Flood v. Kuhn

Learn more

hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help **improve it ** or discuss these issues on the **talk page **. (Learn how and when to remove these messages )

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings . Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page . (June 2022)

Learn more

This article **contains an excessive amount of intricate detail **. Please help improve it by spinning off or relocating relevant information and removing excessive detail that goes against Wikipedia's inclusion policy . (June 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

(Learn how and when to remove this message )

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that preserved the reserve clause in Major League Baseball (MLB) players' contracts. By a 5–3 margin, the Court reaffirmed the antitrust exemption that had been granted to professional baseball in 1922 under _Federal Baseball Club v. National League _, and previously affirmed by _Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. _ in 1953. While the majority believed that baseball's antitrust exemption was anomalous compared to other professional sports, it held that any changes to the exemption should be made through Congress and not the courts.

The National League had instituted the reserve clause in 1879 as a means of limiting salaries by keeping players under team control. Under that system, a baseball team reserved players under contract for a year after the contract expired, preventing them from being taken by other teams in bidding wars. MLB team owners argued that the clause was necessary to ensure a competitive balance among teams, as otherwise wealthier clubs would outbid teams in smaller markets for star players. The reserve clause was not addressed in Federal Baseball, where Ned Hanlon , owner of the rival Federal League 's (FL) Baltimore Terrapins , had argued that MLB had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act through anticompetitive practices meant to force the FL out of business. The Supreme Court ruled that baseball did not qualify as interstate commerce for the purposes of the Sherman Act, a ruling that remained even after it denied boxing and American football the same exemption.

In 1969, Curt Flood , a center fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals , was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies . Flood was unhappy with the trade, as the Phillies were not known to treat players well, but the reserve clause required him to play for Philadelphia. He retained attorney Arthur Goldberg , a former Supreme Court justice, through Marvin Miller and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and took the case to court, arguing that the reserve clause was a collusive measure that reduced competition and thus an antitrust violation. The reserve system was upheld by all three courts under the principle of _stare decisis _ and the precedents set by Federal Baseball and Toolson.

Legal scholars have criticized the Court's decision in Flood both for its rigid application of stare decisis as well as Section I of Harry Blackmun 's majority opinion, an "ode to baseball" that contains little legal matter. The reserve clause was settled outside the Supreme Court three years later through the arbitration system created by the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the MLBPA. Peter Seitz ruled in favor of Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally that their contracts could only be renewed without their permission for one season, after which they became free agents . Free agency in MLB was codified the following year after the 1976 Major League Baseball lockout , while the Curt Flood Act of 1998, signed by Bill Clinton , ended baseball's antitrust exemption as it related to interactions between players and owners, but preserved it in other areas such as franchise relocation. Courts have continued to differ over the extent of the exemption; a 2021 suit filed over that year's minor league reorganization asks that it be rescinded entirely.

Contents

• 1 Background

  • 1.1 Reserve clause

  • 1.2 Baseball's antitrust exemption

    • 1.2.1 Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League

    • 1.2.2 Gardella v. Chandler

    • 1.2.3 Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.

    • 1.2.4 Shuster and International Boxing

    • 1.2.5 Radovich v. National Football League

    • 1.2.6 State v. Milwaukee Braves

    • 1.2.7 Salerno v. American League

    • 1.2.8 Spencer Haywood cases

  • 1.3 Curt Flood

• 2 Path to the Supreme Court

  • 2.1 Initial meetings

  • 2.2 District Court

  • 2.3 Court of Appeals

• 3 Before the Court

  • 3.1 Oral arguments

  • 3.2 Deliberations

• 4 Decision

  • 4.1 Blackmun's opinion

  • 4.2 Concurrences

  • 4.3 Dissenting opinions

• 5 Aftermath

• 6 Move toward free agency in baseball

  • 6.1 Seitz decision

  • 6.2 1976 collective bargaining agreement

  • 6.3 Congressional response

• 7 Subsequent jurisprudence

  • [7.1 Philadelphia Hockey c

…