KINS 3420 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Precedent, Commerce Clause, Reserve Clause
17 Sep 2019
School
Department
Course
Professor
Antitrust
• Baseball’s Exemption
o Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922)
▪ The business is giving exhibitions of baseball, which are purely state
affairs
▪ Interstate commerce aspect was “mere incident and not essential”
▪ Held that MLB was not interstate commerce
o Flood v. Kuhn (1972)
▪ Challenge to baseball’s reserve clause: contract could be renewable at
option of club (no collective bargaining)
▪ Court recognized that baseball involves interstate commerce
▪ However, court used stare decisis to uphold baseball’s exemption
because
• Even if it was “unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical” the exemption
had been upheld for 50 years in 5 different cases
o Collective bargaining not present in other sports such as college
o IOC → US baseball, football, etc → no room for negotiations dealing with
Olympics
o Toolson v. New York Yankees
▪ Treatment?
• Boxing: team sport, Federal Baseball did not apply
• Flood v. Kuhn
o Doctrine of stare decisis (not binding or we would still have segregation)
▪ Court needs some responsibility to consistency
▪ But social norms change and legal norms need to change
o Curt – legitimate baseball player, gold glover
o Baseball players stood against him
o Television invented in 50 years between Flood and Federal
o Media package deals go up because of HD TV
o Know role of Television
• Flood v. Kuhn: Marshall’s Dissent
o “Has Congress acquiesced in our decisions in Federal Baseball Club and Toolson?
I think not.”
▪ Had the court been consistent and treated all sports the same way
baseball was treated, Congress might have become concerned enough to
take action
▪ But, the court was inconsistent and baseball was isolated and
distinguished from all other sports
