Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons^™

Antitrust Changeup: How A Single Antitrust Reform Could Be A Home Run For Minor League Baseball Players, Jeremy Ulm

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect competition in the marketplace. Federal antitrust law has developed to prevent businesses from exerting unfair power on their employees and customers. Specifically, the Sherman Act prevents competitors from reaching unreasonable agreements amongst themselves and from monopolizing markets. However, not all industries have these protections.

Historically, federal antitrust law has not governed the “Business of Baseball.” The Supreme Court had the opportunity to apply antitrust law to baseball in Federal Baseball Club, Incorporated v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs; however, the Court held that the Business of Baseball was not …

Major League Broadcasting: The Deleterious Effects Of Major League Baseball's Antitrust Exemption On Nevada Consumers With No Home Team, Andrew P. Dunning, Kerry E. Kleiman

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Flood V. Kuhn, Stephen Ross

Stephen F Ross

Within the academia, two very different groups of legal scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to Flood v. Kuhn. Those specializing in sports law have either attached Flood as a ridiculous decision that improperly distinguished between baseball and other professional sports, or have praised it for waging guerrilla warfare on the idea that Section 1 of the Sherman Act should apply to intra-league arrangements by owners of the professional sports teams. Those viewing Flood through the lens of statutory interpretation perceive the decision as adhering rigidly to the principle of stare decisis; this rigidity has been both praised …

Grounding Into A Double Standard: Understanding And Repealing The Curt Flood Act, Brett J. Butz

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This note calls for an end to Major League Baseball's statutory exemption from antitrust law for acts that are considered part of the "business of baseball." The Curt Flood Act was a Congressional mistake, the product of years of faulty analysis and absurd holdings by the Supreme Court. This note will explain how the exemption came to fruition, outline the various problems with its inception, and conclude by proposing that Major League Baseball should be subject to antitrust law, just like all other professional sports leagues.

Nearly A Century In Reserve: Organized Baseball: Collective Bargaining And The Antitrust Exemption Enter The 80'S, Nancy Jean Meissner

Pepperdine Law Review

In her comment, the author fashions a compelling argument for congressional elimination of baseball's exemption from federal antitrust laws. After noting that the exemption had been formulated in 1922 by the Supreme Court, the author explains that it has been abused by baseball club owners to create a virtual monopoly over ballplayers through the reserve system. Although the reserve system's control was somewhat diluted in 1976, with the advent of free agency and collective bargaining, club owners are currently negotiating for mandatory compensation for the loss of free agents. The resultant threat of a player's strike has served to focus …

Who Exempted Baseball, Anyway?: The Curious Development Of The Antitrust Exemption That Never Was, Mitchell J. Nathanson

Mitchell J Nathanson

This article takes a fresh look at baseball’s alleged antitrust exemption and explains why, after all, the exemption is alleged rather than actual. For contrary to popular opinion, this article concludes that the Supreme Court’s 1922 Federal Baseball Club decision did not exempt Organized Baseball from federal antitrust laws. Instead, the opinion was much more limited in scope and never reached the question of whether Organized Baseball should be treated differently than other, similarly situated businesses or institutions, although Organized Baseball clearly invited the Justices to make this determination in its brief to the Court. As this article discusses, the …

Despite His Antics, T.O. Has A Valid Point: Why Nfl Players Deserve A Bigger Piece Of The Pie, Matthew Levine

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Gilbert Stein

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Major League Baseball Contraction And Antitrust Law, John T. Wolohan

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Effect Of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption And Contraction On Its Minor League Baseball System: A Case Study Of The Harrisburg Senators, Stanley M. Brand

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Reconsidering Flood V. Kuhn, Stephen F. Ross

Journal Articles

Within the academia, two very different groups of legal scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to Flood v. Kuhn. Those specializing in sports law have either attached Flood as a ridiculous decision that improperly distinguished between baseball and other professional sports, or have praised it for waging guerrilla warfare on the idea that Section 1 of the Sherman Act should apply to intra-league arrangements by owners of the professional sports teams. Those viewing Flood through the lens of statutory interpretation perceive the decision as adhering rigidly to the principle of stare decisis; this rigidity has been …

Ball, Bat And Bar, Harold Seymore

Cleveland State Law Review

Most Americans assume that they live under one set of laws which govern everybody. They also think that while monopolies and their abuses were once a problem, regulatory measures have long since eliminated or controlled them. The business of organized baseball proves that both these assumptions are mistaken. Recent operations of some baseball "companies" have underscored the falsity of these assumptions. The baseball business operates under its own complicated body of private law, and has been doing so ever since the business got its real start with the formation of the National League in 1876. Organized baseball is also a …