View Single Post
11-19-2012, 07:01 PM
Global Moderator
kdb209's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,495
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The Supreme Court contemplated this in 1922. In Federal Baseball Club v. National League, the Supreme Court held that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to Major League Baseball because it didn't consider baseball interstate commerce for the purposes of the Sherman Act. Since that decision, sports organizations have been given exemption to Sherman using the same logic.

That being said, I understand where you're coming from. The alternative side of the coin is that while the franchises compete on the field, they require unique cooperation off the field to ensure the overall financial health of the single entity that is the NHL.
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
No they haven't, both the courts and Congress have flatly refused to extend antitrust exemptions to other sports, with the exception of for the purposes of television (and a few years ago Congress was talking about revoking the NFL's antitrust exemption with regards to that), and baseball's no longer applies to any labor-related issues.

Professional sports organizations can get around the Sherman Act due to the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption, by having a negotiated CBA with the Players' Association.
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Thanks Epsilon. I was confused about that part. Thanks for clarifying. That would explain why the NHLPA decertifying would expose the NHL to antitrust litigation.
Yup. The SCOTUS has long realized that it's 1922 decision in Federal Baseball Club v National League - which gave baseball it's peculiar anti-trust exemption by ruling that Baseball was not interstate commerce - was completely wrong. They have consistently rejected any attempts to extend it to other sports/leagues, but have twice upheld it as Stare Decisis - and passed the buck to Congress to change it if they so chose.

The Court upheld it with a one paragraph unsigned decision in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953)
In Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U. S. 200, this Court held that the business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players was not within the scope of the federal antitrust laws. Congress has had the ruling under consideration, but has not seen fit to bring such business under these laws by legislation having prospective effect. The business has thus been left for thirty years to develop on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation. The present cases ask us to overrule the prior decision and, with retrospective effect, hold the legislation applicable. We think that, if there are evils in this field which now warrant application to it of the antitrust laws, it should be by legislation. Without reexamination of the underlying issues, the judgments below are affirmed on the authority of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, supra, 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.

They upheld it again in the Curt Flood case - Flood v. Kuhn - 407 U.S. 258 (1972) . Justice Blackmun wrote:
In view of all this, it seems appropriate now to say that:

1. Professional baseball is a business, and it is engaged in interstate commerce.

2. With its reserve system enjoying exemption from the federal antitrust laws, baseball is, in a very distinct sense, an exception and an anomaly. Federal Baseball and Toolson have become an aberration confined to baseball.

3. Even though others might regard this as "unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical," see Radovich, 352 U.S. at 352 U. S. 452, the aberration is an established one, and one that has been recognized not only in Federal Baseball and Toolson, but in Shubert, International Boxing, and Radovich, as well, a total of five consecutive cases in this Court. It is an aberration that has been with us now for half a century, one heretofore deemed fully entitled to the benefit of stare decisis, and one that has survived the Court's expanding concept of interstate commerce. It rests on a recognition and an acceptance of baseball's unique characteristics and needs.

4. Other professional sports operating interstate -- football, boxing, basketball, and, presumably, hockey [Footnote 19] and golf [Footnote 20] -- are not so exempt.


This emphasis and this concern are still with us. We continue to be loath, 50 years after Federal Baseball and almost two decades after Toolson, to overturn those cases judicially when Congress, by its positive inaction, has allowed those decisions to stand for so long and, far beyond mere inference and implication, has clearly evinced a desire not to disapprove them legislatively.

Accordingly, we adhere once again to Federal Baseball and Toolson, and to their application to professional baseball. We adhere also to International Boxing and Radovich, and to their respective applications to professional boxing and professional football. If there is any inconsistency or illogic in all this, it is an inconsistency and illogic of long standing that is to be remedied by the Congress, and not by this Court. If we were to act otherwise, we would be withdrawing from the conclusion as to congressional intent made in Toolson and from the concerns as to retrospectivity therein expressed. Under these circumstances, there is merit in consistency, even though some might claim that beneath that consistency is a layer of inconsistency.

kdb209 is offline