Appendix — Flood v. Kuhn

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

: rn

ie Go a te Wit tat

Plaintiff ’s Witnesses

» Peathmiosty of Clarence S. Campbell ......+-------+-- 232.

- Ocrossi:. : Tanit, 1 1971

: Wo. 71-82

4 £ Pe 5 °

Ag he a Comns €. Fio0n, Petitioner, ae « :

es Ge a eee v. Pe ys Ps.

| eee Bowne K. Kony, BT AL., Responidents. eau

- Docket Entries: eg err cvaswuuee iererepentttgy: a.

Pa hed. Ke acer Re PORE ONE

. Exhibit A thereto: Uniform ‘Player ’s ‘Contract we

- Exhibit B thereto: Notice of fansfer:......--.-. 6B:

/ ._Exhibit C thereto:'Ltr., Dey to Flood ........ 365° ©

- Exhibit D thereto: Ltr., ts Kuhn ..... cia

Exhibit E thereto: Ltr, Kuhn to Flood -....--.-

Answer of Defendant Kuhiy ......-:-0-- hia

_ Answer 1 OFS ry ar

—~—"" Opinion denying prelimi ef, March,4, 1970

Opinion providing early’ trial, March 25, TG ow icsanss

- Opinion denying dismissal in part, April 23,1970 .... |

+ Opinion after trial, August’ 12, 1970 . jXeeeecc swan cme

=. Fie Judgment te ee pre sam nobetg fe dt pes wobens J.

.*- ° Notice of Appeal ....- Ns A oe Cuccwen

3 _ Opinion. of the Court of Aopa Ane 397 Sees a

a4 : oo a

_ Testimony « of Robert A. Eagleson ...-:.----- 5 ia:

. . Testimony of: Curtis G. Flood .....-:.-------- Wisesce ee.

_ Testimony of Locum ne - Onc wn'eya se = Be

ae. See

digas :

$i. |e ™. Index Continued

-. Testimony of J. Walter Kennedy a Sega eaten une

' : Testimony of Marvin J. Miller 4..-....:..... erecta OMe

_. - ‘Pestimony of Marvin J<“Miller (recalled) so rela cn ae

a Testimony of Robert R. Nathan ’........:. acceeceg ae e ©

Testimony of Jack BR. Robipgon ............0....:00 1699 7

Testi of Alvin. R. M lle es erecccees ee’ 609 opto ee % F)

- Defendants’ Witnesses __— ee

: | Testimong of John Clark, Jr....:......... eres ee ee

' Testimony 0 ranéis L. | EMRRN Spi eae Sisco en =F

. Testiinony of Charles S. POON ss oece Sic c cscs nds SO :

_ Testimony of John.J. Gaherin ......-... anew ue —— :

: e 5 : Bt 489 : s

; Testimony of Ewing M. Kauffman ......... ESTEE: ge

Testimony of- Bowie K- Kahn Sse tec cwsne See

Testimony of John J. Me eer enns civewen nian te 2 OL".

Testimony ef Ro CE aie webct Ok

—— By

1 Cees Plaintiff's Rebuttal are eae ip oes

“Testimony of Marvin J. Miller eae 364 ..

/ Testimony of Bill Veeck ee hice etuicn SOR: 3

- gg | $ ’ Sur-Rebuttal_ ee

| Mestinony of John J Gaddetin:. oi ...0 0... OO!

| * SnlBeiite =.

ee Det. Kuli’ Exhibit A: Stipulation ;............ . 407 i fe

oe F vex Sigd pl. wen ger el ‘Clngbs’ Proposed © | Ce .

: ts henaaod ed Agreement‘: ..... 2S / OE ee . 418 — Re Ee

Def. Feeney et al.’s Exhibit O:, Players. Association ..

‘ Statement of Policy, July 28,1967 .............. 447

Def. Feeney et al.’s Exhibit P: Ltr., Miller to Gaherin 456

Def.. Feeney et al.’s Exhibit R: Players Association ©

. Proposed Amendments and Additions ...-.......457° =.

Def. Feeney et al.’s Exhibit Q: Joint Study .,..:.... 62.02 yr

. Def. Feeney et al.’s Exhibit S: Arthur D. Little Oe

ens nomic ON ee Ee SG ee ee eee vs ATR

ee Defendants’ Wilanases Fh de ee

: (continued remy pews 995): aa 7

Testimony of ‘John J. Gaherin me

. &\ ny ein

--APPER = ee

“UNITED STATES DISTRICT’ COURT | Re

ea _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Pa ge

IS ea eae ame Tre], 2 * 2

hd ee pa anes Noa, 6 [Ss pi thhy se age. f

! igh Cee -- Docket Entri ee

Date ee “Proceedings: ok

“§ an. 16-70-—Filed eae and issued. summons..

se ; Ja DAt 0-

me me summons and complaint. :Clerk—mn a

—Filed Order appointing Edward Sutton to serve 4

ge Jan. 19-70—Filed Pitff’s. notice “of motion onder to ‘show :

7 pg eire. cause re preliminary injunction. ret 1/20/70.’ .

"Jan. 19-70—Filed. Pitff’s , memorandum — in pupport, of

motion. ; me

ee Jan. 91-70—Filed Afiaaypto of S rvice of summons and com- 7

Ser -- plaint. ae :

"Served: ‘Charles S. Feeney, J ogeph. E. Cronin, J ohn J.

Gaherin on 1/16/10, Bowie K. Kuhn on 1/16/70.

- Feb. 27 0—Filed it of Bowie K. Kuhn. :

S Feb. 2-70—Filed _ emorandam of deft. Bowie K. Kuhn i in. .

Baie appositio lon to Pltff’s. ‘motion. for pre. on seaport

+ Feb. 2-70-Filed Affidavit of Joseph E. Cronin. =

oe "Feb. 2-70—Filed Memorandum in set itaweree: & Pitts

"motion. for pre. inj. oo ge

i Feb. 3-7 O—Filed Notice of Volumary Dismissal as to Balti. ae

0 fe Baseball Club; Ine. (filed in court).

_ Feb. 3-70—Filed (in court) Reply Affidavit.

' Feb. 6-7 0—Filed Plaintiff ’s Heply ee: in 2 support

_ of motion for pre. inj.

|| Mar. 470—Filed Opinion #36600. Cooper, J.** * ha

_ ingly, we aré constrained to deny plaintiff’s motion for.

the apiemueczd ee of a eens dice ee =

lala a aicheed Riess tee

“Doicket Batcies! : ie la

Date eee Proceedings’ ea

Ks: a. matter of law, we are poweryas to helt otherwise |

So. ordered. . (mailed notice) . ike

_ Mar. 43-70—Filed order vtpctnti ilies to ee, trving 8h

. Ben Cooper for All Purposes. Sugarman, Ch.J.

| “Mar: 19-70-—Filed. deft Bowie K. Kuhn Notice of Motion. -

i - Mar. 25-70—Filed -Notice™ of Settlement Unsigned, with. ae

Memo, End. * * * We see merit in, and accordingly.

_ grant, the-application. Date for trial. to be fixed after

-gonsultation with counsel in the’.case. So ordered. .—

Sooper, J. (mailed notice) - ‘(returned to Cooper, J.)

“Apr. 23-70—Filed Memorandum of deff. Bowie sae Kuhn i in ~

. support of motion to dismiss. —

soe “Apr. 23-70--Filed Memorandum in sadwert of defts’. tho-

tion te dismiss the first four alleged causes of action. °

ee Apr 23-70—Filed Memorandum in support of motion by

- defts. St. Loujs and New York Yankees Clubs. to dis- -

" miss the fifth cause of action. = Ne a

Apr. 19-70—Filed Npticeg of Motion re: dismiss First- Cause ie

of Action. * ~ a pas

Apr. 23-70Filed Notice of Motign rei." Tthmien: the, 6th

Cause of action, :

Apr. 23-70—Filed Notice of Motion re: . Dismiss At, ana :

“ - 3rd and 4th causes of action. :

_ Apr. 23-70-—Filed Qpinion’ $367 26. In summary, for the’ .

reasons’ set forth, defendants’ motions to: dismiss

" Pitff’s. first four causes of action which contest the

é legality of baseball’s reserve system are deferred until

the trial; defendants’-motion for summary judgment

in favor of defts. St. Louis National. Baseball Club,

Inc. and New. York Yankees, Inc. on: both claims of’ ,

plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is granted. This ‘shall.

be considered an order. -Settlement thereof ‘is .un-.

Fs necessary.: So ordered. Cooper, J. (mailed notice)

Ry a

i a

- roasts

8 - .

ate an thay sy ehcp pelle alts Mad Ca gh

‘ ‘

. ee: ee es

Date = —*—« «Proceed a

Apr. 27- 70—Final Judgment.” ‘that defendants, St.

- May 15-70—Filed-Plaintiff’s Memorandum. |

_” May 15-70—Filed Memorandum of all’ defts. except Bowie ee

ees Inc. have ielgrnenl

{mailed tiotice).

‘May 4-70—Filed deft. Bowie: K: Kuhn Aaaeer: to- complaint. |

"* May 4.70—Filed Answer of defendants other than Bowie <

"+ KK Kuhn,to the first alleged cause of pe. (istered. :

to Cooper, ty) te hs

Be ° May: 1270—Filed Notice. of Motion Ret. before Cooper, 3,

. te: produce, before trial.

» K.. Kuhn in opposition to motion. . | Mess

: ‘May 15-70—Filed. Memorandum and Order. Pending trial

where we may ‘more fully sr taal asserted confi-

- dentiality and the data produced: We grant deft’s ap-

_ plication to limit access to the date supplied to.as indi-’

"cated, ete. So Ordered. Cooper, J. - (Mailed Notice) —

May 19-70—Beforé. Cooper, J. Trial continued.

«° May 21-70—Trial continued. aw

ee: May 22-70—Trial continued. - coy

~~ May:25-70-Trial. continued.

May 26-7 6—Trial continued...

ae May 27-70—Trial continued. = = (ws Z, os

- May 28-70—Trial continued. as Bp ok fe

_ June 1-70—Trial continued. — ee ac Lee

pay es :

pera:

> .

_June 2-70-_Trial continued. e , : ; : |:

» June3-70—Trial continued: = heey

-June470—Trial continued. 389 as

plaintiff Curtis C.

- Flood dismissing the fifth caluse af action wade Clerk.

i. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF —_ YORK —

70 Civ. “202

” ‘Conn C. F Loop, Plainti,

— against ~ _

.Bowre K. _Kusn, Individually and as Commissioner of: -

. Baseball, CHARLES S. Feeney, Individually and as

President. of ‘the National League of Professional °

= Clubs, Joserx E. Crontx, Individually and as -—

President of the American League of Professional

Baseball °:Clubs, ATLANTA Braves, Inc., Cuxicaco

Natrona League Bat Crus, THE Onscrsatt: Reps,

‘Inc., Tue Hotston Sports Association, Los ANGELES

Doverrs,. Inc., Mow'rréat Basesatt Cius. Lep., Merro-

' POLITAN Bisshaz: Civs, Inc., PHILADELPHIA Narrow

LeaGue, Cis, PrrrssurcH Arateric Co., Ixc., Sr.

Louis Nationa Basesatt Cuivus, Inc., San Dieco

Papres, San Francisco Giants’ Bisepais. Crus, Batti

MORE BasEBALL Cvs, Inc., Boston Rep Sox, CLEVELAND

_ *, Inprans,. Inc., Derrorr Bisenatz: ‘ Crus, New. York ~

: . YANKEES, Inc., THE WasHINcTON Senators, Inc., Gox- °

- DEN WEsT Basia Co., Cuicaco Wuire Sox, Kamsas

Crry Royats Basepata Cvs, Minnesota Twins, Inc.,

~ * OaKLAND ATHLETICS, and Pacrric Norrawest SrORTE, “

> aoe.

our : Defendante. . -!

Plaintiff, Curmss C. Froop, by his tothe Paul, Weiss,

Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, alleges : |

‘Fst Cause or Action, aGarnst ALL DEFENDANTS .

Jurisdiction - eo ied

i. This claim arises under the Sherman Anti- Trust Aah =

_ and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. Jurisdiction is conferred: |

upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. ssa i ae es

‘ *

mw MET LD yn

: The Parties

2. Plaintiff is a major ain baseball hie: widely re 2

_ garded -as:a skilled and. outstanding center fielder. From

1958 through 1969 ‘he played with the ‘St. Louis Cardinals,

the team owned by Cqfendant, St. Louis N ational Baseball :

hla. = en ie:

a Defendants are. the major a a and entities compris- :

ing ‘major league professional | baseball: Defendant Kuhn is

the Commissioner of Baseball. Defendant Charles S. Fee- .

ney is President of the National League of Professional .

Baseball Clubs (hereinafter “National League”), a mem-

bership association composed of twelve clubs located in

eight states and Canada. Defendant Joseph E, Cronin is the

President of the American League of Professional. Baseball —

‘Clubs (hereinafter “American League”), a membership as-

sociation composed of twelve clubs located in ten states and

the District of Columbia. The other defendants are the ma- ..

jor league baseball clubs comprising the two leagues. These

clubs are engaged in the business of staging baseball games, —

transporting players and equipment, purchasing equipment,

contracting with television and radio stations, purchasing

and selling refreshments and novelties through concessions

| ‘at baseball stadiums, and. other, business activities.

Defendants! I nvolvement i mn Interstate Commnie:

4: Defendants are now engaged i in ‘interstate commerce

. and trade and. thair activities have a aecetaracces a on

“interstate commerce and trade. ‘ES

= “Be Defeiidants engage in interstate commeree, among 7

other ways, in that: i

(a) The baseball games staged by the club defendants —

_ are broadcast on national radio and television and -on local

radio and television stations affiliated with national net-

works. In.1969 defendants collectively derived from all such

broadcasts more than $35,000, 000.

: 8 :

(b) The stagit® of baseball games by the club defend- .

- . ants requires’ substantial travel and communication i in inter-

state commerce and substantial movement of equipment in

interstate commerce. The amounts exjsended by defendants

‘on ‘such travel, se sarmmenaats on, and ‘movement exceed

$1, 000. 000 a year.

(ec) The staging of baseball games a the club defend.

ants requires ‘substantial purchases of equipment and. sup-

— - plies in interstate commerce. Such purchases by defendants |

exceed $1,000,000 a year. |

(d) In the staging of baseball games, the club defend-

ants sell tickets across state lines, employ agents across

state lines, and advertise across state lines. In 1969 de- —

fandants collectively derive from box office receipts. of base-

ba games sums in excess af $25,000,000.

- (e) In the staging of ‘baseball games, ietabtiad sums

are expended in interstate purchases for concession sales:

in baseball stadiums. On information and belief defendants

derive sums in excess of we saa a year ~~ such con-

- cession’ sales.

(f) In the business of pe aa leneball games, defend- —

ants employ facilities of interstate ‘communication -and

travel to negotiate, and contract with, television and radio

networks and stations, concessiénaires, baseball players,

managers, umpires, agents, and one ‘another.

6. Defendants’ ‘involvement in interstate commerce has

increased markedly since 1950. For example; in 1950 box |

office receipts from baseball exhibitions were. almost: six —

‘times the receipts from national radio and television con-

tracts. By 1969, radio and television receipts had increased -

to ten times their 1950 levels and exceeded box office reve-

“nues. In addition, as described more fully below, since 1953.

professional baseball clubs have become more closely in-.

volved with other businesses i in interstate commerce. _

”

-, the respective league presidents.

~ number of minor Jeague clubs.

Organized Baseball ‘ :

7. Defendants, together with 1 more han 125 minor league ©

clubs, comprise an industry and structure commonly. called -__

“Organized Baseball”. This structure éxists and is‘perpet- -

uated by virtue of various written and tacit agreements ‘

among defendants and between defendants and the minor

league clubs and leagues. 3 :

; 8. Defendant Kuhn,: as Gommnlisionee of. Baseball, is the

. central figure in the structure of Organized Baseball and

the. chief executive officer of the industry. The- Commis-.

sioner has sweeping powers and duties, including among

others : (a) the power to make binding decisions on disputes

between clubs; (b) the power to impose finés_ and discipline

‘upon the clubs and leagues; and (c) the power to discipline ~

or remove any officer or employee ¢ of the club, including a

player. he «

_. 9; Defendants Feeney and Cronin, 2 as Presidents of the

two Major Leagues, have the power to discipline clubs,

players and umpires. They also. have the power and duty

to review each club contract with a player, and such player ~~

contracts are not effective until reviewed and : ere by . ,

10. No person, club, organization, i « or other entity a

may enter Organized Baseball without recognizing the Com-. |

missioner and submitting to his jurisdiction. |

_ 11, All the minor league clubs in Organized Baseball, —

eollectively called the National Association, reeognize the

‘office. of the Commissioner of Baseball: and’ submit them-

_ selves to his jurisdiction. Defendants are further tied to the

minor league clubs in that eagh club defendant either owns, -

is affiliated with, or has.a working arrangement with a

12. In short, anyone who. «wishes to play . professional :

baseball in the United Bitates, must pas on defendants’ Poe

terms or noteat all. :

13. Defendants have: acquired substuatial nntinoinpetiiive ;

‘ economic power in other ways. For — defendant

/ /

. - eee . ae = ‘

Louis National Baseball Club, Ine." is dina by or affiliated . . =

- with the company which. snaké and distributes the only

beer sold in the St. Louis. ball park. Defendant New York

Yankees Ine. is owned by the Columbia Broadeasting Sys-

tem, one’ of the three major. networks that would compete

for, Aelevision and radio broadcasts of baseball games. On

information and. belief, defendants are engaged in many —

other monopolistic practices. which they. have erie

hidden from public view. :

14, Defendants are thus engaged in a seniinitinn ani. sae

monopoly in restraint ofgtrade in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of -

. the Secu: Anti-Trust Act - U.S.C. $§ i and 4).

The a os System

15. By a series of rules and practices hersiantter colle

tively referred to as the “reserve system,” Organized Base--

ball has a. lifetime grip on any player who wishes to play

professional baseball in the United States. From the mo-

tment a player leaves the amateur ranks of high school, co]-

. lege or sandlot baseball, the player must play for the team

‘Which first — him or its fa se ws,

16. The reserve system winks as follows:

(a) The contract which the ssicleapiainigh ‘Maitnlaves

must sign with a club i is a.contract:which is required by de-

féndants’ rules to -be uniform throughout the Major —

Leagues, and it is not subject tolpriation,. except for com-

~ pensation, at the instance of any player, including plaintiff.

‘That uniform contract provides, among ‘other things, that —

_ the club has the “option” to renew the contract for an addi-

tional year after its termination. But. each player is re-

- quired to sign a new -eontract containing that option. every

-yedr. If the player fails to sign a contract, the club may uni- ~

laterally. renew the contract containing the “option clause,”

and so on, indefinitely. Thus, the so-called i aa is, In

— a — for perpetual service. .

- (b) The uniform contract which each player must sign

gas provides that the club may “assign” the player, regard-

-less of the player’s wishes, to’ another. club, and once so -

assigned, ‘the- player must sign a new uniform contraet £

eontaining the “option clause.” a

". a player is reserved, or while he is under contract toa club,

- or while a player is.on a “negotiation. list” of a club, no -

-other club may negotiate with or contract with the player,

nor may the. player negotiate with any other club. De

_.. ants disguise this practice of binding’ a pla

for life under rules prohibiting “tampering.” :

* (d) In aildition to the 40 players which a club. may “re-

serve” as , described. above, a club also has exclusive. “rights” "

toa player—ik., lio other club may negotiate with him nor

he with ther while he is voluntarily retired, while he'is . _

_ under sus nsion, while he is disabled or injured, while he

‘is in military service, and while he is “ineligible,” “disquali-

fied’”/or “restricted.” Moreover, if a player fails to contract

with “his” club, no other tem may negotiate with him, ‘he

may not negotiate with another club, and he may hé de-

clared “ineligible” to. play for any club until “his” clab or

the Commissioner reinstates his eligibility. These prattices |

are enforced by the disciplinary powers of the Co nmis-

sioner andthe concerted action of the clubs: fee

“17. The net effect of the rules and practices desckibed im

paragraphs 15 and 16 is th&t the player, once he signs with’

a given club, must play for that club and no other, or must |

play for a club to which he is assigned by the original club, —

or to its assignee club, and no other; during his lifetime.

Treover, after his retirement as an active player, the

player may: not become a coach or manager unless the club

which has “rights” to — as a player, releases him —_

tionally.

- » 18. The: reserve system is an unreasonable restraint of

trade in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust

=o ae ar ik $$ 1and 2).

a2 Plaintiff’s.Injury

19. Plaintiff Flood has itneel major league baseball for 3

(14 years. During tlie years 1958 to 1969 he played baseball

for the St. Louis Cardinals,‘a ball club owned by defendant

St. Louis National Baseball Club, Ine. (A copy of plainX

tiff’s 1969 contract, which i is a uniform contract, is sanexed:

as Exhibit “A”. ) |

20. By an. index siek size notice dated: Octéber g, 1969,

(annexed as Exhibit “B”), plaintiff was -purporti

signed” to the Philadelphia Phillies (defendant Piiladél-

_ phia National League. Club).) The notice was accompanied

by a four-line covering letter (annexed hereto as Exhibit.

“C”), and plaintiff received a phone call froma club official

' informing him of the “trade.” After playing for the St.

' Louis Cardinals for a period of. twelve years these were

_ the. only communications — received from. the Cardi-

- . nats upon his purported “1 e.” |

ee Plaintiff i is. ready and eager ‘to one baseball i in 1970.

ay letter. dated December 24, 1969‘ (annexed as Exhibit |

and otherwise, plaintiff hes informed the: ‘Commis-

’ piomate and th teams comprising the Major Leagues, that. ©

. he wishes to play. Plaintiff has also asked the Cénimis-

-sioner, and through him the Major League teams, that. he —

wishes to be declared a “free agent” and would like to cot:

22. Pursuant to agreements among. defendants and pur-.

suant to the reserve system, defendants are now engaging

in a conspiracy and boycott to prevent plaintiff from play-... ;

ing baseball.in the 1970 season, or ever, for any professional ; ees

baseball club other than the Philadelphia Phillies. © © ~~

. This conspiracy dna boycott violate $§ 1 and 2 of the . :

rman Anti-Trust Act #2 US. C. $§ 1 and ue These vio-

_ duct negotiations with the various teams for a contract for, ae

the 1970 playing season. By] letter dated December 30, 1969

- (annexed as Exhibit ois fe Commissioner denied d plain- :

. tiff’s request. ) .

lations are ‘sated and, - pres es equitable ‘relief is

granted, will continue and will succeed in causing irrepara- .

. ble damage to plaintiff and the asia Plaintiff has nocom- ~

plete and adequate remedy at law. -

-ye As a consequence of the conspiracy in which defend-

, ants are engaged, and since ‘the. date of the Commissioner’s |

~ letter of December 30, 1969, plaintiff has suffered, and.-will

. suffer, damage to his non-baseball business interests, dam-

age to his ability to receive, fees and benefits from product

. endorsement and publicity appearancgs, and.other’ damages,

- all in the'sum of $25,000. And unless immediate and final -

equitable relief is granted, plaintiff’s baseball career will —

be effectively terminated by — to pipintiit's dam-

age in the sum of $1,000,000. ‘ fee

Secoxp Cause. oF ‘kore Acanst Darivibives ‘ATLAwra

Braves, Ine., Tue Cincinnati Reps, Inc., Los ANGELES

DopecErs, tuo., MonrreaL BasEBaLL Cis. Lap., Merro- .

POLITAN Basmaixi, Crus; Inc., PrrtssvrcH Aceerio n

Co., Lyc., BaLtrMorE Bastar Cxus, Inc., CLEVELAND ©

: Iwpeams; Inc., New York Yankees, Inc., Toe Wasn-

INGTON Suwarons,. Inc., Miynzsora Twrxs, Inc., Pacrrid.

_ NosrHwest Sports, Ino. ,

| 25: 3 urisdiction of this diim 3 is based upon diversity of |

citizenship and is — ‘upon: this Court by 28 U. S.C.

§ 1332.

e 26. Plaintiff i is a ikea. of f the State of Missouri. On i in-

formation and belief, defendant Montreal Baseball Club,”

+ Ltd.-is an alien. On information and belief, the other de-

fendants:are all citizens of § states other than Missouri. The

amount in controversy exceeds $10, 000, exelusive of interest

and costs. — :

_ 27. Plaintiff repeats and. realleges sen: 2, 7

through 13, 15 through 17,.and 19 through 22 hereof. :

28. By the above ‘described arrangements, agreements,

and*conspiracy, defendants have restrained and are te

- Business and Professional Codé, in violation of § 2855 of

_ the California Labor Code, and in violation of other anti-

, trust and anti-blacklisting statutes of the several states i in

_. which defendants stage cance oe games: ©

- 29. Defendants have also violated and s are viekating the -

"_. eivil rights statutes of the meaner states in which they stage

baseball games. gs Mae (2

- Unless equitable relief is gtanted, these violations iS

‘ will continue and will‘sueceed in causing irreparable injury —

to plaintiff and to the public. Plaintiff has no . complete and

| adequate remedy atlaw. | a,

31 Plaintiff ‘repeat and realleges paragraph 24 hereof. =

ie Dei OF doves ‘Aascrer Derexoarcs ATLANTA oe

Braves, Inc., Tue CrscryMati Reps, I'nc., Los. ANGELES ©

Dopéers, Inc: .. MowTreaL BasEBALL Cus, Lrp., MeTRO-

-PouitaN Basesatt Cuius, Inc., - Preresunci Aeutgro

Co., Inc., BaALTIMorE Biakunais, Crus, Inc., CLEVELAND

Inprams, ‘Tmo... New York .Yankess, Inc., Toe Wasu-

‘gseton Senators, Inc:, Minnesota Twins, sasitid

Pactric NorTHWEST en Inc.

: 32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 25,. 26, 0, :

7 through 13, 15 through 17, and 19 through 22 hereof.

33. By the above described combination, arrangements, —_

and conspiracy, defendants, have restrained and are re- ~

straining trade and plaintiff’s free exercise of pl@ying pro-.

_ fessional baseball in New York, California, and the several ~

states in which defendants ~~ baseball games, in ene

‘tion of the common law.

‘aad trade and plaintiff's free exercisé ‘of playing wie:

‘ ‘fessional baseball in New York, California; and other states, —

Joe Me violation of § 340 of the General Business: Law of New..

ye York, i in violation of §§ 16720 and 16726 of the California

'-34. Unless equitable Telief is. s granted, theas oon ae

. will continue and will succeed i in causing irreparable 2

- | a

3 t

» ahs Jeans mall aon ai

42. ‘ets.

Sirk pte plaintiit sd the puiblic. F P si tiff has 1 no 0 adequate ae

. and complete remedy at law. Sa eo Dei eee

BB. Plaintiff Tepéats. and realleges pevleraph 24 hereof. pace

_Fovrra Givie OF “Action ‘Acatssr’ eicad es hoes a

ay Braves, Anc., Toe Crsgrxnati Reps, Inc., ‘Los ANGELES

_ Doperrs, Ixc., Mon: Basenatn Cove Lav: Merro-

_ PouiTan Basepatt Cxvs, , PrtrspurcH Ataueric 8

. Co., Isc., Baurmore Basepat. Crus; Inc:, CLEVEEAND |

" Ixprans, Inc., New York Yanxees, Inc.,.THE WasH- .

rncToN Senators, Iyc., MuvyesotTa ‘Twins, I Inc., Pacrric *

Norruwest Sports, Inc., Sr. — N ATIONAL. Basepau ce!

‘Choe, Inc. :

. 36. This claim. arises under the. Thirteenth ‘ Amaeiaelat :

: 6 the United States Constitution, 18 U.S.0.:§ 1581, 42 _

; US.C. § 1994, and 29 U.S.C: §§ 102 and 103. Jurisdiction is.

' eonferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.’

37: The amount in ye $10, 000, eee x .

: sive of interest and costs. . :

38. Plaintiff repeats . and: siathiead ‘paragraphs a 1

through 13, 15 through 17; and 19 through 22 hereof. |

. 89, The reserve system is a practice constituting, and re-.

sulting in, peonage and involuntary servitude in violation ,

' of 42 U.S.C, § 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 1581, and the Thirteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. The reserve

‘ system also deprives ballplayers freedom of labdt in viola- ©

O/: tion of 29'U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Ae ome Ret

40. Defendants are now engaged 3 in a conspiracy” to force

plaintiff. to play solely for-one professional baseball club », nS

| + the exclusi n of. all other professional aseball clubs, and?

'+\therefore-Ao subject. plaintiff.to peonage’ and involuntary

- Neevite in violation of 42°U.S,C. §.1994, 18 U.S.C. §.1581,

"and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Con-

stitution; and to deprive plaintiff of. his freedom of _— :

in violation of 29 U.S.C. thie ‘wince i?

: S aa

ae . ae “pea Entries,

“Date” Ley = : ay ee ae

June 10-70—Trial continued 6-5, 8; 9,10. Trial Srelngea ae

_ ~~» dated’ 6-10-70. Décision ‘Reserved. Cooper, J.0

: + June 19-70—¥ildd ‘Transcript ‘of ‘Tecord: of proceedings es regs

apes dated 3-31-70. a ° RG « a : -

»June 19-70—Filed Transcript’, of 5 reéord of proceedings,

dated 5-1-70. ee ; an

Jeni 19-70—Filed Transerip: of record dof procesdings *

-dated 5-21-70.” che: meee

June 19-70—Filed ‘Tranagit gt tecord. of. procéedings, es

dated 5-22-70. ee ae

ee “June 19-70—Filed. Transcript of record of proceedings,

“a dabed BBO pt eT

June 19-70—Filed ‘Transcript of record 68 Grbecedings,

‘Proceedings hee =e

dated 5-26-70. Se agen o |

* June 19-70—Filed Transcript of record of proceedings, °-

Pee ; 7 dated 5-27-70. : | = Q = , . . . | : :

> June. 19-70Filed ‘Transcript .of. record of proceedings, |

ae dated 5°28 70. — :

” “June 19-70_Filed | Transcript ef record of proceedings, — |

I. i ene ee

June 19-70—Filed Transcript of record of proceedings,’

8” dated: 6-270. o, 8 54 ‘at

a 19-70—Filed Transcript of record of proceedings, +

. + dated 6-3-70. | Re FOI ate oe OSs a

- June 19-70—Filed Transcript of record of proceedings,

| ee ee a

- June 19-70—Filed ‘Transcript of. record of . proceedings,

- dated 65-70... Ne Ty aa ee a

‘June 19-70—Filed, Transcript of record of proceedings,

dated. 6-8-70. ee Jon

ae Si : ‘ . “. 5 : ~¢ 3

= ww Are Docket Entries fe

3 t Date . = Co = Proceedings me |

: : _ Tune 19-70—Filed: ‘Transeript ‘of ogee of proceedings, oe

' dated 6-9-70. “

a F ane 19:7 0-Filed Transcript. of umel of Proceedings

* @ated 6-10-70. :

3 Aug. 12-70—Filed Plaintiff*s, Post Trial Reply Brief.

‘Aug. 12-70—Filed Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Brief.

Kose. oye 0—Filed Post-Trial Memorandum of, deft, Bowie

Py Aug. 12.70—Filed Defendants’ ay S to Plaintiffs? Post: M .

Trial Brief. -

: Ang. 12-70—Filed. Post-Trial Memorandum of all defend.

“ants. other than Bowie K. Kuhn. Sar

Aug 12-70—Filed Opinion #37016. The Clerk is ine

to enter judgment in favor of defendants Wi against |

plaintiff on each cause of action herein. ‘So ordered.

__ The foregoing opinion constitutes this Court’s finding ,

_ of fact and conelusions of law pur. to Rule 52(a) FRCP.

| So ordered. Cooper, J. (mailed notiée).

Aug.. 13-70—Filed . J udgment. Ordered that defts. on

judgment against pltf. Curtis C. Flood dismissing the

‘complaint. Clerk. (mailed notice).

. Ang. 24:70—Filed pltff, Notice of Appeal. (mailed copies) _

' \Noy. 13-70—Filed Transcript of record. of Bepcondings, cor

; dated 3-24-70.

“Nov. -13-70—Filed Transcript of: ecard of roteedings

_ dated 2-3- 70.

f A True Copy

‘ Joun. Lavixcstox, ‘Clerk . |

’ By I. Wei EINBERG i“

= Deputy Clerk

« : : ie . . / é

ae e@ 6.

= {,

41. Unies ‘nde relief. is granted, these violations

will continue and will suéceed i in causing irreparable i mcd

‘to plaintiff and the public. ° . / |

_ 42, Plaintiff has no complete or adéquate remedy at law.

Firth Cause of Acmioy, Acarnst Derenpants Str. Louis

NATIONAL: ‘BaseBau um, Inc. , AND'NEw York YANKEES,

Inc. : o . :

ae | » 43. This elains arises s under the hie Anti-Trust Act —

and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. Jurisdiction i is s conferred

2. Sewanee upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1337. oo :

44. ‘Plaintiff repeats and | Pealleges paragraphs 2 and '4

_ through - heréof.

e 45. As part. of ‘tn business of staging baseball games,

eae defendant St. Louis National Baseball eClub, Inc. derives |

= substantial revenues from concession sales in its baseball

stadium. On information’ and belief, a substantial portion

of such revenues from concession sales are derived from —

the sale of beer. eee. me

46. Through a sities: ‘affiliate, or an corporation,

defendant St. Louis National Baseball Club, Inc. is also en-

-” gaged in the production, distribution, and sale of beer. On

. information and belief, by. méans’ of : various contracts,

agreement and combinations, defendant St. Louis N ational

Baseball Club, Inc.'has limited the sale of beer in the sta-

_ dium concession sales to the ‘beer produced by the affiliated

.- company, and has excluded all other beer companies from

‘selling or attempting to sell beer throngh concession sales

in the stadium, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 ofthe Sherman

Anti;Prast Act and § 3 of the = Anti-Trust Act A

es, _aePS.C. §§ 1,2, and 14).

* 2 ee oe information and belief, the effect of this vtblation

.. has been, and willcontinue to be, to increase the revenues

of the beer company and diminish the revenues of defend-

° . 9%

ant St. Louis National Baseball club, Ine. available for 4

player salaries, including that of plaintiff. .

- 48. Defendant New York Yankees, Inc. are » owned by the

‘Columbia. Broadcasting System, one of the three national

radio and television networks which might bid on the right }

to broadcast professional baseball games. ‘On information

_ .and belief, as a result of. its ownership of the New York

Yankees, Inc., the Columbia Broadcasting System has re-

frained from bidding on such broadcast rights with con-

sequent injury tq competition, in violation of §{ 1 and 2 of ©

' the Sherman ‘Anti-Trust Act and § 7 of the’ = Anti-—

. Trust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 18).

49. The consequence of this violation hes been, na con-..:

tinues ‘to be, to reduce the revenues of Organized Baseball

from the sale of broadcast rights, in which revenues Byers

such as plaintiff would Share. —

_ 50. Unless equitable relief is cabal ‘ais violations by

' defendants St. Louis National Baseball Club, Inc. and New

York Yankees, Inc. will continue and. will succeed in causing

- ‘irreparable injury to plaintiff and the public. —

51. Plaintiff has no adequate or complete remedy at law. .

Wauinercns, plaintiff demands judgment against defend- |

ants as follows: | :

1: With. respect to the first cause of actin against all

defendants: (a) declaring Organized Baseball, the reserve.

system, and defendants’ conspiracy against: plaintiff to be

_ unlawful under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; and (b) pre-

‘liminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from

_ enforcing the reserve system against plaintiff and from con-

‘spiring not to allow any basebal] club other than the Phila- .~

delphia Phillies to negotiate with plaintiff; and (c) for

treble plaintiff’s damages of $25,000, together with the costs

of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees; or, in the al-

_ -ternative, if equitable relief is denied, (d) for treble plain-

48.

tiff’s actadien of. $1, 000,000, ‘together with the costs of this

action and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

2. With respect to the second and third causes. of action,

against the defendarits named therein: (a) declaring the

reserve system and defendants’ conspiracy ‘against’ plain-

tiff to be unlawful under § 340 of the-General Business Law

of New York, under §§ 16720-and 16726 of the California

Business and Professional.Code, under 4 2855 of the Cali- -

..fornia Labor. Code, under other statutes af the several ~

states, and under common law; and (b) preliminarily and

_ permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing the re-

serve system against plaintiff: and from conspiring not: to

allow defendants to. negotiate’ with plaintiff; and (c) for,

plaintiff’s damages of $25,000, together with the costs of |

this: action. and reasonable attorneys’ fees; or, in the alter-

an native, if equitable , relief is denied, (d) for plaintiff’s dam- |

ages of $1,000,000, together with the costs of this action and:

reasonable attorneys’ fees ; ;

3. With respect to the fourth ¢ cause of action, against the

| _ defendants named therein: (a) declaring the reserve sys-

tem and defendants’ conspiracy against plaintiff to be un-

lawful -under the Thirteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution, under, 42 U.S.C. § 1994 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 1581, under 29 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103; and (b) prelimi-

narily and permanently enjoining defendants from enfore- »

“ ing the reserve system upon plaintiff and from conspiring

’ to ferce plaintiff to play, for the Philadelphia Phillics and

no other ball club;

a * With respect to the fifth cause of action, against de- -

fendants St. Louis National Baseball Club, Ine. and New

York Yankees, Ine.: (a) declaring the practices -of defend-

ants described therein to be unlawful under the Sherman ~

Anti- Trust Act and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act;.and (b)

- enjoining defendants from continued violations of those

a Aqig; and tg :

- 19

5, Such other relief as may to the Court s seem just. | .

Dated: New York, NewYork le le

Si aniuary 16, 1970 - af

ARTHUR J. GoLDBERG,

A member of the firm of

Paul, Weiss, . Goldberg; Rifkind,

Wharton & Garrison

345 Park Avenue. 2

_ New York, New York 10022 .

AuLan H. ZERMAN -~

* .225 S. Meremec Avenue ;

-* Clayton, Missouri 63105

‘Attorneys for Ploingif

‘Curtis C. Flood

is A) :

‘UNIFORM PLAYER’S CONTRACT .

| Nartonan Leacue or PRoFesstonau BAsEBALL Crus

ParTIES a -

Between Sr. i NATIONAL’ Basénatz. CLus, ine herein

called the Club, and Ctrtis Cuartes Fuoop. of 4466 West

Pine, St. Louis, Missouri, herein ealled the Player. .

Recrva -

The Club i is a eceaher of the } National League of Profes-

sional Baseball Clubs, a voluntary association of twelve

member Clubs which has subscribed to the Major League

Rules with thte American League of Professional Baseball

- Clubs. arid its’ constituent Clubs and to the Professional -

Baseball fue with that League and the National Associ-

ation of Baseball Leagues. The purpose of those rules is to ..

insure the public wholesome and high-class. professional

baseball by defining the relations between Club and’ Player,

, between Club and Club, between League and League, and by

- vesting in a designated Commissioner broad powers of con-

- _ trol and discipline, and of decision in case of disputes.

ae : , .

= Ee SF See ire eS Ce eee a CRE, ee ee tae ME ee ASO ie Uy eal Oe ee beak og . ” z

| AGREEMENT. | . | |

In consideration of the facts above recited and of the

promises of each to the other, the parties agree as follows:

EMPLOYMENT .

1. The Club Keteby employs the Player to render, and the

- Player agrees to render, skilled services as a baseball player

during the year 1969 including the Club’s training season,

the Club’s exhibition games, the Club’s playing season, and:

.the World Series (or any other official series in, which the

Club may participate and in any receipe of which the

player may be entitled to share). .

PaYMENT | | : .

. 2. For performance of the Player’ S services san promises |

hereunder the Club will pay the Player the stm of $90,000,

. in.semi-monthly installments after the commencement of —

_- the playing season covered by this contract. Payment shall

be made on the day the amount becomes due,. regardless of .

_ whether the Club is “home” or “abroad”.

Ifa monthly | rate of payment is stipulated : sexe, it shall

begin. with the commencement of the Chib’s’ playing season.

. (or such subsequent date as th¢Pfayer’s services may com- .

mence). and end with the termingtiv/of the Club’s sched-

uled playing season and shall be pay ble 3 in: semi-monthly

installments as above provided. ;

_ Nothing hereir shall interfere with the right of the Club

‘and the Player by special covenant herein to mutually agree ©

upon a method of payment whereby) part of the Player’s

salary for the above = can be di ferred to ——

years.

If the Player is in the service of e ‘Club for part of the —

playing season only, he shall receiye such proportion of

-the sum above mentioned, as the number of days of his ac- - ~

‘ tual employment in the Club’s playing season bears. to the

number of days i in said season.

~ = - 2.

Notwithstanding the rate of payment stipulated above, |

the minimum rate of payment to the Player for each day

_ of service on a Major League Club shall be at the rate of =~

, $10, 000 per year; except, if a Player physically joins a Ma-

jor League Club on‘or after September 1, he shall be paid |

_@uring September at the. rate of $8,500 per year foreach

day of service until he has accumulated a ‘total of 60 days

- of Major League service, after which he shall be paid at the —

rate of $10,000: per ‘year for each a of service with such

Major League. Club. : a

Payment to the Player at the rate stipulated ‘above shall

be continued throughout any period in which a Player. is

_ required to attend a regularly scheduled military encamp-

ment of the Reserve of the Armed Forces or of the National

Guard during the Club’s playing season.

Lovaury -

—

=. .

;

€

3.: (a) The Player agrees to oan his services here-

under diligently and faithfully,‘ to keep, himself. in“ first-

_elass physical condition and to’ obey*the Club’s training —

~ rules, and pledges himself to the American ‘public and to

the Club to conform to high standards of personal conduct,

fair play and good: aportetianship..

| BASEBALL PROMOTION

; _(b) In addition to his services in connection with the

actual playing of baseball, the Player agrees to coopérate —

with the Club and participate in any and all promotional. _»

activities ofthe Club and its League; which, in the opinion -

of the Club, will promote the welfare of the Club or profes-.

' sional baseball, and to observe and comply with all require-

ments of the Club respecting. conduct: and service of its

. team and its players, at all times wether on or off the field.

~ Prorones axp Pusiic APPEARANCES -

for still photographs, motion pictures or telévision at such_-

Bisascibins Fr aed Pena eee ee

times as the Club may pate and agrees that all. stats

~~ jm such pictures shall belong to the Club and may be used

‘by the Club for publicity purposes in any manner it desires. »

The Player further. agrees that duririg the playing season

5.90 Writeor-spemsor newspaper or magazine articles or spon-- ;

__ sor ‘commercial products without'the written consent of the ~

_ Club, which shall not be withheld except in the reasonable

he will not make public appearances, participate in’ radio ~~

or television programs or permit his s picture te to be taken_

interests of the Club or professional baseball.

7 ee REPRESENTATIONS

4. ( a) The Player represents and agrees that he has ex- _

Ae Hoa

~ eeptional and unique skill and ability as a baseball player; ._.

. reparable injury and damage. The Player agrees that, in '

addition to other remedies, the. Club shall be entitled to in- ~

junctive and other equitable relief to prevent a breach of —

re:

tract.

ownership of earnings.of any Major League Club,’e

that his services to be rendered hereunder are of a special,

unusual and extraordinary character which gives them pe-

~ euliar value which cannot be reasonably or adequately com- :

pensated for’in damages at law,.and that the Player’s .

breach of this contract will cause the Club great and ir-

this contract by the Player, including, among others, the

Tight to enjoin the Player from. playing baseball for any -:

other person or organization during the term of this : con-

Conpriion «

* ge The Player ap eae ale that he has no are or :

_ mental defects known to him, which would prevent or im-

| pair performance of his-services. 7

Lwrinest 0x rane

( c) The Player represents that he does mit: directly or

indirectly, own stock or have any financial interest in the

. .

P . . —s ee

SS = 6 LSS x

Cat aS

as hereinafter coneaaly: set forth, and svenkasin. that he

will not hereafter, while connected with any Major League “

Club, acquire or hold any such stock or interest. except in.

accordance with Major League Rule meh:

SERVICE _

sch Ga) othe Maer agrees ‘that, While seler ‘contract, and -

prior to expiration of the- Club’s right te renew this con- _.

. tract, he will not. play baseball otherwise than for the-Club,

except that the Player may participate in post-season games

under the conditions prescribed i in the Major League Rules.

: - Major League Rule — is set forth on page 4 —— ad

OrHER Sports .

(b) The Player and the Club recognize and agree that

the Player’s- participation in othér sports may impair or

destroy his ability and skill as a baseball player. Accord-

ingly the Player agrees that he will not engage in ;profes-

sional boxing or wrestling ; and that, except with thd written

. consent of the Club; he will not engage in any game or exhi-

_bition of football, —" hockey. or other athletic sport.

“oe

- AssiGNMENT en Pe “© gas

6. (a) The Player agrees that this contract’ may be as-

signed by the Club (and reassigned by any assignee Club)

to any other Club in accordance with the Major a -

- Rules and the Professional Baseball Rules. |

No SaLARy Repuction’

— (b) The amount stated ii in ese 2 herent which is’

payable to the Player for the period stated in paragraph 1

hereof shall not be diminished by any. such assignment, ex-

‘cept for failure to report as provided in the next _

| paragraph. (c).

Piceounens

(e) The Player shall report ie assignee Club prekagtiy a

| (as ee in the rere) upon receipt of written

notice from the Club of the assignment ofthis contract. If:

. the Player fails so to report, he shall not be entitled td any

- payment for the period from the date he receives written

notice of —o until he reports to thé assignee Club.

OstrcarioNs OF Assioxon AND cones Cuvss

- (a) Upon and after such assignment, all rights and oo ,

ligations of the assignor Club hereunder shall beeome the

rights and — of the assignee: Club; rovided, how-

ever,that ©. oo”

SD ) ‘The assignee Club shall be Jiable to the Player

for payments accruing only froin the daté of assign- -

.. ment \and shall not be liable (but the assignor Club

- shall remain lable) for payments acerued poor to

| that date. ;

(2) If.at any time the assignee. is a Majot Learn

Club, it shall be liable to pay the Player at the full 5

rate stipulated in paragraph 2 hereof for the re-

mainder of the period. stated in paragraph 1 hereof

‘and all prior assignors and assignees shall be re-

' lieved of liability.for any payment for such period.

(3) Unless, the assignor and assignee Clubs agree

otherwise, if the assignee Club is a National Associa-

tion Club, the. assignee Club shall be liable only to

pay the Player at the rate usually. paid by said .

assignee Club to other players of similar skill and

ability in its classification and the assignor Club —

‘shall be liable to pay the difference for the re-

mainder of the period stated in paragraph 1 hereof ©

between an amount computed at the rate stipulated ~

in paragraph 2 hereof and the amount so ) payabl ‘by.

- . the assignee Club. LE ON

a Movie Expense eee B 4 5 G 48 )

‘{e) If this contract is assigned by a Major ue

~ Club to another Major Taegne Club during the playing sea-—

OEE EEE Ee — PONE ag CF Gt PEE

; a

i ,

| “Cuus”

son, ‘the assignor Club shall pay the Player, for all moying

and other expenses resulting from_such assignment, the

'. ‘sum of $300 if the contract is assigned between Clubs in the

same zone; the sum of $600 if ‘the contract is assigned be-

. tween a Club i in the Eastern Zone and a Club in the Central. ?

Zone! the sum of $900if the contract is assigned between °

a Club in the Central Zone, and a Club. in the Western Zone; ;

~-and the sum of $1,200 if the contract is assigned between a

Club in the Eastern Zone and a Club in the Western Zone.

‘The Eastern Zone shall include the Philadelphia, New York

and Pittsburgh Clubs in the National League and the ‘Balti-

; more, Boston, New York e Washington. Clubs in the

‘American League; the Central Zone: shall include the Chi-

cago, Cincinnati, Atlanta, St. Louis and-Houston.Clubs in

the National League and the Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit

and Minnesota Clubs in the Américan League; the Western °

Zone shall -include the Los Angeles and San Francisco

Clubs in the’ National League and the California and Oak-

land Cigbs in the American League,

If, during the Major League playing’ season, a Paves in x

required to report to a Major League Club from a National .

Association Club, or to a National Association Club from a

Major League Club, such Major League Club shall pay the 3

reasonable and actual moving expenses of the Player and.

his immediate family resulting. therefrom, and shall reim-

burse the Player. for up to one month’s rental payments for

living quarters in the city from which the ‘Player is trans-

- ferred for which he is legally obligated after the date of ae

transfer and for which*he. is not otherwise reimbursed;

except the foregoing shall not apply if the Player is re:

quired to-report on or after September 1. , *

(f) All Se eerneeey in thes paragraphs of this contract

to’ “the. Club” shall be deemed to mean and. include 5 Ae i.

—— of this contract.

PLS SOS. camry snes ey ae A RR EE PhO EAN Tae LETRA LIBEL SERA OES 7

26 ©

> Mage dees

TERMINATION By PLavEn oe 7 7

7. (a) ‘The Player may terminate “this contract, upon

‘ written notice to the Club, if the Club-shall default: in the

‘payments to the Player provided for in paragraph 2 hereof

' + or shall fail to perform any other obligation: agreed to be —

performed by the Club hereunder and if the Club shall fail

to remedy such default within ten (10) /days after thé re-_

ceipt by the Club of written notice’ of such defqult. The

‘Player may also terminate this contraet as provided i in sub-

- paragraph (f ) (4) of this paragraph 7. ze

PiG@en 6.48 Pee,

(b) The Club may ‘terminate thi contract upon.written

notice to the Player (but only afte requesting ang obtain- +

ing waivers of this. contract from/all other Major League zips

Clubs) if the Player shall at any ti ;

(1) fail, refuse or néglect | ts boutons his ‘pyrecnal :

- eonduct to the standards of good citizenship and

good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class -

physical condition or to obey the. Club’s’ training

Tules ; or.

4 2) -fail; in the opinion of the Club’s management, to

exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability to quali-.

| fy or ‘continue as a member of the Club’s team; or _..

_( 3) fail, ‘refuse or neglect to render his services here- «

under or in any other manner metenny breach this

bags _ contract. OE

mo) If. this perenne is \eesliiiouten by the. Club by

reason of the Player’s failure to render his’ services here- .—

under due to disability resulting directly from injury sus-..

tained in the course and ‘within the scope of his employ-

- ment hereunder and written notice of ‘such i injury is given

by the P as. provided .in the Regulations on page 4.

hereof, the’ yer shall be entitled to receive his full'salary

“for the season in — the i injury was sustained, less_all

27 ‘d >

' workmen’s: compensation payment paid, or. payable 4

_ reason of said i injury. '

ie . (a) If this contract i is iermineicd me the. Club during |

gee the training season, payment. by “the Club of the Player’s” . e

: board, lodging, and expense allowance during the training °

season to the date of termination and of the reasonable yee

traveling expenses of the Player, ineluding first-class jet

air fare and meals en route to his home-city, and the expert ~

training and coaching provided by the Club to’ the Player.

~ during the papain season shall, be ‘fall —— to the

_ Player. Y : :

4 > (e) If this contract is thiealinnsbed by the Club during

& Fi. the playing seasop, then, except in the case provided for in

_°. . sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph 7, the Player shall be

entitled to receive as full payment liereunder. such portion

of the amount stipulated : in paragraph. 2 hereof as the

numbér of days of his actual. employment in the Club’s play-

ing season bears jo the total number of days-in said season,

- provided, however, that if this contract is terminated under -

“ sub-paragraph (b) (2) of. this paragraph 7 for failure to

exhibit sufficient skill: or compétitive ability, the Player

- .. shall’ be entitled to an additional amount equal. to thirty - .

» (30) .days payment. | at the rate stipulated in paragraph 2 _

. hereof and the. reasonable. traveling-expenses of the Player

' including first-class Jet air fare and meals: en route- to his a

Remnely Diets ee

& ¢

- ae.

: 2

ss b

ats

2S kesh? porn aneer

i @ If ‘the Club proposes to terniinate this contract ee

accordance with sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph 7, the he Te

oe shall be as follows:

(1) The Clb shall request waivers. sidhieni all other |

' Major. League: Clubs. Such waiver request -must

_ state that it is for the purpose. of terminating this.

_eontract and it may not be withdrawn. sitet

sa ; Ba

Ena Sacer WARY, Dy Le

tO GN pe mye eI 4 arty, me weyerra,” wh seprotene TUR gOS! aette PA Se IRENE EMR on 8 TN GR in

“

e (2) Upon receipt of the waiver request, any. other

_ Major League Club may claim assignment of this

contract at a waiver price of $1.00, the priority of .

élaims to be determined in aecordanee with the Major

|> League-Rules, ”

(3) If this. contract is So. claimed; the ‘Club shall,

promptly ‘and~before any. assignment, notify _ the

3 Player. that it had requested waivers for the purpose |

of terminating this contract .and that the contract |

‘had been claimed.. |

( “Within 5 days after receipt. of notice of such-

clan, the Player shall be entitled, by written notice

. to. the Club to terminate this contract on the date of —

his. notice of termination. If the Player. fails so to.

notify the Club, this contract wall pea reee to the:

(5) If the cohtract q not ‘claimed, the Club shall -

_ promptly deliver written notice of termination to the -

Player at the exprition of of the waiver ee. .

ne +

"on ‘the date of ceibenlion. ga — bos the J

Club to pay thé — qempengation to sai

3 REGULATIONS

8. The Player pate as iaek of, this contract the Regu:

- lations paene on the fourth page hereof. -

Roues :

9: (a) The Club‘and the Player agree to one abide by .

and comply with all provisions of the Major League Agree-

» ‘meht, tlie Major League | Rules, the Rules or Regulations of -

_. the League of which the Club is a member, and the Profes-_

sional Baseball Rules, in effect on the date of this Uniforni

. e pee ok a5 4 ms : ; \ s a *

;

Player ’s Contract, which are not: inconsistent with the pro-

visions of this contract or the provisiongof any agreement

gt ‘between the Major League Clubs and the Major League . :

‘Baseball Players Association, provided that the Club, to-

gether with the other Clubs of the American and National

Leagues and the National Association, reserves the right to

- modify, supplement or repeal any provision of said Agree-.

‘ ment, Rules and/or Regulations in-a manner not inconsist-. .

ent with this contract or the provisions of any then existing: -

agreement between the Major League Clubs and the Major

_ League Baseball Players Association:.A copy of the Major —

‘League Agreement, the Major League Rules, the Rules or

Regulations of the League of which the Club.is a member,

—and the Professional Baseball Rules, as in effect on the date

of this Contract has|been « delivered. to Oo Player prior to.

execution of this Con ract. "24 = "3

eee, 3

DisPuTEs aa . . wate ae

(b) All disputes between the Player and the Club —

which aré covered by|the Grievance Procedure as set forth

in the Agreement between the twenty Clubs and the Ma-.

jor League baseball layers, as represesnted by the Major

League Baseball Players Association, dated February’ 19,

1968, shall be resolv in accordance with such Grievancé |

Procedure, which is i pe scree herein by reference. ~

Pootacarion “ ike a ti .

-‘(e) The Club, the League President and the en =

sioner, or any. of. the » may make public the findings, de-

cision and record of’ any inquiry, ‘investigation. or hearing

_ held or conducted; including in‘such record all evidence or. .

information, giv ans received or. obtained i in connection there--.

with.

Seon, RENEWAL

10. (a) On or before Siicais 15 (or_if a. Sunday, then |

the next ol ata business day) of thé year next ‘following

the last playing season covered by this contract, the Club

-Inay tender to the Player a contract for the term of that -

"year. by mailing the same to the Player at his addréss fol- °

lowing hjs signature hereto, or if none be given, then at his

last address of record with the Club. If prior to the March

‘ 1 next succeeding said January 15, the Player and the Club -

have not agreed upon the. terms of such contract, then on -

or before 10 days after said March 1,.the Club ‘shall have

the right by written notice to the Player at said address

to renew this contract for the period of one year on the

same terms, except that the amount payable to the Player

shall be such as the Club shall fix in said notice; provided,

however, that said amount, if fixed by a Major ‘League

Club, shall be an amount payable at a rate not less. than

- 80% of the rate stipulated for the preceding } year. _ * 3

_ (b) The Club’s right to renew this contract, as: pro-

vided i in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph 10, and the

promise of the Player not to play otherwise than with the

Club have been taken into consideration in determining the 7

aniount payable under paragraph 2 liereof.

11. This contract is subject to federal or staté legislations:

. regulations, executive or other official orders .or other gov-~

ernmental action, now or hereafter in effect respecting mil-

: itary, naval, air or other governniental service, which may

directly or- indirectly affect the.Player, Club or the League -

and subject also to the right of the Commissioner to sus-

_ pend the operation of this contract during any national

: ee y . a are”

. Cownsstoxen

12. The term’ “Commissioner” wherev er eas in this con-

tract shall be deemed to mean the Cominissioner designated °

under the Major League Agreement, gr in the case of a va-

’. e@ancy in the office of .Commissioner, the Executive Council

or such other body: or person or persons as:shall be desig-

_nated in the Major League Agreement to exercise the

powers and duties of the Commissioner during Such vacancy.

“

SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS

By VaucHan Fr. Devine : - | : « : Jf

_. (Authorized Signature) a £4

. 31

_ The Club and the Player covenant that this Joa fully:

‘sets forth all understandings and agreements between them,

and agree that no other understandings -or agreements,

whether heretofore or hereafter.made, shall be valid, recog-

nizable, vr of any. effect whatsoever, unless expressly set

forth in a new or supplemental contract executed by the

Player and the Club (acting by its president, or such other ~

officer a& shall have been thereunto. duly authorized by the.

president or Board of Directors, as evidénced by a certifi-

eate filed of record with the League President and Com-

missioner) and complying with the Major —— “Rules

and the Professional Baseball Rules. |

SPECIAL Covenants _ *

' . APPROVAL .

This‘contract or any supplement hereto shall not be valid

or effective unless and until approved by the mene Pres-

ident.

Signed in duplicate this. 3rd d day of Mareh, AD. 1969 |

- Curtis C. FiLoop

(Player)

4466 West Pine _

St. Louis, Missouri

- (Home address of Player)

Social. Security No. 556-48-5405

- Approved sea, | , 196°

Winian Gites —

‘Veaddedt National League of Pinfessiieal Baseball Clubs

Sr. -Louts Nationa BasEBALL: Cus, -Inc. P

Gen. Mgr..

-Recunations | [appended to contract]

1. The Club’s playing season for. each year hovered by:

this contract and all renewals hereof shall be as fixed by the

National League of Professional Bageball Clubs, or if this

contract shall be assigned to a Club in another League, _

then by the League of which such assignee is a member. $

2. The: Player, when requested by the Club, must submit

- to a complete physical examination at the expense of the

. Cluh,. and if necessary to treatment by a regular physician .

or dentist in good standing. Upon refusal of the Player to

submit to.a complete medical or dental examination the

Club may consider such refusal a violation of this regu-

lation and may take such action as it deems advisable un-

~ der Regulation 5 of this contract. Disability directly result-

ing from injury sustained in the course- -and within the scope

of his employinent ‘under fhis contract shall not impair the

right « of the Player to receive his fuil salary for the period

of such disability or for the season in which the injury was

sustained (whichever period is shgrter), together with the

reasonable medical and hospital éxpenses incurred by rea-

son of the injury and during the term of this contract, less —

all. workmen’s compensation payments paid or payable by

_ Yeason-of said injury; but only upon the express. prerequi-

_ Site conditions that. (a) written notice of such injury, includ-

ing the time, place, cause and nature of the injury, is served —

- upon and -received by the Club within twenty days of sus-

taining of said injury and (b) the Club shall have the right :

_to desigriate the doctors and hospitals furnishing such med-

ical- and hospital services. Any other disability may be

ground for suspending or terminating this contract at the .°

discretion. of. the Club. ;

3. The Club will furnish the Player with two pernplete:

uniforms, exclusive of shoes, which uniforms will be sur-

~rendered by the Player to, the Club at the end of the sea-

son or upon termination of this contract..

0 . oul

° a. £ me

{208 a A aT maa

;

. 4. The Club wil pay all:proper and necessary traveling ©

expenses of the Player while “abroad”, or traveling with

the Club in other cities, including board, and first-class air

and hotel accommodations, if practicable. -

During the championship ‘season, the alid'vanee for meals

and tips shall be $15 per day for each date a Club is on thé *

road and for each traveling day. No deductions will be made —

for meals served on an. airplane. . If, when a Club departs

from the home city, departure is. scheduled prior to 12:00

Noon, the Player will receive $15 for that date; if departure

is after 12:00 Noon, the Player receive $7. 50 for that

date. Returning to the home city: if arrival is later than -

«6 :00 ‘p.m. the Player will receive $15; if arrival is prior. to -

~ 6:00 p-m., the Player will receive $7.50. The Club may re-

quire the Player to sign checks’ for meals at a hotel i in leu

of the cash meal allowance. - oe

During the training season, the Player will receive an al-

' lowance of $40 per week, pay able i in advance, to cover train- .

ing camp expenses. ‘If the Player has his family i in camp ~

and is granted consent to liye away from the Club’s head-. - .

- quarters, he shall receive a meal money allowance of $12 per

day, without deduction for lunch or sandwiches served at

the ball park; and a room. allowance equal to what the Club

| actually saves on hotel expenses by reason of the Player

not staying at the Club hotel. Where the Club owns its own

facilities (such ‘as Los Angeles of Houston) where there is

* no saving, the Club will allow $2 per day per Saeae in addi-

_ tion to the $12 allowance for meals. .

-The Club will also pay the frit clad jet air — of the

Playet to his home at the end of the season, provided, how-

ever, that if the Club finishes its season “abroad” and ap-

propriate transportation is not provided back to the Club’s

home city, the Player shall be paid an amount equal to the

first-class jet air fare back to the Club’s home city plus the

first-class jet air fare from the Club’s home city to the -

Player’s. home, provided the Player elects to return home

_ via the Club’s home city. °

}. For’ violation by the Player of any “regulation or other .

provision of this contract, the Club may impose ‘a reason-

able fine and deduct the amount thereof,.from the Player’s.

_. salary or may suspend the Play er without salary for a pe- |

riod not ‘exceeding thirty days, or both. ‘Written notice of

the fine’ or suspension. or both and the reason therefore.

shall in every case be given to the Play er.

. 6. In order to enable the Player to fit himself for his

‘duties under this contract, the Club may require the Player

to report for practice at such places as. the Club may desig-

_ nate and to participate in such exhibition ¢ontests as may

be arranged by. the Club, for a period beginning not earlier

than March 1, without any other compensation than that ~

herein elsew here provided. The Club will pay the necessary

_ traveling expenses, including the first-class jet air fare and

‘meals en route of the Player from his home city: to the train-

‘ing place of the-Club, whether he be ordered to go there di-

rectly or by way of the home city of the Club. In the event

of the failure of the Player to report for practice or to par- -

ticipate in the exhibition games, as required and provided

for, he shall be required to get into playing condition to the

satisfaction of the Club’s team manager, and at the egies S

_ own expense, before his salary shall commence. ens

7.. In case of assignment of this contract the Player shall

report promptly to the assignee club within 72 hours from

the date he receives written notice from the Club of such

‘assignment, if the Player is then not more than 1600 miles

by most direct available railroad route from the assignee

Club, plus an additional 24 hours for each additional 800

: miles. :

Post-Season Exhibition Games. Major League Rule es

itsloe ti

Exhibition Games. (b) No player shall participate i in any’

| exhibition game —_— during the gt cata nae the close

aia pe ae *\ eur aeuenemall

tl idan cat Seale UE Se RTL

" Me a ie by

Miata a ies Mian south webbie §

7 35’

of the- ‘Major League ‘chananieeisliie season and the follow-: ,

ing, training~season ; -except that a Player, with the written

consent ‘of the Commissioner, may participate in exhibition

games which are played within thirty days after the close -

of the Major League championship season and which are

oe approved by the Commissioner. Player condutt, 7 off |

the field, in econnéction with: such post-season ex™pition

games shall be subject to the discipline of the Commis-.

sioner. The Commissioner shall not approve more than

three. Players of any one Club on the same team. No Player

shall participate in: any exhibition game. with or against | | a

any team which, during the current season or within one

- year, has,had any ineligible player or which is or has been

. during the current season or within one year, managed and

controlled by an ineligible player under an assumed name

or who otherwise has violated, or attempted to violate, any

exhibition game contract; or with or against any team

. which, during said season or within one year, has played _

against teams containing such ineligible players, or so man-

aged or controlled. Any player violating this rule shall be

‘ fined not less_ than’ fifty dollars ($50) nor more than five

hundred dollars. ($500), except that in no event shall such

fine be less than the consideration received by such player ;

for participating i in such game. . Rs

Revised 10/1/68,

[Exner B]

Norice 10 PLAYER i 2 No. 614

’ NOTICE TO. PLAYER OF RELEASE OR TRANSFER -

‘Natrona LEAGUE

October 8, 1969 :

To Mr.. Passe CHARLES Hiei pl ee

oe Y ou are hereby notified as follows: .

1. That you are unconditionalls y released.

2. That your contract has been assigned to the. Pile

Club of N ational League. . .

(a) Without right ap recall.

— b) With right of recall.

- (Cross out mori not ‘applicable. ‘In case of optional agreement, specify alll ¢ con-

ditions rns sede ) : F

BN de Oa A Lk hs oo tng ee a es oe

@eeeereeeereeeeeeeeeeeereseeeeeseeeeeeereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeee's SD obec een eked Cee tk eke belek ek eee eo

° . @ . t .

* ee Sr. Louis Nerowas: Ruane Cus, Inc.

‘Corporate Name of Club.

- 7 24 _ Vavouax P. DevINE

: President.

— Ouy must be delivered to vane also forwarded to President of

——_ of which ed is a wamaber, .and to the Commissioner.

- [Exuzsrr C]

BOM Rl ee = October 8, 1969 ©

- *Mr.«Curtis C. Firoop : or

‘4466 West Pine |

St. Louis, Missouri 63108. :

: Dear Curr:

’ Enclosed. herewith 4 is ‘Player Report Notice Hels cover-

- ing the OUTRIGHT assignment of your ‘eontract to the

: Philadelphia Club of the National League, October 8,. 1969.

Best of luck: -:

‘ Sincerely yours,

' Ys/ Bree Devise tt

aight Wea General Manager ae

BD :maq— aeene

Mr: Bowr K. Kunn

. New York, New York 10019

' Y 3T s

CURT FLOOD ASSOC., INC.

CURT FLOOD STUDIOS |

8007 Clayton Road.’

Or Ae . . St. Louis, Missouri 63117

ae en a! ee " PAtkview 5-3550

a | " December 24, 1969

Commissioner of Baseball.

680 Fifth Avenue

Dear Mr. KunN:

‘After twelve years in ‘the Major Leagues, I do not feel

. that I'am a piece of property to. be bought and sold itre-—

spective of my wishes. I believe that any system which’

produces that result violates my basi¢ rights as a citizen

_and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and

of the several States. :

It i is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I'am capable

of playing. I have’ received a,contract offer from the Phila-.

_ delphia Club, but I believe I have the right to consider :

offers from other. clubs before making. any decisions. I, |

therefore, request that you make known to all the Major

League Clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them .

of my miccasemes sree the 1970 season.

Sincerely yours, i pene ee i

: ; !

[sf Goer FLoop a a

Curt Flood . 2 My ABS |

CC—Mr. Marvin J. Miller.

ie —Mr. John Quinn

. ? i i . -

. , /

as Ca 38

ing 3 - y ° bd

_- f t - , ‘ >

« ‘

xem BE]

| BASEBALL —

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER .

680 FIFTH AVENUE pit a oe

pane _ NEW YORE, ¥.1 y. 10019

Bowr K. Kuny

COMMISSIONER De ‘Clinbons 212- 205.0200

a Ce a pene ae

. Dear Curt: :

This will pchiurniedet your Detter of December 24, 1969, *

which I found on returning to my office yesterday. , iN

ae certainly agree with you that you, as a iain being, ———

are not'a piece of property to be bought and sold. That is ©

' fundamental in our society and I think obvious. owever, I

\ cannat see its, appheability to Ace situation at hand: -

gotiated over, the years between the clubs and the players,

. most recently when | the present Basic Agreement was ne- _

. godtiated two: ns ago between the clubs and os cian

; Association. 2 ie

. If you have any specific objection to the scopy ofthe.

: assignment, I would appreciate your specifying the objec-

tion. [Under the circumstances, and pending any further in- |"

ormation from you, I do not see what action I can take and .

cannot comply with the: Tequest contained in the second -

paragraph of your letter.

_I am pleased to: see your statement that you. desire to’

y: ~ play baseball i in a 197 0.1 a it this pats to rest any. a.

as spines earlier i in th e press, that you were © conideting ae

: bs tec se ve

! anipeipseaunny

me Keke A Se

BER

Curr Fioop & Assoc; Inc.

- $007 Clayton Road 5

‘ St. Louis, Missouri 63117

ee: Mr. Maniax J. Miauzazm

_ ée¢: Mr. Vauenan P. (Bux) Devore ; Ss oe .

ee: Mr. Joun J. i ane 7 a ee Z

“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ae _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

: Givil Action ae wee

70 Civ. 202

~ against = | spol

Bowl K. Kuny; et al., Defendants |

The defendant Bowie K. Kuhn, by his attorneys, Dono-

van Leisure, Newton & Irvine, and Arnold & Suen

answers thé Complaint as follows: :

First Defanse,

The defendant says as follows wi om to the og

graphs of the Complaint: - - a

ee Defendant “a that the action purports to arise

“. under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act as alleged im

paragraph 1 and that the Plaintiff secks to inyoke the

ae ft ee : fo

7 aS : ‘ner or tliat the (Court hae jurisdiction thereunder.

* 2: The allegations 0 of paragraph 2.are admitted.

Pa Bs & Bare, oe of: the first Sentence of paragraph 3.

Meme of the. S <th sentence. of. paragraph 3-are ‘denied, “ex. |

é “cept: that defen t Kuhn admits. the defendant: clubs are

w * . -ehgaged’i in the. busmess of exhibiting baseball games. |

4. With respect: ‘tothe allegations ‘of paragraph 4, ‘de-

“fondant -admits that.-under present concepts of. interstate

- commerce defendants are engaged therein, ‘but says that,

their activities are not subject to-the antitrust laws. ‘The

other allegations of paragraph 4are denied. ‘

o §. Defendant admits the allegations of the: frst, phateiies s

. The allegations of the second, boners fourth onal |

ae > of subparagraphs :(a) through (d)-of paragraph 5; and, on

information: and ‘belief, ,the second ‘sentence of. subpara::

igraph (a) thereof. Defendant is without*information suf-

ae ‘S allegations’ ‘of paragraph 5. «

6. Subject to- the response made to mene e 4, defend-.

_»—~ ant denies.all the allegations of paragraph 6, except that he

- adimitis that receipts. from, the box office’and radio and tele-

vision have increased since 1950. ’

% 2h |

.'%, As to the allegations of nathaiagh 7, Fas niahte

“that there-are approximately 125 minor ‘Teague élubs; that’ _

‘the defendants, together ‘with’ these’ clubs, are’ sometimes. ,

Ne various’ agreements among defendants and between defend-'

ee “ants and‘the minor league clubs. and leagues. The. remain-

Se. ~ ing: allegations of paragraph 7 are denied. © ies

— In rekard to the allegations. of paragraph 8, defeea-

ant — ‘that. age is Commissioner of Baseball. AU other oC

4 et *

ficient to” form .a beligf as to. the. truth of the. remaining Nolte

_» Feferned ‘to as. “Organized Baseball,” and that there are.

“>

ne Sox eee Se ae er .

too SB ee dee he ei es tus | eee

diaaiiete of salient 8 are denied, and plaintiff i is re-

ferred to,the present Major League: Agreement and Rules

and the Professional Baseball Agreement and Rules for a —

more complete and accurate vigcatanioae of the powers and ;

"duties of the Commissioner. :

a ‘9. ‘The allegations of paragraph 9a are admitted.

10. The allegations of paragraph 10 are admitted:

; 1. The allegations of paragraph 11 are denied, except

it is admitted that (a) minor league clubs are members of

‘minor leagues which, in turn, aré meimbers of the National _

Association of Professional Baseball Leagues ;- (b) these

clubs recognize and submit ‘to’ the jurisdiction of the Com-

missioner of Baseball to the extent set forth in the Pro- .—

fessional. Baseball Agreement; and, (c) each defendant: club

gither o7 owns, is affiliated with or has a working arrangement

with one or more minor league clubs.

2. The allegations of paragraph 12 are denied.

"13 The ‘allegation that Defendant New York Yankees, .

Inc. is ‘owned. by the Columbia Broadcasting System is ad-

mitted. All other allegations of: paragraph 13 are denied.

14. The: allegations of paragraph 14 are denied.

15: The allegations of paragraph 15 are denied.

16. The. allegations ef paragraph 16 are denied omen

plaintiff.is referred to the uniform contract and the. Major.

» >League and Professional Baseball Rules for a niore accu:

_ rate description of the reserve system. :

17. The allegations of paragraph 17 are deuléa: and again |

"plaintiff is referred to the Major Lange 8 and Professional oe

Baseball Rules. . °

- 18. The allegations of disiiatiaials 18 are on

‘1S. The allegations of paragraph 19 are eduitied. }

20. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to, form ;

; al a —— as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 20.

42 -

21. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge#to form a ,

belief as to the truth of all allegations in the first sentence

of paragraph 21: Defendant admits the allegations in para-

graph 21 that plaintiff sent him the letter dated December -

24, 1969, Which i is annexed to plaintiff’s Complaint as Ex-

hibit “p” and that defendant sent plaintiff the letter of —

| December 30, 1969, which is annexed to plaintiff's Com- _

_ plaint as Exhibit “E”. The — allegations of para- .

erage 21 are denied. |

"22. The allegations of paragraphs 99 through py are

denied.

23. ‘As to the allegations in parciashe 95 aieotal 50, ;

of the plaintiff’s Complaint, defendant Bowie K. Kuhn has

not been nained:as a defendant to the. causes of action al-

- leged therein, and therefore no response to them is re- -

: quired.

7 The allegations: of es 51 are denied.

' Second Defense

This Court does not have jurisdietion over the subject :

_ matter of this action.

Third Defense ‘

The first cause of action in the Co laint fails to state

a claim against this defendant upon which relief: can be.

granted. .

Fourth Defense

The Court lacks jurisdiction of the first. cause of aaben

‘because the reserve system, against which the first cause -

of action is,directed, is the subject of collective bargaining

under, the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, is

| embodied i in the Basic Agreement of January 1, 1968, be-

tween the players and the deféndants other than Kuhn, and

is the subject of continuing. collective” bargaining between

said parties.

e . ~\

Fifth’ Defense >

The laws of the United States, iffcluding but not limited

to the Norris-LaGuardia and the Clayton Acts, ‘preclude

, baa Court from erring: piaton® the relief he has requested. .

"Sixth De fense |

The National Labor Relations Board has primary juris-

ia _ diction over the issues raised by the first cause of action.

| Defendant does not, by raising the defenses herein,-admit

that as to such defenses he has the burden of proof.

Dated: N ew York, New. York

| ; May 4, 1970

' . Donovan LEISURE Wists & ee ;

By /s/ Georce 8. LEISURE, JR.

A Member of the Firm :

2 Wall Street . ss

New York, New York 10005 |... ~ ; 4s ats

Telephone No. AC 212, 732-4100

ARN OLD & PorTER

-By /s/ Victor H. Kramer »

A Member of the Firm

. 1229 Nineteenth Street; N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036.

Telephone,No. AC 202, 223-3200

Attorneys for Defendant Kuhn

Of Counsel:

Paut A. Porter

Victor H. Kramer

Dove.as. G. Rosrnson

Grorce S. Lersure, JR.

Joun E. Tosrn —

UNITED STATES. DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -

70 Civ. 202:

. a c. Fioop, Plaintiff, .

| - against -

— Ke. Kuny, Individually and as Commissioner of —

_ Baseball, Crapixs S.. FEeney,. Individually and as

President of the National . ‘League . of Professional

. Baseball Clubs,. Josepxu E. Crom, Individually and-as

President. of the American League of Professional

- Baseball Clubs,. Artanta Braves, -Inc., Cxicaco

NATIONAL Lakes Batt Crus, THE Credrrnain Reps,

- Inc., THE Houston Sports Assoctarion, os ANGELES

Doveers, Inc., MONTREAL BASEBALL Cuius Ltp., Merro-

POLITAN BaseBALL CuUvB, INc., PHILADELPHIA NaTIonaL

| LEAGUE CLus, PrirtssuRGH Avateric Co., Ing. re . 2

Louts - NationaL BaskpaLt Crus, Inc., San Dreco -

_Papres, San Francisco Grants’ BaseBaLt Civus, Bauti-

MORE BaseBat Cvs, INc., Boston Rep Sox, CLEVELAND

* Inprans, Int., Derrorr Basepatt Cius, New York

Yanxees, Inc., Toe WAsHincton Senators, Inc,, Gor -

DEN WEstT .BasEBALL Co., Catcaco Wurirte Sox, Kansas

Crry Royats BasepaLu:Cius, Mrynesota Twins, Inc.,

OAKLAND ATHLETICS, and Pactric NorYHwest Srorrs, |

Inox, . ae

Defendants.

Answer of Defendants “Other ‘Than fowl K. Kuhn. .

‘Commissioner of Baseball nae

. First Autectp Cause OF’ Action |

The answering efenrdedite, CHARLES S. FEEvey, adits :

ally and as President of The National League of Profes- °

sional Baseball Clubs, Josep E. Cronry, individually and

- as President of The American League of peinesaaees

fi.

Baseball Clubs, Attanta Braves, Inc., Caicaco NationaL

LeaGue Batt Cuivs (Inc.) sued perein as Chicago National _

League Ball Club, Crxcrynati Reps, Lxc., sued herein as

The Cincinnati Reds, Inc.; Houston Sromts' ASSOCIATION

‘sued herein as The Houston Sports. Association, Los

AncrLes Doncers, Inc., MonrTrREAL BasEBALL PARTNERSHIP .

-Ree’p sued hersin as Montreal Baseball Club Ltd., Metro-

POLITAN BaseBaLL Crus, Ivc., THE. PHILADELPHIA Nasiowat

'Leacur Cius sued herein as Philadelphia National League

Club, PrrrssurcH ATHLETIC Company, Inc. sued herein. as

Pittsburgh Athletic Co., Inc., St. Louis. Natrona BasEBALL

Civ,’ Inc., San Dreco Paint Nationa ExHIBITIion Com-

PANY\sued hortdn as San Francisco Grants’ BasEBALL Cvs, 7

BartrMore Basesat, Cis, Inc., Boston Rep Sox, A Trust

_ sued herein as Boston Red Sox, CLeveLanD Inpians, Inc.,

Joun KE. Ferzer, Inc. sued herein as Detroit Baseball Club,

New York Yankess, Ixc., Toe Senators, Evc., sued herein

as The Washington Senators, Inc., GoLDEN Waser BasEBALL

. Company sued herein as Golden West Baseball Co., Art-

- NELL CoMPANY, Cxicaco Wurre Sox DrvisIon, ‘sued herein .

as Chicago pega Sox, Kansas Crry Royats‘BaseBatu Cor-.

PORATION sued herein as Kansas City Royals Baseball Club, ©

MINNESOTA Twrys,. Inc., CHartes O.. Fryzzy anp Company,

Inc., OAKLAND Avmracee Division, sued herein as Oakland

‘Athletics, and_Pactric Norrawest Sports, Inc., by their

attorneys, Witter Farr & Gautacuer, for their answer be

_ the first alleged cause of action:

1. Deny.the allegations sonny in. paragraph 1 of the

complaint.

1 Admit the allegations sectainedd in paragraph 2 of the

complaint.

3. Deny the sikiaationi icabains in the first sentence of |

paragraph 3 of the complaint except that they admit that,

- the defendants are among the major figures -and entities

comprising major league professional baseball. Admit the

oe eontained in the second, third, fourth and fifth

p senile of paragraph 3. of the scien: Deniy the alle-

7 gations contained in the sixth sentence of paragraph 3 of

‘the complaint, exeept that they. admit that the..Major.

League Clubs are engaged in the business of exhibiting:

baseball games and activities incidental thereto.

4, Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the

complaint, except that they admit that the nena Clubs |

are engaged in interstate commerce. |

+B. Deny havi ‘ing any knowledge or ‘aPonvenhinm sufficient

’ to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations éontained

in paragraph 5:-of the complaint, except that they admit a

that the baseball games staged by the club defendants are

"sometimes broadcast on national radio and television net-

works and on-local radio and television stations; that the

staging of baseball games. by the club defendants requires

travel, communication, movement of equipment and pur-.

‘chases of equipment and supplies. in interstate-eommerce ;

‘that the club defendants sometimes sell tickets, employ |

agents and advertise across staté lines and sometimes em-

ploy facilities of interstate communications; and that in

_ 1969 the club defendants collectively derived from box

office ’ receipts ‘of baseball esa sums in excess of

$25,000,000. :

6.. Deny haying any knowledge or informatio’ sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained

in. paragraph 6-of the complaint, except that they deny |

_ that the'revenue from television exceeds that derived from

box office receipts and deny the allegations: contained in

the last sentence of said paragraph. eee: ‘ rs

og, Deny the allegations. ‘contained in 1 paragraph T of the

complajnt;. except that they admit that the club defendants,

togetier ¥ with more than 125 major league baseball elubs,

comprise what is commonly ealled “Organized Baseball”

and that various written agreements have been entered.

_ into among the Major. League Clubs and Leagues and be- .

tween them and the minor ‘league clubs and leagues.

ee rane

- ee

8. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the

complaint, except that they admit that defendant Kuhn, |

as Commissioner of Baseball, has the powers and duties

set forth in the Major League Agreement and Rules and

thé Professional Baseball Agreement and Rules, copies of

which are contained in the Baseball Blue Book. annexed -

hereto as Hxhibit A. :

9. Admit the allegations contained in paragraph 9. of the

‘eomplaint.

_ (10, Admit the allegations contained i in paragraph 10 of

'. the complaint. -

11. Deny the. eilenitings cotaiaal in sidaeenal 11 of

the complaint, except that they admit that the minor.

leagues, composed of minor leagu® clubs, are niembers of

the National. Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, —

and that said leagues recognize the. office of the Commis-.

. sioner of Baseball and his jurisdiction to the extent set

-- forth in'the Professional Baseball Agreement, a copy of

which is contained in Exhibit A hereto, and that each of |

the club defendants either owns, or is affiliated with, or

has working arrangements with certain minor league clubs.

12. Deny the allegations contained i in paragraph 12 of the

complaint. .

13. Deny the silegiticoe sient in paragraph 13 of.

‘the complaint, except that they admit that the defendant

‘New York Yankees, Inc., is owned wed the Columbia Brosd-

casting System, tne. ;

14, ‘Deny the allegations contained i in paragraph t 14 of the !

oo complaint. ;

15. Deny the allegations etateiied i in paragraph 15 of the :

complaint:

16. Deny the iiepiisien contained in paragrayh 16 of the —

complaint, except that they admit that in the Uniform

Player’s Contract, the Major. League Rules, the Profes-

° 48 . Ze ;

rs sional Baseball Rules: and ihe Basic Agréement between

the defendant Clubs and the Major League Baseball

Players Association, certain terms and conditions are pro-_ -

vided for the employment and eligibility of players and the

reservation and assignment of player contracts and beg

‘leave to refer to the provisions of the Uniform Player’s

Contract, the Major League Rules, the Professional Base“

bali Rules. ‘_ said Basic Agreement for the precise terms eo

thereof:

17. Deny the allegations contained 1 in paragraph 17 of the —

complaint.

.- 18. Deny the allegations siibeiek in paragraph 18 of the

complaint.

_ “Admit the aise: ——e- in ‘paragraph 19 of

‘the complaint.

20. Deny the allegations Sntinadl in satiiilags 20 of the.

* complaint, except” that they admit that the plaintiff was |

-notified of thé assignment of his contract by the letter an- -.

_ nexeéd to ‘the complaint as Exhibit C, the card annexed to

the conplaint as Exhibit B and was otherwise informed of

; such assignment. —

— eh “Deny viet any Knowle or tulotmation sufficient: |

to form a belief as to the truth of each and every allega-'

tion contained in paragraph 21 of the complaint, except

that they admit that the letters annexed to the complaint

as Exhibits D and E-were sent and received.

29. Deny tlie allegations cantained i in paragraph 22 of the 3

se complaint. |

23. Deay the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of the

complaint.

24. Deny the. allegations contained i in petagter 24 of the

: —. 3

vast

am 5 é 3 4

: spe ° = A

i ae

7 Seconp ALLEGED CAUSE OF Action

The defendants named in the second alleged: cause

action,” by their attorneys, WILLKIE FARR & G

’ LAGHER, for their’ answer to the second — cause of

action :

. 25, eas the tlegationse contained i in paragraph 25 of the

complaint.

26. ‘Deny having any knowledge or ice sufficient |

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained .

in the first sentence of paragraph 26 of the complaint. Ad-

mit that defendant Montreal Baseball Partnership Reg’d

sued herein as Montreal Baseball Club, Ltd., is 4 Canadian

partnership. Admit the allegations pombninidl 3 in the third - %

sentence of paragraph 26 of the complaint, except that they

'-. deny that the Baltimore Baseball Club, Ince. is,a citizen of

_ a state other than Missouri. Deny the allegations contained

in the fourth sentence of paragraph. 26 of the complaint.

_ 27. In aswer to the allegations contained in paragraph 27

of the complaint, repeat and reallege each and-every allega-.

“tion contained in paragraphs 2, 7 through 13, 15 through *.

17, and 19 through 22 of this answer, with the same force |

| and e ffect as if herein again set forth in full.

28. Deny the. allegations contained in paragraph 28 of |

the complaint.

29. Deny the allegations contained i in Paragraph: 29 of the. 7

i complaint.

30. Deny ‘ihe allegations scninined t in paragraph 30 of the

_ complaint.

31. In. answer to the allegations contained in ‘paragraph.

31 of the complaint, repeat and reallege the denial contained

in peragraph 24 of this answer.

ee Tr ALLEGED Cause OF Aortox

The defendants named in the third alleged cause of ac-

, tion, by their attorneys, WILLKIE FARR. & GALLA-

? the conipiaint.

GHER, for their answer to the-third alleged cause of action: -

82. In answer to the allegations contained in paragraph

32 of the complaint, repeat and reallege each and every al-

legation contained in paragraphs 25, 26, 2, 7 through 13,15

through 17,-and 19 through 22 of this answer, with the same

force and effect as if herein again set forth in full.

- 33. Deny the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of :

” "34. Deny the allegation Pine in paragraph a4 of *

the complaint. i

oe In. answer to the allegations. scutalnd ' in eareer :

’ 25 of the complaint, repeat and reallege the. denial contained

in 5 eee A 24 of this answer. | : 7

Fourra AuteceD Chins OF Acr1ox

The defendants named in the fourth alleged. cause of :

action, by their ° attorneys, WILLKIE FARR & GAL-

LAGHER, for their answer to the fourth alleged cause: of

- action: 7

' 36. ei the: Whcetinas contained i in paragraph * of.

the complaint. :

37. Deny the allegations. contained in » paragraph 37 of

the complaint. re

38. In answer to the allegations esintatehd in paragraph

” 3G <o8, the complaint, repeat and repllege each-and every

: allegation contained in paragraph 2, 7 through 13, 15 through

17, and 19 through 22 of this answer, with the ‘ same force fl

and effect as if herein again set forth in full. - |

39. Deny the allegations contained: in paragraph 39 of,

the complaint.

. 40.. Deny the: oe contained in + paragraph 4 40 of

the complaint. . ee :

41. Deny the allegations contained in. paragraph 41 of.

the complaint. :

. 2 \ 51

42. Der having any knowledge or information sufficient. .

to form a belief as to the truth of the reusouas contained

in paragraph 42 of the i coc ,

5 Fyist/ ‘Sousa DEFENSE TO “THE Attecep CauSEs OF

Action .on Benatr or Each ANSWERING DEFENDANT ~~

AGarnst Wom oi’ Wuicu Eacu Suc ‘Cause or Ac-

. TION Is Asseprsp: ,

\ 43. This Court. lacks juriediction of the chaos matter - | ae

- of all of the causes. of action alleged i in the complaint and

‘specifically : 3

_- fa} As to the First Alleged. Cues: of idiom the ac-

tivties of the defendants complained of by the plaintiff are

- exempt from the application of the federal antitrust laws;

(b). As’ to “the Second and Third Alleged Causes of -

. Action, the activities of the defendants complained of by .

. the plaintiff are national and interstate in character and

"the relief: requested by the plaintiff would, if granted, con-

- stitute (i) an unreasonable ‘burden v;.9n interstate com- —

‘merée in violation of the Federal Constitution, (ii) an‘un-

lawful regulation of a national activity requiring uniform... "

ity of regulation, of baseball, and_(iv) interference with”

_ federal labor relations policy.

Blanouss Avrisative DEFENSE TO ALL THE Causes or Ac-

- TION ON BEHALF OF Eacn ANSWERING DeFENDANT

Acarnst WHom on Wuicn Eacu SucH Cause or Ac-

TION IS ASSERTED. “

. 44. Each! such cause of action ‘fails. to state a claim

against the respective answering defendants upon which

relief mgs be sage : a

ee . ann Fourtu Aina eet ES, OF pees ON Bankes OF

Ps . Eacu ANSWERING DEFENDANT . Acaryst Wom or

Wy. HICH, Eact Suc ‘CAUSE or Action 1s ASSERTED. .

. we: °

3. “The plaintiff's claims aregpart of - a labor dispute and

ary eet ‘Sige of the controversy is in the. Na-

tional Labor ns Board. De a ee .

Sat Bere

- < Fourta AFFIRMATIVE Derren ‘0 THE First, Seconp, Tu

_AND FovurtH ALLEGED Cavses OF Ark NON BEHALF oF |

“Each ANSWERENG ‘DereNDANT. Acarnst “Wo “Op

oe HICH. Eacu Sucu.: Cause: or Action Is eAssgRTED. ond

46, The. plaintiff's s clainis are part of a labor ‘dispute and.

the Norris-LaGuardia. and Clay ton Acts preclude - this

“ ourt from granting an injunction: te :

4 — Firra Acotisinseve DEFENSE TO THE Secon” AND Tun.

| Goes er Causes OF Action ON BEHALF or Eacw Ay-.

4 SWERING: DEFENDANT AGarNst W. HOM OR. Wuicn Eacu

Svucw CAUSE oF ACTION IS ASSERTED.”

47, There is a défeet of parties defendant By reason of

thé failure to join indispensable parties in the aoe

third causes of action, namely (i) those defenda ts named

as defendants in the-first cause: of ‘action but not named: as

defendants in the second and third causes of action, each

Po of whom has a direct: interest in the controversy which,

eee of such a nature. that a final deeree granting ‘the ‘relief

; prayed .for by the plaintiff cannot be made without. affect-

ing said interest and i injuring their ability to protect, such

ore interest; (ii) The Major League Baseball Players Associa-: .

“a > Hon, an. ‘unincorporated association, which has a direct in-

ss terest in the controversy which is ‘of such a nature that a

a final decree granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff can-

not be. made ‘without affecting’ said interest and affecting ;

’ their’ ability to proteet such interest. Final disposition of

: this’ action: in the absence of said_par ies would-leave the

—

Me "93, :

a . . Ke a ‘e

X en o. a ‘ se

‘controversy in F condlit tio wholly” inconsistent Ww ith oe,

. -and good conse nee.

e ke \ HEREFORE, ‘defendants ‘denata’ jtidgment dismissing

the complaint hereia together with the costs ‘and disburse-

oecor of. Hug action: ie os Be

| : Witte Farr & GALLAGHER

.. By /s/ Marx F:Huenes -

(A Member of the Firm)

Attorneys for all Defendants -

See: except Bowie K: Kuhn ©

-¥\ Office & P.O. Address

[Exhibit ° a ts the Baséball Blue Book, is nchoded ‘in. tha:

2 copies are. —e filed. with the Court}.

> ae a Ae | Chase Manhattan Plaza

eee New York, New York 10005

A ae 3100 . 7 a

Pes _ EXHIBIT. A:

3 Exhibit ‘Vv olume as Plaintiff? S = S and separate . i

,t@

’

‘or

eBay

° e

0 S

” | ny

NSIT TINS EIU RNW e Boge Ip

rags

, i . Fr .

- a = +sh

< t : as, Boe ee

* “+ ; “¢

° 2 Lode cas .

a % el é ' Be oe

a: cd . oot ae Be

~ — -* re"

eee * . ’

~ Nee x “ P: : &

002704 UNITED stein COURT. ier as é 1 i

i . SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF: NEW YORK ~ 7 ake

ASE a bi ha FS! ht . er ore ss Se Re ere : “

: ie. : = ba . . et F + : oe by et i

Uate®, Ach hs ye oipeapa ae Be

ee Ly : Optxion No.5 Caer ae

3 ee eee ea, ee Sees

pe pom ¢ C1 Fused, Plaintif,. ot

“ § — against ~ ee eer ee

Spowns, K. Kune, Individually and as, Sommissioner of

“Baseball, Cuaries SS. ‘FEENEY, Attdividqally’ and. as °

_ President of the National League of > rofessional.”

Baseball.Clubs, (JOsePH E. Croxts, Individually. and as

‘President of the “American League of Professional

"Baseball Clubs, » ATLANTA. Suave. {xe Cresco

NaTIONAL Leacve BALL snes THE ‘CrxcryNatt Reps, *

* Txe., THe Hovston Sports ‘ASSOCIATION, Los. ANGELES -

Donoers, Txc., MonTREAL Basdieats: Crus Lop.,. XeEtTRo- -

--. * POLITAN | "BASEBALL. Cvs, Ixc., PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL ;

LeAcue Cuvus, . PITTSBURGH “Arutetic Co., Ivc., St.

* Lovis Nationau- Basesati -Civs,. Ixc., San Disco:

— Papres, San. Fraxcisco Grants’ BasepaL-CLUpy Batt

ar de Basepaty Cive, Ixc., Boston Rep Sox, CLEvELAyD.

. Isprans, Ive., Detrorr Basesa . Cit, : New York _

_ YANKEES, Inc., THE WasHrNcTON Senators, Inc., Got

‘pen West, Basesate: Co., CHICAGO: WuiteE ‘Sox; Kaysas

Crr¢ Royars Basresatt Cvs, MrxNesora Twas, Ive, .

*Seesaile ATHLETICS, and Pacrric Nortuwest Sports,

‘Inc.

ae . re Paes “‘Defendanis.

“Tia in ah ction biroinedt by plaintiif Curtis Cc. Flood, a.

rast a8 ine peer baseball ‘player, to enjoin

+ 3 > Plaintiff also seeks sictait treble damages both in addition to

injunctive relief end.) in the alternative if equitable relief is denied.

’ : ; ; 7 .

” plendéiig-aeveral major ‘paiptié idsebalh habe: ‘the: Saniiy-

-viean' and National Leagues: of Professional Baseball ‘Clubs,

7 Ne Commissioner éf Baseball, and ¢ertainnanied individ-

, “als—from ‘enforei ing- organized” ‘baseball's res@rvewsy si

: “against him? Plaintiff, now moves ‘for a ‘prelimina ey ine”

‘ juriction enjoining’ during the pendenev of this action ‘Gach

baseball elub. defendant from: refusing to offer employ thert-

- to him as a baseball plays,’ ‘pursvart. to an grraagement

among the clubs witch: constitutes, the reserve system, and’

~ each individual defendant fron taleng any. caption in’ A a SEA

= therance of such arrangement.’ fe. : i

The application now. ‘before, ‘us mreseliba a jpure quéeiion”

“personal preference. Regirdless of ‘our determination, of -

the present application, the merits of ‘the. suit, itsélf have

yet to be resolved ata full trial.” et ae :

ee ‘Octoher; 1969 the contracts. of ‘inint et dnd ae, a

-other, ballplayers for the St.Louis National Baseball Club: |

‘were“assigned to the Philadelphia N ‘ational League Club in a

exchange for the contracts of. certain players for the. Philé-

~ delphia Club. Plaintiff objects: té this “trade”. and refuses

EC OY join. the Philadelphia Club, claiming as unlawful the :

reserve system. " "Ex Sake as a Bek

©. Essentially plaintiff's attack is directed against t re-

2 :

" z

: Sof law. Accor dinghy, our. daty: ‘prohibits ’ either- the-exercise ;

of unrestricted ‘diseretionary power or an expression of

serve system which pee heen” in e effect for nearly one nun=-

? Fifth Cant ot Action seeks’ to enjoin: certain other lleged Nes

practices of two of the defendant ball clubs Ww hich a are not relev ant -

. to plaintiff's s° ‘present motion. to x

. Plaintiff: has ‘agreed to be confined i in this pplication Yor a pre-

liminary. injunction to thé facts that are admitted- on: both sides ~

and not in eontrov ersy® He\does not seek an ey identiary hearing

. te resolve such faefs as may be i in a Transcript of Argument,

nary 3. -1970,p. 4. ; “%

clusions of law necessar , to.our determination in aecordanee. Ww ith

Rule 52(a), FRCP seas. a: ees Paws

eo” %-

This opinion constitu tes this ‘Court’s. ‘findings of fact cand. con- .

nae ‘ ae $ / if 3 4 4 ee is 5. ¢ ° .-

aunt years and whieh he charges’ is unlawfal in a: sriumber, :

_y/ of respects under four: separate causes of action. Each’

gy _ - seeks.a declaration of the illegality of this:reserve system

ate and an injunction restraining its operation’ as to him. First -

| PHF is a federal, laim: that’ this éonstitutgs an unreasonable

yi sof: ~ . pestraint of” ‘trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust

“1 4h, Sy KetlA5 US. C. §§1 and 2. His -second.and third are state -

Lipase law. elaims for violations of the ‘antitrust laws and ‘eom-

- nion Jaw respectively where. jurisdiction i is based on divers |

"sity .of. citizenship. His fourth eause of action alleges that -

oe SR system. subjects, him : ‘to..a condition. of involuntary

( _ servitude in, \violation of the -Thirteerith Amendment and —~

-‘eertain federal civil rights and, labor statutes, 18°. Sc.

. ve 42 U S. c: $1994, and 29 U. S.C. ae and 103.

ome pore The ners Sisto

: Titatreserve system: ( els known as the “réserve clause”) ~

is’ the Heart of plaintiff's complaint, No player’ secking to

.+. °» play baseball. professionally in this country can! avoid its* ¥

‘strictures since it applies to, all clubs in both ‘the major.

, > and eae leazues and thus all of organtzed baseball. The ||

-. effect of this system is to restrict: a player throughout his

. basebal¥ hfe. to’ négotiate with only one club at any one -

ti e; a club being either the one with which, he begins .

his -areer Or the club to which his contract is assigned. _

"sb 8

: ment Mt the ‘following baseball rules and solaktack terms.

-_Rule-3}o0f the Major League Rules and Professional Base-

‘ball Rules * agréed'to by all professional: baseball clubs re-

oS - quires that each elub contract with its ‘players. onky pur-

» ~ *- guant to the\Uniform Players ‘Contract and specifically that

aoe ““no club shall make a.contract . . . containing: a non--

. reserve clause.” The U niform Player’s Contract provides in -

B soe part that if in the. year. of- expiration of the contract @

player and a club’do not reach agreement on.a new cov-.

i ik! sey Q- oa

“eS * Applicable to minor league clubs.

>»

; Rules. eae 4

. and

tract by.a certain ie dae the cub may é malisborelly 2 renew the

existing contracts subject, to cértain salary controls. Such ~

_reneyal contract would: itself contain this renewal clause.

The ‘club with Ww hieh a ballplayer initially ‘signs thus has.a a

right to his services for slong: as it wishes to yenew his «<

contract, subject only to. shis right to retire from baseball.-

a”.

Another section of this same: Uniform’ Contract provides :

that a player’s contract may be assigned, without his ap-

~ proval, to any other major. league elgb.i in accordance with

the baseball, rules, eae

To insure respect for Gem contract rights once obtained =

by a club, Rutile 4A of the Major League arid Professional ne

Baseball Rules’ provides tliat each. cluh may ‘place its play-

ers on a reserve list, including any of its player who volun-

—tarily retire or w bd fail to report to or contratt. with the

* elub, “and thereafter no player on any list’ shall be eligible: ©

40 play ‘for or negatiate with any other: club until his con-—

; tract has been. assigned or-he has been released.” ® Addi-.

“tionally, Rule 3( g) of: the Major League and Professional ox

' Baseball Rules binding en all clubs prohibits ai any “tamper: oe

ing” with the players for any club by any other club. 5 ae es

eae eee "Introduction = pats = eee :

“* Basebell-has-beeir the: national ‘pastime for over one hun: ~

. dred years and enjoys’ a unique place in. our. American

heritage. Major league professional baseball i is avidly fo]- -.

lowed by - millions ‘of fans, looked\ upon with fervor and

re § See ales Rule 15 of the Major League and Profesional Baseball

Rule 32) provides: “[t]o ipline and competition,

€.enticement .of players . . > there shall. be no

negotiations or dealings respecting employment, either present. or

prospective, between any player . . . and any club other than the’

: ub with whieh he is under contract or aceeptdnee of terms, or by

List. .

which , he- ” reserved, or which has the Player on its Negotiation

—

‘

. he

ey ‘

° capa

eS de

. .

. ‘*

- he

wast

: ‘

wigs

4 he f 2

PERE Nene reengpaNeene Agony Mas

—

>. £

o that plaintiff and ‘defendants each belieye=the m

eart: Tn. general, defendants . ;

88S

eo ‘pride waa provides a special source of inspiration and com. te

Reeve team spirit especially for the young. © - :

"Baseball’s stgtus in the life of the nation is ‘so pervasive

ae that it Would not strain eredulity to say the Court can take ~

judicial notice that baseball is evérybody’s- business, ‘To put.

~ it mildly arid with restraint, it would be unfortunate indeed -

- if.a fineSport and profession, which brings surcease.from _

‘daily Aravail and an escape from the ordinary to most in- 2.

habitants of this land, were to suffer in the least because — |

. of sundue coneentration by any one ‘or any group on com...

mercial and. profit considerations. The game is on higher

Hs ground; it behooyv es, every one to keep it there. :

From what ‘the papers before: us reflect, we are ¢

‘best ‘intérests ‘of the game at

-eonténd” that. the 4

ve .system is essential] to prevent a

ie _relapsé into the instability” of those early years of profes.

sional baseball when players ‘were free; to change teams. «

Plaintiff, and apparently | the Major. League Baséball Play-

ers A‘ssociation too,<coneede. the! need for some form of.”

_Teserve on players, but argué that these: ts asd ean be

: : met by a less restrictive sy stem.”

: The tip n may well he far t6o tightand it? Thay. he ae to:

loosen the bonds w ithott permitting the slightest sag to

the body of the game. How ever, courts do not sit as “arbi- :

_,trators.: We | ve no power to devise and enforce alterna-

tives to the préesxe nt reserve system ‘that, _may acesmmodate

the interests of both parties. oe.

The sole question before us is whether plaintiff has made

' the necessary shawing to entitle him to a preliminary in-

junction -restraining the operation of the reserve system .

and making plaintiff ‘a free agent pending a final resolution

a upon a trial of the substantial issues of fact and law pre-

sented hy this lawsuit. Under recognized, principles, applie-

able to motions for. préliminary injunetive relief, the Court |

+ ds constrained to deny the motion: This however is. thie first

\ Cir. 1963); Unicon Manage ment Corp. v. Koppers.Co., supra.

C0. ¥. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 ( 2d Cir. 1953). 2: >

ln ee ee

inning.. We are simpl

. ’

aaeee

=. F

> e ‘

- . ¢ a *

> . I . > F % -

% 59 2

. Stay Mp For, Isstance or A Previminary IntuNCrrIOS

_The general purpose of ‘a preliminary

ultimately resolved on e-merits.’ It is an: extraqrdinary,

remedy, to be. issue donly reluctantly and where the ‘right. _

to the reliefs clear.* “A clear showing of probable success -

aed Possible:irréparable injury” is heeessary.° oe

Or cia . jaw el he

Where there is a “lack of adequate showing of ‘irrepar-

able damage” the party Seeking a preliminary: injunction ~ -

must conyince the court with reasonable certainty. that it _

will ultimately succeed.” However, where the “balance: of |

hardships tips decidedly* toward the party requesting the —

temporary relief,” the burgensof showing probable success

lessens to a requirements that e raise “questions going to —

the ‘merits: so. serious, substay(tial and difficult as-to make |: °

_ them a fair ground for litigation-and thus for more delib-

erate investigation.” " The likelihood of suecess is “merely

Ve ; deciding that at this initial stage of <

the lawsuit, plaintiff is not entitled to the substance of the -

ulimate. rélief he seeks: ae SA Soe GS Gn mal

a ei ya ad

Junction is to -

maintain and preserve.the status¢ u6 until the case can be. :

t Enicon Managément Corp. x. Kop ers Co. 366 F.2d 199: 204. :

(2d Cir. 1966). gone

e et

‘

1969): GOL West 26 Corp. vy. Solitron Devices, Tuc. 291 F.Supp.

$82. ($.D.N.Y. 1968): Blaich v. National Football Egague, 212

FSupp. 319, 320 (S.D:N.Y. 1962). 8 ees

* Checker’ Motors’ Corp. v. Chrysler Corp., supra; Societe Comp-

tor De L’Indus: etc. vi Aterander’s Dept.-Stores Inc., 299 F.2d

3,35 (2d Cir. 1962); Clairol Inc. v. Gillette Co., 389 F.2d 264, °

265 (2d Cir. 1968). | Aa it

aie . ee *

“H.E. Fletcher Co. v. Rock of Ages Corp., 326 F.2d.13, 17 (2d

"Checker. Motors Corp. v. Chrysler. Corp., supra; Unicon Man-

“‘yement Corp. v. Koypérs Co., supra-at 204-205; Hamilton Watch

ool

°Cliecker Wators Corp. v. Chrysler. C ‘orp. 405.F.2d 319 (2d Cir: -.

tae ‘one: sirone factor to be Ww veighed alonis with the ‘compara. :

an ae

—_

ee -tive-i injuries of the parties.’ ae ede a anes see

* Ss

ee.

. With regard: to plaintiff's s Mee on. the balance of hard.

ships, the need to show, irtéparable injury is especially e

present where, “the “effect of Ta. preliminary]. ‘injunction i is

prematufelv 46 give the party seeking it-a substantial -

of the relief. sought in the final judgment.” *

A. Status Quo

(The status quo has been frequently define

“" uncontested ‘status: which preceded the p

ag the: last

ding” contro-"

‘aVersy. ae preliminary. injunction should serve “to. keep - .

the parties: while the suit goes ‘on, as far as. - possible in’

~ the Liew sasiees positions’ they occupied when the suit be. *

gan. hy ee : i

The. 2 tien re Set plaintiff seeks i is ‘6 prohibit. de- | |

- féndanty from collectively refusing to negotiate withQim; cue

in, effect, a declaration that he is a “free agent.” He has .

never enjoyed that status in the: ‘past and issuance of such a.

* preliminary injunction’ w ould grant him the ‘ultimate relief *

he. seeks prior to a dete rmination of ‘the merits and take it

oe difficult to:restore the partiés to their prior status: (plain- |

“tiff’s contract assigned-to:Phfladelphia should plaintiff fail -

to sustain his claims. ‘Moreover, we doubt that ‘the abolition. 2

+ of all restraints imposed by the reserve sy stem (including

- at 204.

both the = of a club to retain ‘its play er: eed as a con-,

ead

ats. nicon Management Corp. v. _ Koppers, Co. , Supra a 205. “

BF ows Downie Services Vv. Beneflur, Corp., 206." F. 2d 214. 216 (2d .

ir. 1953) + Anderson-Friberg Inc. v. Justin R. Clary & Son, 98 - 1

F.Supp. 75, 82 (S.D.N.Y: 1951) ; Hambros oe Ltd. Y. Meserale;

_ 287: F.Supp. 69, 71 (S.D.N #4 & 1968): :

. See Warner. Bros. Pictuses v. Gittone. 110 F. 2d 292, 293 (3rd

“ Cir. 1940). (CE. Unies Raegenens Corp. v. Koppers Co, supra

15 Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co. , Supra at ae.

: ‘ _—

: f mgr ar aaa, hee \ : ix ; pe 2 eat ie Py

= sequence; the right to trade players) cotild be limited to

plaintiff alone should other similarly situath ballplayers

j seck a similar injunction. _ ay Naa en cere ce

plaintiff ‘ [m]Jost assuredly ‘oes Ww |

any semblance of the-situatiOn “as it existéd just prior to

the conimiencement of the prese

fiff’s assignment to the Philadelphia Club and prohibit’ St.

- Lonis from further assigning plaintiff's contract during the-

pendency ‘of tgs suit. In his reply to defendant’s papers in

opposition “plaintiff in fagt suggests that St. Louis repre-

_ greater hope for success at this:preliminary stage.’

As. we see ‘it,

‘to the St.. Louis Club, but one which was by \its-terms

assigned: to the Philadelphia Club by the: St. Louis’ Club is

therefore. consistent “with. the ‘Status quo.” Were.we to

- estore plaintiff's prior, contractual position with ‘the St.‘

Louis Club, and prohibit St. Louis:from further assigning

_ plaintiff’s contract, we would fundamentally alter thé prior.

“the option of. renewing plaintiff’s' contraet or terminating

his employment ( which would.make Plaintiff a free’ agent).

PSupp. 1193, 1196-97 (N.D. Cal. 1969). -

‘upra, . ee

x :

< ot Pei fay Page .

pak is é ee

2 “ ; % ng . wd O35 f:

be 2. Cities - ; oA :

\ “4 ‘ ’ i i

Me gs - ‘ ; s .

’ \61 ve pat hm y m eo :

bc beets ; ; ra ” 0 ae

oe -Enfoining defendants tom tetisng to negotiate, qth, - |

+ would not be-preserving -

ntJitigation.”* ' =<

_. Relief short of declaring plaintiff a.free agent must. be :

‘considered. Less drastic relief might be to rescind plain-. -

, Sents the ‘status: yuo. Rather than wholly suspending the...

operation of the reserve system its effect would be'tonfined . ~~

_ to suspending the operation of ‘the assignment provisions. ..

We. believ@ that ssuch an alternative ‘May: offer plaintiff :

_ assignable. The” presept status ‘of plaintiff’s contract

-tescind’ plaintiff's: assignment to the Philadelphig Club, « -

status of the parties. -The St, Louis Club. would only have ~

_* Washington. Capitols Basketbull--Ciub, Inc. vy. ‘Barry, 304 :

“ Conipare Washington Capitols Basketball Club, Ine. v. alte Se Ae

the last. actual non-contested status of the--. "4

parties prior to this dispute’saw plaintiff under a contract.

are wee eo of .

“ on

‘

. . .

es e: > e

e i a

Y e . aD

Pal - . °

* ‘Ne

: ; . ~

co OBS

. é '

« bd Baad

In our view then, intérference at this point ‘with the assign.

ability of plaintiff's contract does not preserve the status -

"y25 + * quo pit accords plaintiff a new status.

“+. Furthermore, we perceive no eave) distinetion between” |

| plaintiff atid any other ballplayer. whose contract for the —

> +. -/* eopting ‘season may: have been or may: yet be assigned to

ee >» another club and who might desire similar relief.** Granting

» ° & plaintiff relief pending ‘the outcome of this -syit’ might well

7 effect a moratorium’ on all ttading among Baseball ‘clubs.

Suelt ‘potential for disruption of Iong-stanéing practices of |

: organized. haseball cannot ‘be fairly termed preservation of

. the' status quo? wey see / + Sat

Poa ° a Ss : .

ey eee "Preliininary relief. to ‘plaintiff. ‘would ‘not serve to pre

ae __ serv e the status. quio. Nevertheless, without regard’ to pre-

baae Saeeee ~ sepving the . status quo, prelithinary:r relief may be ordered

—~——« * if there is a. sufficieng showing “of. potential: irreparable -

¥ e -

harm to ‘the -plaintiff.°° ‘Such instances are-rafe, however,

and the | arden on ‘plaintiff Ts" —- Os j

- _ ‘Bz. Balarice of Hardships. ES as

. i _ Irreparable Harm to. Plaintiff.

Irreparable harm ‘means ‘jrremediable i injury that is cer-

tain and great.” If plaintiff is denied this preliminary

> 3 relief. he will ‘indeed suffer serious: consequences. He.

—pe et alleges that he will not: ‘Play for the Philadelphia : lub be-

: ae

YY . ee cy

Y he Be 1S Though it seems to ‘us that this class would 7 okay he more.

- restricted in size than the players w ho, ‘if: plaintiff were ranted

“free agent” status, niight be accorded sNoilar relief.

13 'See Carroll v. American Fed. of, Musicians, 295 ‘F.2d 484, £8 ed \

“er cd. a Cre 1961). ° ee naa’

ps > See Ross Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Lab. 201

F.2d‘190, 199, 69th € 1953)._Cf. Unicon Management Corp. 4

Kopp Co.,, “supra at 204. <a ioe Ceo GS ones a

i: 21 Federal Maritime Com’ nV. rr mc Gulf /Panama Canal. -

Zone, 241 F.Supp. 166, 781 (S.D.N. Y..1965).

Le : : . . : e Nae “ = : eo. a

i . ot . if . 4

a . ea ae as

ys pgcr ae Shes 4

ett e : ‘

portrait studios he is. operating in St. Louis, and most

importantly destroy his personal dignity because he would 4

_ feel that he had. allowed himself: to: be “sold asa chattel. sans

oF "hs hice hot play baseball: fot Philadelphia, then hy

sirtue of the operation of the reserve system he: will’ be

; barred-from professional haxeball. Plaintiff’s outstanding .

* paseball talents will decline ‘over the years; he is presently

use it would uproot his Loiig- established asekel and. com-

al ties fn St. Louis, rémove him from the scene of three. :

_ thirty-one ye ars of age arfd,at the prime of his career. Loss >

“under a system which affords dim no fr eedom of choice as -

especially so since plaintiff avers that his skills may de-

teriorate more rapidly with disuse.

Plaintiff? S argument is inline: bk contains a basic °

“flaw, Plaintiff. i ix not awholly* excluded from baseball. He |

has been offered a contract. by’ the, Philadelphia Club-for |

- the 1970 season at the same $90, 006 salary he earned at St.

Louis, Tf is his choice not to play “baseball. He has a duty

to mitigate his“ damages. Accordingly, we must view- his ~

potential injuries not as: ,those which may ur if he

cho@€es not ‘to play baseball, but as those which he -will

nonetheless suffer if-he does play baseball.

These j injuries Which aré set forth above as the reasons

why plaintiff. does not intend to play for Philadelphia are —

themselves - substantial and to some #éxtent irreparable.

Thus plaintiff ean. never be. adequately compensated by:

“money damages for what appears s to be a genuine feéling of

loss. of personal dignity if he continues -to be employed

to. his employer. What weight can a svstem of law give to

this feeling which other hallplayers also operating ‘under

such strictures may or may not feel? Plaintiff i is hot being

= Mikaxit of Curtis'¢. Flood, shins 16, » 1970, P. 3.

~ of any..one of his remaiping base ‘ball years is irreparable,

_ this la -suit,”® or, if lie i is found entitled, to his final relief.

; "640

asked ‘to surrender his right either. to the maintenance. of: -

Plaintiff au suffer eadoated loss: of social and com. -

mumnal ‘ties to St. Louis which he has developed during his *

twelve years as a ballplayer there. Additionally, his autside

business interests in St. Louis-.may well suffer. Thése,

- -ainterests are both substantial, although the-latter may be.

subject to monetary compensation and there appears no

-*reéason to expert that: plaintiff, could not develop similar

social and business interests elsew here.2*In this regard, we.

observe that the relief ultimately sought by plaintiff would °

not-and éould not compel the St. Louis Club to retain his”

“services. He seeks to become a “free agent” which might or .

might not result in his remaining in St. Louis. Were he to

éntract to play for any-club except St. Louis, these losses

would be the same he would suffer playing for Philadelphia.

eo“ =

a, “Harm to Defendants | ‘

In weighfhg the. equities, we must consider the potdatial

harm to: defendants and others if this injunction is granted

pending a trial of thé issues. °°

Two substantial potential i injuries seem apparent. First,

the trade of which plaintiff was a part, involved an ex-.

change of four baHplayers for the St. Louis Club (including

plaintiff) for three for the Philadelphia Club. The other six

players may already have acted ‘in reliance upon ‘this

transfer ‘(relocating ’ themselves and ‘their families, ete.).

Were we to dedare plaintiff a free agent or return him to

St. Louis, the position of ‘these players might be thrown :

23, We fail to see and are not informed by plaintiff why or how. ,

his playing for the Philadelphia Club would, as he suggests, affect —

his right to maintain fhis lawsuit for injunctive relief, Playing

- pursuant to a contraét executed under protest and for the sole

purpose of mitigating damages would not appear to constitute a

- Waiver or estoppel of any kind,

**Compare, Washington Capitols Basketball Club v. Barry,

supra at 1202. Ae: | aes

a muita tebh Se eet) *

eae ne

into nibs Tn ‘this rexaid, thoigh not so seipuiieint as the -

jeliance interests of - the. players involved, the respéctive

ball elubs in consummating this trade and in planning their.

player requirements have also relied les teehee right to

- assign player contracts. ~*

‘Second, as we recognized in asséssing the status quo

there is danger that the grant of’a preliminary injunction

to'plaintiff might result in similar’ relief being accorded

. other ballplayers who might: seek it. At the very least there

tential for inter fering with the operation of the 1970 base-

plaintiff's icadepicis -= :

3W eae. the Equities

ing of irreparable injury and: ate unable to conclude that

~ the balance of ee tips decidedly i in his favor.

C- Probability of Seececs at T rial

‘only if he prevailed: after a full trial and which would

seile of equities clearly in his favor, plaintiff must’ estab-

-lish.elear and unmistakable probable success on the merits.

before we can consider exercising our diseretion to grant.

hima preliminary injunction. Sa ,

1.-The Federal Antitrust Claim

- Plaintift contends the reserve svst tem, is an-unreasonable -

“restraint Of trade in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the

tract with players only on uniform terms and agree to

S Or COUrSe, this in no way implies that plaintiff has no right

to retire. ‘ = =

‘2

is a strong possibility that conside rable litigation, with po--

ball season, , might “de precipitated by the’ granting of |

We i not believe that plaintiff has made i a strong how: .

Seeking relief which he would normally be entitled to:

fundamentally alter the status quo, and failing to tip .the -

- Sherman’ Act -because the teams collectively agree to con-.

ee? 2

. ° , - 7’ . . ‘ r .- 5 = = . * m _ : .

Eide | the Saver ‘ite by giving each team. exclusive

rights to bargain with its players and because it is enforced

by group boycott and. eoncerted refusal to deal on the part

of all professional-teams against | any. ed er seeking: to

escape its restrictions.

a. Baseball’s federal antitrust exemption

Plaintiff? s federal. antitrust claim is appe: ing,’ taka in

light of the consistent and clear holdings of ‘the Suprenie

Court that baseball is not subject to the federal antitrust

laws (ne matter how illogical such holdings may appear to

‘some by reason of subsequent events), the final ‘outcome of

this litigation is doubtful to say the least—indeed plaintiff

has a formidable hurdle to leap to achieve ultimate success.

26 See, e.g., Comment, “Monopsony | in Manpower: Organized

Basebafl Meets the Antitrust Laws,” 62 Yale “LJ. 576, 622-624

- (1953); Note, “The Super Bowt and the Sherman Act: Profes-..

sional Sports and the Antitrust Laws,” 81 Harv. L.Rev. 418, 426

(1967). Concerted refusals to deal have frequently been held per’

se violations of the: Sherman Act. See United: States v. General

Motors Corp.. 384 U.S. 127 9( 1966); Radiant Burners, Inc. v.

Peoples Gas Co., 364 U.S. 65 sé} (1961); Klor’s Inc. v. Broadway. |

ne Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959) ; “Pashion Originators Guld |

FTC, 312. US. 457, (1941); American Medical “Ass'n v. United

: States 130.F.2d 233, 248-49 (D.C, Civ, 1942), afd Sth US, 51

(1943). We are impressed-by defendants’ argument that the rule

of Yeason should govern here, however, since it. is generally con-

ee ‘aha that some form of reserve system’ is essential to the very

méintenance of the “joint venture” of or eanized professional base-

ball. See Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963);

Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 US. 231 (1918);

Decesen v. Professional Golfers Ass’n., 358 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1966):

-Molinas +. National Besketball. Ass’n., 190 F.Supp. 241 *S.D.N.Y.

1961). . Nevertheless, the baseball reserve rule appears excessively

restrictive (far bey: cond that nee essary to protect itseaims of insyr-

‘ing stability of ‘team “membership, maximizing fan, interest, and

protecting club investments in player development}. Less restrle- -

tive alternatives have been adopted in football, basketball and other

professional sports. Accordingly, there-appears a strong likelihood

that the reserve system W ould be held an unreasonable restraint. of

trade.

67 |

In 1922 ‘in ‘Federal Baseball Club b of Béltanore: Wy National

League,” * the Supreme Court faced with an attaclon the 2

validity of the reserye system held that the business of

professional baseball was not within the ‘seope of the fed- |

eral antitrust laws because thé exhibitions were purely

state affairs, were not trade or. commerce in the ordinarily |

accepted use of the words, and tke interstate transportation

‘of players was merely incidental. In 1949, the Second Cir- —

cuit in reversing - ‘dismissal of the ponmlarel 3 in Gardella \ Aa .

Chewdlér ®* held (per L. Hand;.J.) that baseball may“by ~~:

then have. become interstate commerce and subject to the

antitrust laws, and (per Frank, J.) that the concept of

~ eommertee on which Federal Baseball was based had: been

wholly eroded by subsequent decisions.

When this question again reached the Supreme Court in

1953 jn Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.,” the Court,

wighow re-examining the under]ying issue gf interstate -_

commerce, reaffirmed its prior-decision ‘in Federal Baseball |

“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.” The reasons as signed

for that conclusion were that baseball had de developed -fer——~ a

_thirty_years in reliance on its “unders ‘standing that it was 4 %

not subject ‘to existing antitrust legislation ;” that Congress

- had not seen fit to bring baseball under the antitrust laws

“by legislation having prospective effect ;” that the existing —

. legislation should not be held applicable with “r etrospective

effect;” and that “if there are evils in this field which now |

warrant. application to it . the antitrust laws it should be

by legislation.” .

Subsequent deeieibas established that Toolson “was a

narrow application of the rule of stare decisis” applicable .

7959 U.S. 200. aa

*172 F.2d 402, -

346 US, 356:

only to beaabalt aa to! ‘no. ether industry. or. professional.

‘sport,®° Specifically, four years after T oolson, in Radovich.

v. National Football | League,” the Supreme Court held the - °

antitrust laws. applicable “to. professiqnal football: and ‘its

reserve system, while-continuing to distinguish. baseball as:

the only. sport encainpassed within a prior direct determi.

nation in Federal Baseball to the ¢ontrary. FE

a This development, of.an. antitrust exemption for baseball

-- and baseball alone, is much-er iticized, yet in Radovich the

Supreme Court specifically. addressed itself to this:

If this ruling is unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical, ee

it-is sufficient to answer, aside from: the distinctions

‘between the businésses, that were.we considéring the:

question of baseball for: the first time on a clean slate

we would have no donbts. But Federal Baseball held

tlie business of baseball: outside the scope of the Act.

_ No other business claiming the covprage of those casés

has such an-adjudication. We, thefefore, conclude that

_ the orderly way to eliminate error or diserimination,

7 if any there be, is by Pegislation and not'by court de-

‘eision. Congressional ' processes are more accommoda-*

tive, affording the whole industry hearings and an op-

. portunity to assist in the formulation. of new legislation.

The resulting product is therefore more likely to pro- ’

tect the industry and, the public alike. The whole scope

of congressional action would: be known long in ad-

vance and effective dates for the legislation could be

: set in the:future-without the: injustices of retroactivity

‘and ‘surprise which might: follow’ court action. Of

course rt doctrine. of Toolson and Federal Baseball

- must yield to any congressional action and continues .

- only at its suffeyance. ” (footnote omitted )* -

3° Radovich ‘v. National Football Leogie, 352 U.S 445 (1957);

United States v. International Boring Club, 348 U. S. 236 (1959);

“United States y. Shubert, 348 U.S, 222 (1955).

31352 U.S, 445.

82352 U.S. at 452.

*69.

_ As of this date, oiiiebe has nk legislated to. bring bile.

ball within’ the. federal: antitrust laws. In tlie face of this

“amigual but very specific delegation of Congress, plaintiff

* has 10 choice’ but to seek to have T oolson overruled.

. Plaintiff suggests 1 four developments Ww hich*night lead to.

an overruling of Toblsan. First; he argues that the prin-

- ciple. of freedomidf: @ontract i in the labor market recognized

by federal labor legislation must illuminate any interpreta- z

tion ef the -antitrustygaws and that’ this factor was not -

‘brought to the attention of the ‘Supreme Court. Howeve

‘the similar policy of freedom of contract s in the

Thirteenth Amendment was is exprosely relied upon by Judge

- Frank éf our Cirenit in 1949 in Gardella v. Chaniler as the

“reason ‘whiy, \in his view, the reserve system is “so opposed

- to the publig policy of the United States that; if possible,

* [it] should’ be deemed ‘within _ —e of the Sher-

man Ae ‘iar , a)

ez: e Supreme Court was fully cognizant of that decision

_.wKen Toolson was decided. Furthermore, the federal labor

‘statutes and Unifed Statés v. Hutcheson * on which plain-

tiff relies were cited throughout the briefs to the Supreme:

‘Court in ‘Toolson, although for the different’ proposition

that the alleged. violation was a labor. dispute =< from

“the antitrust laws.*

in Second, petitioner refers to the very sibstantial incre-

ment in both the revenge and coverage basebail -has re-

ceived from radio and television since 1953 and baseball’s

involvement with other ae generally, as evidence

8172 Fdq at 410.

"4312 U.S, 219 (1941).

* Brief for Respondents ‘in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari,

pp.-37-40; Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Writ of Certiorari, pp. 5-11;

=e for Respondents, pp. 64-66. a

. a 2

“a

. - " of 2 .

“:. c= . x

a. : ’ -

| | (| ak

* c A a . J he

- tion is resolv ed i in ‘plaintiff’s ‘favor. _

-* of its changing character. This argument appears more

~“relev ant to the question of interstate commercé * than to

the j issue of stare decisis on which T oolson is based: More-> .

over, the briefs of all parties * and Justice Burton’s dis. .

“sent *® in ‘Toglson gave, considerable Nattention to. the

blossoming since the time of Federal Base ball of radio and .

television révenues for baseball.

Third, he points out that the baseball player dvitft begitn

“in. 1965 operates to deprive any new player desiring to

enter professional baseball the right to even an initial ‘

— chojce eae , among the various.teams that may desire.his

talents, he will begin his’ playing career? W hile the player

jaseball’s antitrust immunity did not.rest upon any view

that baseba]l was not inter state commeree. We believe that base ‘halt

clearly gonstitutes a subject of commerce under the present conee ept

of that term.-See e¢. Ds NLRB \ Jones & Me Laughlin Steel Corp.,

301,U-S. 1 (1937). Further, in tht of Radovich and the expan-,

F draft does further. increase the restrictions alr eady placed —

. 7 . . ’ ; s . oe - : . e e ; . no _ . 7

_: 38 The Suprenic. Court in Toolson indieated that its ‘decision to °

continue:

sion since 1922 of the coneept of interstate commerce, we have ne-°

waukee Braves Tnc., 144 N.W. 2d 1 (1966). ,

37 6g. Petitioner’s ‘Opening - Brief on. Wri it ot Certioragj, pp.

' 38 * 346. US. S. at 357-59,

; 39 It has: ie” siggested that the basball draft is considerably

less restrictive than the draft svstenis: of qther professional ‘sports.

See Note, “Super Bowl and the, Sherman Act: ‘Professiotial Team

Sports and the Antitrust Laws,” 81 Harv. L-Rey. at 428, 425.

Defendants argue that in any event the'draft system was ini-

tiated: long after plaintiff entered baseball and thus he lacks stand;

ing.to raise this contention. We are inclined to disagree with de

fendants since plaintiff coneededly .has standing to attack the \

_ reserwe sy stem and merely wishes to establish as.grounds for aye?-

ruling Toolson that its. effect has become mare: restrictive as a.

result of the draft. At least for purposes of this motion this ques-

- doubt that baseball is in interstate commerce, Sei: State v. ue

38-43; Brief for Respondents, pp. 41-54: Brief for Petitioners (in .

_ companion case of Corbett ri handler), pp. | 1. Be I

on a player’s freedom to negotiate, the fact that his free- .

dom is now curtailed in the first year of his.playing career

as well as ini every subsequent year ddes not .appear, to

_fandamentally add to the ligelong restraints which were

“already i in existence at the time of Toolson..In any. event,

~ this additional restriction:still does not present as severe a

- situation as facéd the Supreme Court in ,Loolson, itself.

major, league .club; they were ‘allegedly ostracized - and ,

totally barred from pursuing their livelihood in 1 profes.

sional baseball. :

Fourth, plaintiff’ argues tek the impact. of a cbroketicn

- decision, which was a principal factor leading the Safes”

’ Court in Toolson to continue baseball’s exélusion from the.

~ federal antitrust law s, need no longer be feared since plain-

: tiff. seeks only prospective relief. He argues that ‘recent

» prospective decisions in the area of criminal law *° fore-

shadow the possibility of similarly limiting any and all civil

relief which may flow from..a declaration of the illegality

of the reserve: system. It may very. well be that a court

could limit plaintiff and all others who may seek to hold

defendants accountable for antitrust violations 'to injunc-.

tive relief and’ refuse to permit retroactive treble damages

where the alternative to such a prospective holding would

be to dismiss ‘all os. because .of defendants: Justifiable.

reliance on past préce ents. oe

While the latter may be-a weighty argument for over- ."°

ruling Toolson, it is not.our function to make that decision: *

at this phase of the litigation.” The issue now before us; as

already noted, is to determine the existing likelihood of that

ey entuality. Several, WE Bitty factors compe the conclusion

\ *.

= pans C.J. | Desist v. U nited States: 394 U. Siu (1969).

1 As to the power of a lower federal court to “divine” whether —

a ‘esion: of the Suprenie Court would be overruled on appeal,

\, See: Gardella v. Chandler, — at 409 n.1 (Frank, J.). ™~ |

.* «3

tt . ‘ s

‘ off. nek

. on

\e :

s .

: :

SER ERGY RoR

° ’

PPS am

Ve,

factors leading to its decision in, Toolson:

ry -

e >

"that the oreceaiun of Tootson i is. 5 be no means the probable -

result. of this litigation, — eee

Whiie we believe, a deer ree in the vii area Pighing not

only plaintiff but all other litigants to prospective? relief.

“(despite dthe presence of a statute gr anting treble daijages) ae

in ordef to protect defendants’ legitimate reliance interests

would be meen we must nevertheless’ recognize ‘that it -.

would also be novel and nearly unprecedented. It is not at

..‘ all certain that such a course will be adopted; yet without

_ it plaintiff is largely left in the difficult position of simply

: arguing the-illogie of Toolson’s stare dectsis Measoning in the.

face of the ‘Supreme’ Court’s previous ‘determination in

Radovich that while the baseball exemption inay be illogical, ’

: if it is to be corrected Congress must ‘do so. ee

- Moreover, defendants contend that, regardless of whether

or not past damages are aw: carded, a declaration that the re-

forbidding refusals to: negotiate would still have a serious |

ae trospective effect on the reliance interests of defendants. ae

They assert that countless eommittments have been made by,

alk teams in organized baseball in reliance upon the + -alittity

of baseball's. reserve systém ‘and exemption- from federal

antitrust laws.*? Yet, they argue, while plaintiff concedes

the need. for some form of reserve system, the relief he, -’,

seeks would resu]t in a sudden termination of. the present -

reserve system with the, court. lacking pom er to’ devise a sub- |.

stitute. Tea ee Sin fix

There’ is considerable foree to defendants’ position in this

regard. ‘The Supreme ' ‘Court in Radovich elugidated

“In Toolson we continued to hold the umbrella over

baseball that was placed there some 31 years earlier by

Federal Baseball. The Court did this because it was}

concluded that more harm would be done in overruling

Federal. Baseball: than in upholding a ruling. which jat

42 See Affidavit of Joseph E. Cronin, Pibedaty 1, 1970. |

t ree ee,

+ 43359 US. at 450. s Bi

4 Radovich ° Vs National Fostall el awe, 352 | U. S, at 452 Cen

‘heat’ was of dubious valnliee: Vast efforts. ‘oad gone into

- the development and organization aap since that —

been invested in-

decision and: - enormous -eapital hac

reliance on its: permanence. Congress had, chosen to

_make no change. All this, combined, with the flood of. .

_ litigation that would follow its. repudiation,.the harass-

| ment that ~would ensue, and the retroactive effect of’

_ ‘sueh. a decision, led the court to the practical result |.

» that ‘it would sustain the unequivocal line of patensy

waching over many years. y 43

We és not believ e the pieipitinn overruling scwedtcl iy 2

plaintiff would vitiate all of these underpinnings of Toolson.

In Radovich the Supreme Court further specified that

tes oolson sought to avoid not only the “injustices of retro-

activity” but also of “surprise which might follow court

action?” *t The Supreme Court reasoned that: Congress ‘as

opposed -to the courts might avoid such suddén effects be-

cause its “processes are more accommodative” and “ [t]he

whole scope of. congressional action would be known long in

advance ‘and effective Gates for R legislation, could be set

in the f uture.

"99 45° . . : | .

ter as

“Additionally, Congress’ silerice in the faceof.the Supreme *

Court’s extraordinary invitation in Toolson, Shubert and

finally Rador ‘ich to modify: baseball’s ‘status may take on

aspects: of ratification.“ Plaintiff correctly draws our atten-

- tion. to the general rule that. the silenee of Congress ji is of:

slight significance. Hovey er, we Pepiciiate ignore tl the unique

;

“| oi

wt na ’ -

e” ‘

—

* “phasis added ).

me See generally, Cominent”

” 638-39, :

— See State ¥. Milwaukee Braves Inc., supra, —

. Rt Nae in Manpower: Or-

ganized’ Baseball Meets the Antitrust Laws, ” 62 Yale L.J. at, 636,

”

»*

‘ strained to find that plaintiff has

clear showing of reasonable likelihogd of overruling the

Finally, ‘decisions or the ‘Supreme Court are not lightly

attention paid * in -these three cases to the .inactivity of °

Congréss. + . : so,

overruled, particularlt those whiclt. have. a history as long.

as this one. The Toolgon decision may be.an anomaly, and .

there may, (hopeful) le few such anomahes long-sustained

by the. law. Neveftheless, whatever may be our individual

view of the “rightness” of? plaintiff's claim, we are con-.

ot made. a sufficiently

“Supreme Court’s direction that the’ c@rrective process*lies

with Congress: and not ‘with the. courts. Quite possibly:

~ plaintiff may syeceed in ultimately: overturning. baseball's’

~ fedéral antitrust exemption, but it ‘isnot shfficiently prob- ..

able now. to justify, _ extraordinary. preliminary relief:

- . °

. _@ was

he. seeks.** :

). Antitrust exemption for labor agreements

There is vet another. substantial and complicated issue

of law and fact Between the parties which’ if resolved in

defendants’ favor woulkl bar plaintiff from pressing his

« :

* See: ecq.. United States v: Shubert, supra at 229-250 where»

‘the Supre me Court stated: _ ;

“And Coneress, although. it had: actively considered. the rul-’

ing, hid not seen fit to reject it by amendatory legislation.”

*® Portland Baschall Club: Inc. x. Baltimore: Baseball Club Inc.,

282 F 2d 680 (Oth? Cir. 1960): Selerho vic American League, 1970

CCH Trade Cases 172.996 (S.D.N.Y.* 1969) | (dismissing com- .

. plaintsy.

“49 Th. Martin v. National, Leaque Baseball Club, 174 F.2d 917,

918 (2d Cir, 19494, the Second Cirenit, after having held baseball

subject: to the antitrust laws (after Federal Baseball, but prior to

- Toolson), nevertheless refused to ‘issue a preliminary injunction’

on behalf of a player excluded from professienal baseball because

the question of the legality of the reserve system “may involve

edhsideration, among other things, of the needs and-conduct of the

' business as a whole.” ~ *. a?

———— ee

lain’ for federal antitrust relief, from the reserve system. 7

’ Defendants: contend that the reserve system is embodied

in tlieir collectively bargained ‘agreement with the Major

‘League Baseball Players Association; that it/is acmanda-

- torv subject of collective bargaining presently under negoti->

-ation and examination between defendants and the Players

Association ; and that, as a consequence, the subject - this

lawsuit is a matter exempt ffom the antitrust laws.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, appears to concedé that the

" peserye sy stem is a mandatory bargaining subject: He

argues that the Basie Agreenient of the Players Association

and the defendants does not Comprise any: present collee-

tire ‘ly bargained agreement regarding the Tese rve bys-

ten: *' further, that the’ reserve systém “has been imposed,

upon the players by the defendants without their consent

and is not the mesmt of collective bargaining. 3 F inally, he

i ae : @ >; .

* Clayton Act. 520, Pa C S.C. §52: Norpis LaGuardia Act, 29

* US-E. §§101-115. See United Sale ae athe 312 U.S, 219.

(1944): Meat. Cutters v. Jewel Tea, 351 U.S. 676, 689-91, "( 1965):

Federation of Musics tans V. Carroll, 391° ES. 99, 105-106, 110

(1968). : at

- 5 Although aie Basie Agreement is somewhat internally’ ineon-

_ Sistent op this question (the Players Association agrees generally

eto the form-of the Uniform Player Contract and to use their best

efforts to ehsure that all of its terms and’ conditions will be carried

out in fnlJ), we are of the opinion solely on the basis of that whieh

Js before us that plaintiff is probibly correct that the reserve sys-

tem is not presently collectively agreed to. Article “VIII of the

Basie .Agreement specifically provides for’a joint review of pos-

sible alternatives to the reserve clause (which review is underway)

and that. the clubs shall not be obligated to’ bargain ov seek agree:

ment with the Players Association with respect to the: reserve |

clause during the t term of the Agreeme nt (which is still in effect).

process of reeoneiliation of : Jabor and antitrust laws by contesting’

defendants’ ‘gdod faith in-the present bargaining over the reserve

“system. « .

It would appear | to us that, the recourse ‘for any failure ‘by de-

fendants to, bargain in | good faith should be to the > National Labor

- 96

_ reasons that defendants are merely seeking to use this al’

an leged Jahor agreement as “a ‘eat’s s-paw to pull [the ir] chest.

_ .

The guestions raised by the conflicting | views ‘of the

parties'as to a labor agreement exeniption are substantial |

cand ¢ omplex. They afford vet: another reason to conclude’

_that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of a clear show-

ing of probability of success on the federal antitrust claims.”

aa mo ON

epee * - 2. State Law Claims \

Should he: fail on the federal antitrust claim, plaintiff

asserts in two separate causes of action that the reserve

- system nevertheless violates state law, both common and

statutory: Choosing not t6é rest upon pendent jurisdiction, he

alleges diversity’. of citizenship as the basis. for federal.

jurisdiction. Here“again, however one views the reasonable

probability? of Hieoees on his state statutory antitrust and

* common Jaw claims he-.is confronted with the strong possi-

bility that such claims are barred by federal pree smnption or

the need for uniformity of regulation.

a. The supremacy and commerce clauses

= Plaintiff argues , that defendants cannot have. it both

ways : that it the federal antitrust laws do not re ach base-

ball inti the state antitrust laws -and common »: are

applicable. mo,

_ Relations Board whieh has recently asserted its jurigdiction over

the. defendant baseball emplovers. See sAnterican League and. .ts-

‘sociation of Umpires, 180 NLRB No..30, Case 1-RCO-10414 (Decem-

“+ber 15, 1969). In any event, this.contention sertes.to emphasize thie

serious and difficult: factual questions on. this. issue of collective

bargaining between the parties, .

"= Tiittod «Slate sev. Women’s Sportswear Ass’n., 336 US. 460,

464 (1949). See Allen Bradley @o. v. Local Union No. 3, LBEW.

325 U.S. 797 (1945); United Wine Workers v. Pennington, 381

U.S, 657 (1965).

Toolson, howeier: Was based not on any supposed ab-

sence of interstate commerce, but on stare decisis and the

~ acquiescence of Congress. In State y. Milwaukee Braves

Inc.;* the Wisconsin Supreme Court Jeld that state anti- -

trust laws could not be applied to prevent transfer‘of a base-

ball franchise on the ground ‘tliat.state regulation was

‘foreclosed by the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the

United States Constitution. Certain of the Inajority were of

‘ the.opinion that state regulation was preempted hecause it

would intérfere with a C ongressional policy permitting self-.

regulation for baseball which the ‘y saw as implicit from the

silence of Congress in this particular context. Others in

the majority prefe ‘rred the view that the national character

of organized baseball and the necessary interdependence of

the teams requires uniformity of regulation and that “since

organized baseball operates widely jn- interstate commerce,

the regulation; if there is to Ke any, must be prescribed by

Congress.” ‘

We are of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to. sliow

stiftici ‘ient like hood that*his state claims will not be barre@e

hy either federal preemption or the need for any of «

regulation in an area of interstate. commerce. * Although

transfer of a team franchise is certainly distinguishable

(partic sularly with regard to the likelihoael of state dis-

crimination in favor of its own economic interests) from

“31 Wis. 24 699, i44 N.W. 2d 1 (1966) .- See also, Musicians

Prieh v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. Rptr. 201, 447 P 2d. 313, 317-48

(S.Ct. 1968).

5d, at 17- 18,

6 Td. at 18.

7 See generally, 8 B.C. Ind. & Com. I. Rev, 341, (1967) ; 35

Fordham [. Rev. 350 (1966). : ' .

Moreover’ we have already noted that dfendents raise a sub-

stantial issue as to their claini that the reserve system -is a subject

of collective ‘bargaining. If this be so, then this would present yet

another basis for finding federal preemption. See Teamsters Union

"-v. Oliver, 358 US. 283 (1959).

i ee, 4 of oe

: cexivatits imposed by the ; reserve system upon players’

freedom to negotiate, the reasoning of Milraukee Braves

still seems persuasive here.” From the information be fore

us at this preliminary stage, there does appear to bea need”

for uniformity of treatment ‘in a nationally organized pro-

fessional team sport like=baseball. We recognize’ that this.

\ a leaves baseball tmregulated | by estate or federal antitrust:

‘ . law, yet we are ‘constrained to.find that, suchca resalt alp)-

pears to us mandated. by existing and contrellmeg law.

b. Indispensable parties:

Tn light of our determination above that plaintiff has

| failed. to sustain his burden at this preliminary stage of

_ showing probable success on fis state law claims, we find

it unnecessary, to pass upon defendants’ further contention

With respect to lack of: indispensable parties who, if joined,

would destroy diversity, of citizenship: jurisdiction.

; Involuntary Servitude

Plaintiff’s fourth eause of action asserts that the reserve

system'v iolates the Thirteenth Amendinent and federal civil -

rights statutes, 18 U.S.C. §158h.and 42 U. SC. “1924, there.

under by imposinggupon lim a comlition of involintary

* "servitude and { Rites thespublic y poley deelared in -the

3 )°.. Norris LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.03S £102 and 103, by refusing

him the right to negotiate his’ terms and conditions of ef.

pinout. Although none 6f these statutys express: _pro-.

“Tn Ntate cv. Milwauhkec Braves Tne. 144 NW. 2d my 15 the

Court 1 in broad, but persuasive dieta stated : .

“We venture te guess that this exemption does not cover every

- type of business activity to which a baseball elub or league

might be a party and does not protect ‘chilis or leagues from

application of the federal acts to activities whieh are not’ in-

eidental to the maintenance of league structure, but it does

seem clear that the exemption at least covers the agreements |

and rules w hic h provide for-the structure of the: organization

and the déci ‘isions which are necessary, steps in maintaining it.”

vide for a civil rémedy, furisdiction ‘to grant relief for'a

violation of such. provisions may be found in 28 U.S.C.

{1531 and 1343. ” or : v-

Plaintiff's claims in’ this regard appear to: have only

dubious validity. He relies principally on the 1914 decision

of a New. York Supreme Court,” which is quoted with ap-

proval by Judge Frank. in Gardella v. Chandler. = Judge:

Frank ree ‘ognized ‘that terming the reserve system “peon-

age” was “perhaps a bit exaggerated” and concluded that.

“Fam not to be understood as implying that [it] violate[s]

the Thir ao ith’ Amendme ntor thy statutes enacted pursuant

o ——

thereto” ae. , eee

- Tnv oluntary sr vitude has heen nar rowly defined. Plaintiff -

points to the broad: statement of. the Supreme Court- in

Pollock v. Williams: St, oes :

“The undoubted aim of ‘the th ectenth Amendment

as implimented by the Antipeonage Act was not-merely-

to-end slayery but to maintain-a system of completely

free and voluntary Tabor throughout the United States.”

Immediately followi ing: that genera] proposition, the ‘Su-

preme Court in Pollock specified its holding »

= *

“Congress has put it bevend debate that no indebted--

ness warrants a suspension.ot, the right to be free from

compujsory service. This Congressional poliey means

that no state can make the quitting of work any com-.

ponent. of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available —

for holding unwilling persons to labor.’.s"!

_ 7

“See Bryant v. Donnell, 239 F ‘Supp: 681, 683 (CW. D. Tenn.

ee). See also Bell v. Hood, 327 U ® 678 (1946).

American League Baseball Club v. Chase, 86 Mise. 4 465,

WNYS 6,19 (1914). , | Lo

172 F.2d 402; 409- 10 (2d Cir. 1949).

“7d.at410. - ° ; a Pasa

399 US. 4.17 (1944). ,

Td. at 18: _

when

‘involve or grow out of a “labor dispute

Plaintiff has not satisfied what appears to be an essential

| prerequisite to this cause of action, a showing of compul-.

sory service, for he is free to quit and refuse to play bail for

Philadelphia (even though the _conseqnénce of that dice °

may.be to foreclose -him from playi ing professional hase-

ball).®* We do not believe he has pense a reasonable

4. No. Showing of Reasonable Probability of Success

W ith regard to each of the four relev ant claime-eesorted™

by plaintiff, we are constrained by controlling precedents to-

find that he has not shown sufficient probability of ultimate .

-suecess to justify granting: the only relief plaintiff seeks at:

this’ time—the issuance of a pretiminary injunction.

. °

In JUNC TIONS ProwipiTEp

_ Defendants’ final argtiment for denial of a preliminary -

injunction is that apart from questions of irreparable injury: ~

and’ probable success, the activities sought to be enjoined

99 66

this court has no jurisdiction to issue the injunction sought

by plaintiff.” . ;

65 See Wicks v. Nouthern Pacific Co., 231 F.2d 140, 138 (9th

Cir.), cert. denied 351 US. 946 (1956) U" nited. States v.-Shackney,

333 F.2d 475 (2d Cir. 1964); Bryant v. Donnell, supra at 69.

6 Norris LaGuardia: Act §§13(a) and (¢), 29 USC. $§113(a)

and (ce). -

Defendants contend: that the reserve system is acknowledged to

be’ a mandatory bargaining subject and plainly concérns “terms

and conditions of aeyeey ment” "and, thus, must constitute a labor

. dispute. °

6 Clayton Act §20,-29 U. S.C. “g52 . Norris CaGantin Aef SS4

and 5, 29 U.S.C. §§104(a) and 105. om Clune v. Publishery As-

ast

an«l in such cases |

’ sociation of N.Y. City, 214 F. Supp. 520 (S. D.N.Y. ys aff'd, 31 F.2d

343 a Cir. ana.

Whether plaintiff’s action grows out of a labor dis spute

and, if so, whether injunctive relief against a boycott in

* straint of trade might’ nevertheless be permitted here .

~mder the authority of Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Wnion No.

3,1.B.E.W.,* present substantial, complicated ‘and difficult

questions of fact and law.” It is appropriate here to recall

_that our’cireuit has cautioned that “there is-a special need

for I restrairt-in-granting. interlocutory.xelief® in antitrust

actions invobing-en-attged labor dispute “where courts

“hast resolve the somewhat conflicting policies of four acts

of Congress, two of which explicitly ae ivéa federal court

of jurisdiction’ to issue-an injunction. . Adis

Til

- =. Concr USION

’ For vears professional’ hallplay ers have chafed ance

the restrictions of baseball's ‘ reserve system; a long line of

395 U.S. 797. (1945). 7 | \

arguments ‘put forth by the defendabts in Radovich v. National

Football: League, 352 U.S. 445 weg In Radovich axeof respon-

dents arguments for: affirmance of lower court’s dismissal of

the complaint was that the claime ‘Hlewalite of professional foot-

hall's reserve system under which the petitioner was barred from

iootpall constituted a labor dispute and. was exempt from the anti-

trust laws. See Brief for Respondents, pp. 53-63: Petitioner’s Re-

‘Dy Brief, pp. 20-21. The Supréme Court, in holding professional —

- football subject to federal antitrust laws and the complaint im-

properly dismissed, stated, “[{rJespondents’ remaining contentions

we believe to be iacking in merit.” 352 U.S. at 454.. :

It is significant, however, that neither party in Radovich claimed

that the reserve system was ‘a. product of or subject to collective

largaining. See cenerally, Comment, “Monopsony in Manpower:

Wrganized- Baseball Meets the Antitrust Laws,” 62 Yale L.J. at

-f19-20, 635-36 (in -1953 in baseball there was also apparently rio

uegotiation or consultation with the players regarding the uniform.

~~ ;

” See Carroll \ v. American Fed. of Musicians, 310 F24 325 (24

Cir. 1962). . _ , .

litigation so attests. Many of their grievances appear justi. -

fied: Yet, regretfully, as the Supreme Court. stated in

_ Radovich we are not writing here on a clean slate. Recog- °-

“nizing. the equity of plaintiff’s claims , We must also recoge ’

nize the. existing, well-established and controlling prece-

derits against his position. = ;

If plaintiff i is to achieye by court sgtion ‘the Fandaental

change he seeks in the reserve sxstem, then we believe that

such a de términation on “amatter: of vital importance fo

organized baseball and with such potential for opening the

floodgates’ to litigation must at least be the result of afull -

trial and not on thobasis of ‘a motion for preliminary re-

lief... To grant plaintiff the preliminary ‘injunction he

seeks would work: the type of unfair. surprise and. Carry

the same sort of sudden effect that the Supreme Court i in

_ Toolson was at such pains to prevent. |

Accordingly, we are constrained to deny. plaintiff's mo-

tion for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary in-

junction. As a matter of law, we are. powerless to hold

otherwise. | | :

. So ORDERED: -

New York, N.Y.

March 4, 1970 ., | a

oo ls) Invinc Ben Cooper

United States District Judge

-f. . >~ \

Boe ie 4

ee ; : es BD. . a : .

71 Martin v. National League, 174 Fd 917 (2d Cir. 1949).

oT _ Curtis C. Froop

. ‘vw. _

Bowe K. Kwny, et al.

70 Civ. 202

» «

Plaintiff seeks an ordér providing for an early trial.

Sinee the return day of the motion, *all proceedings in the

. ease, including trial of the action and rendition of judgment

‘have been Assigned tb us (see order of the Chief Judge,

filed March 13, 1970). | | a3

We see merit in, and aggprdingly grant,. the application.

Date for trial to be fixed after consultation Ww ith counsel j in

the case. ee a, - __

So OnpERED: 2 \ #3 3 = ;

New York; NY.” - | _

March 2 25, 1970 A :

e \ [s| Irvine Ben Cooper

a U.S.D.J.-

" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT O¥ NEW YORK

70 Civ, 202 =

_ Certis C; Foon, Plaintiff,

--against-— — ; —

Bowie K. Kuny, Individually and as Commissioner of

Baseball, Caine S. Feexey,; Individually and as

President of the National League of gProfessional

Baseball Clubs, Josepn FE. Croyry, Individually and as

Natiox ay League" Batt Ciup, THE Crxcrswatt Reps,

Inc., THE Hous TON Sports AssociaTios, Los ANGELES”

President of thé American League of Professional |

Baseball Clubs,’ ATLANTA Braves, Inc., @HIcaco ~

. Cooper, Distriet Jude,

" ’

ODGERS, Ixc., Mpxtrr AL Base BALL C LUB Lrp., Metno-

~POLITAN ‘BaskBAL b Ciup, Ixc., PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL

Leacce Crivus, Prrrssurcn ‘keatievic Co.,’ Inc., Sr,

outs’ NationaL: BaseBan Civ, Ixc., SAN Dreco'

Panne, Sax F RANC Isco GIANTS’ Base BALL CLvp, Kia

MORE BaSEBALL.CL up, INe.; Boston Rep Sox, CLEVELAND

Typrays; Ce Détrorr BASEBALL. Civ, New York

bi ANKEES, ee THe WasHINGTON Srsarona: Inc., Go-

s West. Basedant Co., Curcaco Wurre Sox, Kaysss

preach Royars "Basa Crus, Mrxxesora ‘Twrys, Iyc.,

' OakLAND ATH E108; and Paciric NorTHWEST Srorrs.

Ine.

| Epa eone Pee * Defendant

a | _ Opinion eS :

‘Each defendant herein to, the extent emer in plaintiff's.

first four causes of action moves to dismiss such claims for

lack of jursis idiction over thé subject matter, for failure to_

. state a cléitn upon which relief can’ be granted, and, as to

the secénd and third causes of action only, for failure to

join indispensable’ parties, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (1), (6).

and (7), F.R.Civ.P. Both defendants named in the fifth

cause of action move alternatively for. dismissal of that

claim: on the first two of the above “stated grounds, or for

summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, *F.R:Civ.P, Each

‘of the first four causes of action attack bageball’s reserve

system. The fifth gause of action alleges cer tain: unrelated,

antitrust violations on say part. of two defendant baseball

clubs. eae i nat aed as Ree

———

: First Four Canses of Action

“TY Taras first to the motions to disnijiss the first four .

causes of action, dismissal on the pleadings for want of

; jurisdiction would. be appropriate only if? ‘plaintiff's claims ~

of federal jurisdiction. were unsubstantia or frivolous. Cf.

Bell v.- Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 73,: “90 L.Ed. 939

(1946). We easiniot: so ‘hold. See senate: our Opinion

herein. filéd March 4, 1970 denying plaintiff’s' motion for

a’ pWliminary injunction, 309 F. Supp. 793, (hereinafter

“Opinion”). Mgt Sie ’

After considerable reflection we also conclude that any

decision on the motions to. dismiss for failure to state.

a daim must'be deferred until trial. See Rule 12(d), -

FR.Civ.P. With regard to the first catise of action alleging’ -

.Yiolation of the’ federal antitrust laws, ‘plaintiff asserts |

_ grounds for overruling Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.,

346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953): which in our

view raise. serious’ questions of a factual: - nature. See

Opinion. By the same token we’ are: of the belief that

defendants raise substantial issues of fact as to whether

this matter is properly: a. labor dispute ¢ exempt ° from the

antitrust laws.’ Fd. To ‘obtain @ clear view, the. proper

judicial course requires that these ‘issues—importint to all

of organized basebalt and of great publie-interest—not be ;

resolved without full consideration of all the facts best, -

adduced at trial. See 2A Moore, Federal Practice J 12.16

‘at, 2356 amd 2357 (2d ed. 1968). See also, United States

v. Central. States ‘Theatre Corp., 159 F.Supp. 552. -

(D.Neb.1957) ;, Gaus. v. Huston, . 35 F.Supp. 327, 330)

(N.D.Iowal940). gg ws

Further, we believe the trial must’ encompass thie factual 3

issues raised: respeeting the reserye system—hailed as a

blessing by proponents; condemned as destructive by an-

‘tagonists.. We have ordered an—-ecarhtriatte rem (May 19;

ce the considerations w hich impelled that decision Tike-

‘1 We are not. satisfied that, as defendanis contend, this igttion is

ptoperly within the primary - jurisdiction ef the National ‘Labor

Relations Board, Assuming that the reserve system is a mandatory

_ bargaining. subject and that there i is good faith bargaining thereon,

nevertheless. we believe tlie: underlying isste of whether this is a .

- Tabor. dispute’ exempt from the antitrust laws is still present. See

~ Opinion.. In. any’ event, this question is best resolved after a

thorough | inquiry at trial. See Montgomery Ward '‘& Co. v. Behe.

macher, 3 F.R.D. 368, 370 (ND. Cal. 1944). '

= NI ERA ITIL EN IEE EA APNE “ict RINE RI el Ry ood wom.

°°

' wise weigh he avily in favor of developing all of the: faets -

at one trial so as to. avoid the possibility of piecemeal ,

_-determin

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.