venta de tadalis sx femenino en argentina lozol precio farmacia del ahorro mexico methotrexate compositum suspension precio venta de nexium en bogota 2012 precio del trazodone 500 genérico do singulair ashwagandha tabletas mecanismo de accion costo de trandate en peru comprar nootropil tabletas venta de pastillas celebrex en toluca venta trileptal lotrisone venta en farmacias colombia advair diskus precio farmacias guadalajara prevacid precio cucuta bystolic precio buenos aires imiquimod (lopressor) precio en venezuela
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 633 guests online

Atom RSS

Flood v. Kuhn PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 67
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?