DOCSLIB.ORG

THE BASEBALL EXEMPTION This Is the First Antitrust Chapter Following

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE BASEBALL EXEMPTION This Is the First Antitrust Chapter Following CHAPTER EIGHT ANTITRUST AND SPORTS: THE BASEBALL EXEMPTION This is the first antitrust Chapter following the antitrust primer, and it starts with the earliest cases involving both sports and antitrust. The introductory discussion between Casey Stengel and various United States Senators in 1958 is intended for the amusement of the reader. In addition, it should take the reader back to what it was like to be involved with professional baseball and the major and minor leagues in the first half of the twentieth century. The first four cases -- Federal Baseball, Toolson, Salerno, and Flood -- chronicle the history and development of the baseball exemption. The final three cases all post-date the Supreme Court's decision in Flood, and concern the scope of the exemption. The following text addresses Chapter 8 and the Baseball Exemption in two ways. The first part of the text is a hornbook description of the historical development of the baseball exemption, which discusses the cases in the Chapter as part of that development. The second part of the text goes case-by-case through the Chapter, discussing the significance of each case and the notes and questions that follow those cases. I. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASEBALL EXEMPTION The following is a hornbook description/analysis of the baseball exemption: In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has considered the application of the antitrust laws to professional sports. In Federal Base Ball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, the Supreme Court first considered the issue and held that the "business [of] giving exhibitions of base ball" did not constitute interstate commerce, even though the competitions were "arranged between clubs from different cities and States" and the League had to induce and pay for players and other personnel to cross state lines.1 Accordingly, the Court did not reach the merits of the case, but affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.2 The Court expressed the view that "personal effort, not related to production, is not a subject of commerce," and the exhibitions were not interstate, so neither commerce nor interstate commerce were at issue.3 1 259 U.S. 200, 208-09 (1922). 2 The plaintiff, the only remaining team in baseball's Federal League, had secured an $240,000 verdict after trebling against the National and American Leagues for buying up Federal League teams and inducing teams to leave the Federal League in other ways. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia had held the antitrust laws inapplicable and entered judgment for the defendants. See 259 U.S. at 208; National League of Professional Baseball Clubs v. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, 269 Fed. 681, 688, 50 App. D.C. 165 (D.C. Cir. 1921). 3 259 U.S. at 208-09. Teachers Manual -- Chapter Eight (Continued) Over the next thirty years, the analysis of the Federal Base Ball decision was undermined by holdings that the provision of personal services constituted commerce and that the required interstate nexus was much less than was present in baseball's professional leagues. The Supreme Court next considered the application of the antitrust laws to baseball in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.,4 and dismissed several appeals that involved challenges by players against baseball's reserve system. Despite the express holding of Federal Base Ball having been that baseball exhibitions did not involve interstate commerce, the Toolson majority held that it was affirming based on the authority of the Federal Base Ball decision, "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."5 The Toolson majority also stated that Congress had been aware that the Federal Base Ball decision by the Supreme Court had left professional baseball to develop "on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation," and Congress had considered possible responses to that decision; therefore, "if there are evils in this field which now warrant application to it of the antitrust laws it should be by legislation."6 The Supreme Court followed the Toolson decision with a series of rulings that the antitrust laws did apply to the production of theatrical attractions,7 championship boxing exhibitions,8 professional football,9 and professional basketball.10 The lower federal courts held that other professional sports were not exempt.11 Questions were raised about the continued vitality of baseball's exemption and the Federal Base Ball and Toolson decisions in light of the 4 346 U.S. 356 (1953) (per curiam). 5 346 U.S. at 357. 6 Id. 7 See United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222 (1955). 8 See United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236 (1955). 9 See Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957). 10 See Haywood v. National Basketball Ass'n, 401 U.S. 1204 (1971). 11 See, e.g., Deesen v. Professional Golfers' Ass'n, 358 F.2d 165 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 846 (1966) (golf); Peto v. Madison Square Garden Corp., 1958 Trade Cas. ¶ 69,106 (S.D.N.Y. 1958) (hockey). - 2 - Teachers Manual -- Chapter Eight (Continued) decisions consistently holding that other sports and exhibition businesses were not exempt from antitrust scrutiny.12 The Supreme Court considered the baseball exemption for the third time in 1972, when a major league player, Curt Flood, challenged baseball's reserve system, in particular the requirement that he move from the St. Louis Cardinals to play for the Philadelphia Phillies as a result of an inter-team trade, without any opportunity to review or approve the transfer and assignment of his contract. In Flood v. Kuhn, Justice Blackmun authored the majority opinion, which held that the two lower courts that had considered Flood's case had correctly determined that the baseball exemption precluded judicial application of the antitrust laws, both state and federal, to assess the merits of Flood's claims.13 The Flood decision made it clear that "professional baseball is a business and it is engaged in interstate commerce" and acknowledged that the affording of an antitrust exemption only to baseball and not to other professional sports is "an anomaly."14 Nevertheless, the Court held that the exemption remains confined to baseball.15 The Flood majority held that even though baseball's exemption from the antitrust laws might be regarded by some as an aberration, "[i]t is an aberration that has been with us now for half a century, one heretofore deemed fully entitled to the benefit of stare decisis, and one that has survived the Court's expanding concept of interstate commerce. It rests on a recognition and an acceptance of baseball's unique characteristics and needs."16 12 See, e.g., Salerno v. American League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 429 F.2d 1003, 1005 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1001 (1971) (Friendly, J.) ("We freely acknowledge our belief that Federal Baseball was not one of Justice Holmes' happiest days, that the rationale of Toolson is extremely dubious and that, to use the Supreme Court's 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 d[i]spatch.") 13 407 U.S. 258 (1972), aff'g, 443 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1971), aff'g, 316 F. Supp. 271 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). 14 407 U.S. at 282. 15 Id. 16 Id. - 3 - Teachers Manual -- Chapter Eight (Continued) The Court held that the baseball exemption remains viable for several reasons. First, for fifty years Congress has allowed professional baseball to develop and expand, and although "[r]emedial legislation has been introduced repeatedly in Congress, . none has ever been enacted," thereby evidencing, by "positive inaction," a Congressional intent that the exemption should continue.17 Second, the majority expressed concern that a "judicial overturning of Federal Baseball" could cause confusion and retroactivity problems.18 The Court stated that if the exemption is to be changed, it should be by legislative action that "by its nature, is only prospective in operation."19 The lower courts in Flood had held that Flood's state antitrust laws were preempted by the federal policy embodied in the baseball exemption and were barred by the dormant Commerce Clause as an undue interference with interstate commerce.20 The majority cited those portions of the lower court opinions and, on the basis of those statements, affirmed the dismissal of the state antitrust claims.21 Since Flood, the reported decisions focusing on the baseball exemption have all confirmed the existence of an exemption, but have focused on defining its scope. In Charles O. Finley & Co., Inc. v. Kuhn,22 the court interpreted the Supreme Court trilogy (Federal Base Ball, 17 Id. at 283. The Court distinguished its decision issued one year earlier in Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235, 241-42 (1970), which had held that when Congress was urged to modify a Supreme Court decision and responded with congressional silence and inactivity, that was an insufficient reason for the Supreme Court to refuse subsequently to reconsider the decision. 18 407 U.S. at 283. 19 Id. ("If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress and not by this Court").
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A History and Analysis of Baseball's Three Antitrust Exemptions
    Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 4 1995 A History and Analysis of Baseball's Three Antitrust Exemptions Joseph J. McMahon Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph J. McMahon Jr., A History and Analysis of Baseball's Three Antitrust Exemptions, 2 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L.J. 213 (1995). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol2/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. McMahon: A History and Analysis of Baseball's Three Antitrust Exemptions A HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF BASEBALL'S THREE ANTITRUST EXEMPTIONS JOSEPH J. MCMAHON, JR.* AND JOHN P. RossI** I. INTRODUCTION What is professional baseball? It is difficult to answer this ques- tion without using a value-laden term which, in effect, tells us more about the speaker than about the subject. Professional baseball may be described as a "sport,"' our "national pastime,"2 or a "busi- ness."3 Use of these descriptors reveals the speaker's judgment as to the relative importance of professional baseball to American soci- ety. Indeed, all of the aforementioned terms are partially accurate descriptors of professional baseball. When a Scranton/Wilkes- Barre Red Barons fan is at Lackawanna County Stadium 4 ap- plauding a home run by Gene Schall, 5 the fan is engrossed in the game's details.
    [Show full text]
  • The Necessity of Major League Baseball's Antitrust Exemption
    PROTECTING AMERICA’S PASTIME: THE NECESSITY OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL’S ANTITRUST EXEMPTION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL BRADLEY V. MURPHY* INTRODUCTION “How can you not be romantic about baseball?”1 Imagine a warm summer evening in Rome, Georgia. This city of just under 36,000 residents2 is home to the Rome Braves, the Class-A affiliate of the Atlanta Braves.3 State Mutual Stadium is filled to capacity as the local residents pack the stands to cheer on their hometown Braves.4 The smell of peanuts, popcorn, and hotdogs emanates throughout the stadium. A beer vendor climbs up and down the stadium steps hollering, “Ice cold beer!” Between innings, children are brought out on the field to partake in on-field promotions. After the game, these same children line up to run the bases, meet the mascot, and enjoy the postgame firework display. This minor league game brings the people of Rome, Georgia together and provides them with a common identity. Bradley Reynolds, general manager of the Double-A Mobile BayBears, highlighted the importance of minor league baseball when he said, “What keeps fans coming back isn’t baseball. If they want a better baseball game, they can see it on ESPN. This is about affordability, family fun, wholesome entertainment. That’s what makes this business unique and what makes it work.”5 Considered to be “America’s National Pastime,”6 baseball holds a special place in the hearts of many. In “Field of Dreams,” arguably the most famous baseball movie of all- time, Terence Mann, an author played by James Earl Jones, discussed the importance of baseball to many Americans: * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, 9 Marq
    Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 9 Article 7 Issue 2 Spring Before the Flood: The iH story of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption Roger I. Abrams Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment and Sports Law Commons Repository Citation Roger I. Abrams, Before the Flood: The History of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, 9 Marq. Sports L. J. 307 (1999) Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol9/iss2/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact megan.obrien@marquette.edu. SYMPOSIUM: THE CURT FLOOD ACT BEFORE THE FLOOD: THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL'S ANTITRUST EXEMPTION ROGER I. ABRAMS* "I want to thank you for making this day necessary" -Yogi Berra on Yogi Berra Fan Appreciation Day in St. Louis (1947) As we celebrate the enactment of the Curt Flood Act of 1998 in this festschrift, we should not forget the lessons to be learned from the legal events which made this watershed legislation necessary. Baseball is a game for the ages, and the Supreme Court's decisions exempting the baseball business from the nation's antitrust laws are archaic reminders of judicial decision making at its arthritic worst. However, the opinions are marvelous teaching tools for inchoate lawyers who will administer the justice system for many legal seasons to come. The new federal stat- ute does nothing to erase this judicial embarrassment, except, of course, to overrule a remarkable line of cases: Federal Baseball,' Toolson,2 and Flood? I.
    [Show full text]
  • Insolvent Professional Sports Teams: a Historical Case Study
    LCB_18_2_Art_2_Grow (Do Not Delete) 8/26/2014 6:25 AM INSOLVENT PROFESSIONAL SPORTS TEAMS: A HISTORICAL CASE STUDY by Nathaniel Grow* The U.S. professional sports industry has recently witnessed a series of high-profile bankruptcy proceedings involving teams from both Major League Baseball (“MLB”) and the National Hockey League (“NHL”). In some cases—most notably those involving MLB’s Los Angeles Dodgers and the NHL’s Phoenix Coyotes—these proceedings raised difficult issues regarding the proper balance for bankruptcy courts to strike between the authority of a professional sports league to control the disposition of its financially struggling franchise’s assets and the rights of the debtor team to maximize the value of its property. However, these cases did not mark the first time that a court was called upon to balance the interests of a professional sports league and one of its insolvent teams. Drawing upon original court records and contemporaneous newspaper accounts, this Article documents the history of two long-forgotten disputes in 1915 for the control of a pair of insolvent franchises in the Federal League of Professional Base Ball Clubs (specifically, the Kansas City Packers and the Indianapolis Hoosiers). In the process, the Article contends that despite the passage of time—and the different factual and procedural postures of the respective cases—courts both then and now have adopted similar approaches to managing litigation between professional sports leagues and their insolvent franchises. Moreover, the Article discusses how the history of these 1915 disputes helps explain why U.S. professional sports leagues have traditionally disfavored public franchise ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of an Aberration: an Examination of the Attempts to Apply Antitrust Law to Major League Baseball Through Flood V
    DePaul Journal of Sports Law Volume 4 Issue 2 Spring 2008 Article 2 Anatomy of an Aberration: An Examination of the Attempts to Apply Antitrust Law to Major League Baseball through Flood v. Kuhn (1972) David L. Snyder Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jslcp Recommended Citation David L. Snyder, Anatomy of an Aberration: An Examination of the Attempts to Apply Antitrust Law to Major League Baseball through Flood v. Kuhn (1972), 4 DePaul J. Sports L. & Contemp. Probs. 177 (2008) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jslcp/vol4/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Sports Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact digitalservices@depaul.edu. ANATOMY OF AN ABERRATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ATTEMPTS TO APPLY ANTIRUST LAW TO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL THROUGH FLOOD V. KUHN (1972) David L. Snyder* I. INTRODUCTION The notion that baseball has always been exempt from antitrust laws is a commonly accepted postulate in sports law. This historical overview traces the attempts to apply antitrust law to professional baseball from the development of antitrust law and the reserve system in baseball in the late 1800s, through the lineage of cases in the Twen- tieth Century, ending with Flood v. Kuhn in 1972.1 A thorough exam- ination of the case history suggests that baseball's so-called antitrust "exemption" actually arose from a complete misreading of the Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Minor League Baseball Players
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLS\4-1\HLS102.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-MAY-13 15:57 Touching Baseball’s Untouchables: The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Minor League Baseball Players Garrett R. Broshuis* Abstract Collective bargaining has significantly altered the landscape of labor relations in organized baseball. While its impact on the life of the major league player has garnered much discussion, its impact on the majority of professional baseball players—those toiling in the minor leagues—has re- ceived scant attention. Yet an examination of every collective bargaining agreement between players and owners since the original 1968 Basic Agree- ment reveals that collective bargaining has greatly impacted minor league players, even though the Major League Baseball Players Association does not represent them. While a few of the effects of collective bargaining on the minor league player have been positive, the last two agreements have estab- lished a dangerous trend in which the Players Association consciously con- cedes an issue with negative implications for minor leaguers in order to receive something positive for major leaguers. Armed with a court-awarded antitrust exemption solidified by legisla- tion, Major League Baseball has continually and systematically exploited mi- * Prior to law school, the author played six years as a pitcher in the San Francisco Giants’ minor league system and wrote about life in the minors for The Sporting News and Baseball America. He has represented players as an agent and is a J.D. Candidate, 2013, at Saint Louis University School of Law. The author would like to thank Professor Susan A. FitzGibbon, Director, William C.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Influence of Black Baseball in the United States and Indianapolis
    Butler University Digital Commons @ Butler University Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection Undergraduate Scholarship Spring 3-29-1991 The History and Influence of Black Baseball in the United States and Indianapolis Scott Clayton Bower Butler University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/ugtheses Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Bower, Scott Clayton, "The History and Influence of Black Baseball in the United States and Indianapolis" (1991). Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection. 62. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/ugtheses/62 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Thesis Collection by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact digitalscholarship@butler.edu. BUTLER UNIVERSITY HONORS PROGRAM Honors Thesis Certification Applicant Scott Clayton Bower (Name as it is to appear on diploma) Thesis titIe The His torvandInflu e nee 0 f B1a c k 8 asp b all i Q t-he Un i ted S tate sandIn d iana pol i 5 Department ormajor Departmen t---oT Hi 5 tor V Level of Honors sought: General MaQna CIJm I allde Departmental _ Intended date of commence....rnAft_...+ 0 e c em b e r 1 9 91 --=-=:....:....::~-=-=--..:..-.:::....:.:.....:.....-_------- JelilMr"'" q/ :Ittl'ate' d Honors Committee . pJ . _­ - I 11/{/ ~ )/!//y> Date Accepted and certified to Registrar: ~velflL@u 1f!~(Cff( 'ate
    [Show full text]
  • A Call for the Unionization of Minor League Baseball David M
    Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal Volume 14 | Issue 1 Article 6 1996 Step Up to the Bargaining Table: A Call for the Unionization of Minor League Baseball David M. Szuchman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Szuchman, David M. (1996) "Step Up to the Bargaining Table: A Call for the Unionization of Minor League Baseball," Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal: Vol. 14: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlelj/vol14/iss1/6 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact lawcls@hofstra.edu. Szuchman: Step Up to the Bargaining Table: A Call for the Unionization of M NOTES STEP UP TO THE BARGAINING TABLE: A CALL FOR THE UNIONIZATION OF MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL "They could make you stand on a street comer naked and sell lollipops if they wanted to."' CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 266 I. THE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 269 A. The Supreme Court Decisions ................. 269 B. The Piazza Decision ........................ 273 C. The Butterworth Decision .................... 277 HI. APPLYING THE ANTITRUST EXEMPTION TO MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL .................................. 278 A. The Draft and Major League Baseball Rules ....... 278 B. Restraints in the Minor Leagues Baseball System .... 279 C. The Antitrust Exemption and the Reserve Clause in Major League Baseball ....................... 287 IV. UNIONIZING MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ............
    [Show full text]
  • The Antitrust Exemption Sophie Jacobi
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 14 | Issue 3 Article 6 2002 The uB siness of Baseball: The Antitrust Exemption Sophie Jacobi Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Sophie Jacobi The Business of Baseball: The Antitrust Exemption, 14 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 363 (2002). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol14/iss3/6 This Consumer News is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact law-library@luc.edu. NEWS The Business of Baseball: The Antitrust Exemption Sophie Jacobi* I. Introduction Let's root, root, root for the home team, for if they don't win.. .they might not survive? Yes, according to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. On opening day 2002, hope springs eternal for baseball fans, players, and owners alike. This year, more so than years past, fans are hoping that "this is their year," for fear their teams will not exist next year. During the winter, Major League Baseball' ("MLB") drastically attempted to balance its 2 budget. On November 6, 2001, MLB's owners, by a vote of 28 to 2,3 voted to contract the league by eliminating at least two teams. Therefore, despite the cold weather in many cities, opening day this year brought out the fans. The Philadelphia Phillies had 40-degree weather and 50,983 fans,4 the most since the 1994 home opener.
    [Show full text]
  • How Garber V. MLB Will Shed Light on Major League Baseball's Broadcasting Cartel Nathan M
    Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 7 2013 Blackout or Blackmail? How Garber v. MLB Will Shed Light on Major League Baseball's Broadcasting Cartel Nathan M. Hennagin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjcfcl Recommended Citation Nathan M. Hennagin, Blackout or Blackmail? How Garber v. MLB Will Shed Light on Major League Baseball's Broadcasting Cartel, 8 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. (2013). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjcfcl/vol8/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. BLACKOUT OR BLACKMAIL? HOW GARBER V. MLB WILL SHED LIGHT ON MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL’S BROADCASTING CARTEL INTRODUCTION Baseball fans across North America are all too familiar with seeing the same message displayed across the screen of their TV, computer, tablet, or other electronic device: “We’re sorry, this game is not available in your area.”1 Even Bud Selig, Major League Baseball’s longtime commissioner, is not impervious to antiquated and complicated blackout policies that leave millions of baseball fans in the dark while league executives, teams, and media outlets continue to bring in billions of dollars in revenue.2 Major League Baseball (MLB or the League) and its member teams can continue to drive up the cost for consumers and prevent fans from watching their favorite teams through anticompetitive, exclusive broadcasting license agreements because baseball is in the unique position of being exempt from antitrust law.3 In 1922, the Supreme Court held in its landmark ruling, Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v.
    [Show full text]
  • Base Ball and Trap Shooting
    DEVOTED TO BASE BALL AND TRAP SHOOTING VOL. 64. No. 1O PHILADELPHIA, NOVEMBER 7, 1914 PRICE 5 CENTS MOVES FOR BASE BALL PEACE A Beginning Made in the Matter of a Possible Peace Settlement By Way of a Conference Between a Representative of Organized Ball and a Magnate of the Independent Federal League war were discussed, Mr. Hermann Mid very little. He remarked: "Before the subject of Chairman Herrmann, of the Na peace was broached in New York, we all tional Commission a born diplo swore ourselves to secrecy regarding the nego mat and natural pacificator has tiations. It was agreed that publicity prob ably would wreck our plans and we will say opened the way for future confer nothing until we have reached a decision. ences on the subject of peace be None of those interested can talk for publica tween the warring major league tion at this time. There may ba something elements, by a preliminary confer to give out before the meeting of the minor ence with a representative of the leagues or directly thereafter, but any state independent Federal League. It will ment now would be mere guesswork:" Mr. Herrmann would say no more except that the be an easy or short matter to reach club owners of the National and American a basis of settlement if Organised Leagues will be consulted before any steps Ball is willing to accept the Federal are taken, even in the negotiations. The plan league into felloivship as a major being considered is believed, to include the ab league; and it will be just the sorption of the Federal League, so as to leave only the American and National Le©agnes in reverse if the plan is predicated the major class.
    [Show full text]
  • Negro Leagues and College Football Playoff
    University of Central Florida STARS On Sport and Society Public History 12-22-2020 Negro Leagues and College Football Playoff Richard C. Crepeau University of Central Florida, richard.crepeau@ucf.edu Part of the Cultural History Commons, and the Other History Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/onsportandsociety University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Public History at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in On Sport and Society by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact STARS@ucf.edu. Recommended Citation Crepeau, Richard C., "Negro Leagues and College Football Playoff" (2020). On Sport and Society. 853. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/onsportandsociety/853 SPORT AND SOCIETY FOR H-ARETE – NEGRO LEAGUES AND COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF DECEMBER 22, 2020 Last week, the Commissioner of Baseball announced that from this point on the Negro Leagues that were operating between 1920 and 1948 would be “elevated” to “Major League status” by Major League Baseball. He added that “MLB is proud to highlight the contributions of the pioneers who played from 1920-1948.” The action was presented as a culmination of the centennial celebration of the founding of the Negro Leagues in 1920. The statistics from those leagues now become a part of the official records. There has been a range of reaction to this announcement from across the baseball landscape. The two immediate reactions were: first, to welcome the change, and second, to ask why it took so long.
    [Show full text]