Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun - who occupied Goldberg’s old seat - said that although the original 1922 ruling was an aberration, “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.” ( Stare decisis is a legal principle that means to let the decision stand.)įlood’s career and case were both over, but not the cause. In June 1972, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against Flood, upholding baseball’s quirky antitrust exemption. Goldberg betrayed his lack of baseball knowledge by referring to the several “Golden Gloves competitions” Flood had won.
#Curt flood made pro athletes for free#
In his book, “ A Well-Paid Slave: Curt Flood’s Fight for Free Agency in Professional Sports,” Brad Snyder wrote that Goldberg gave a “feeble factual recitation” of Flood’s career, and that Goldberg’s friend, Justice William Brennan, cringed during his presentation. representative to the United Nations, represented Flood at oral arguments in March 1972. Goldberg, who had stepped down from the court in 1965 at President Lyndon B. So even though his career was over, his lawsuit was heading to the main stage: the Supreme Court. The ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court in April 1971 - the same month that Flood quit the sport after an abortive comeback effort with the Washington Senators, when he hit just.
(Cooper, Miller, and an attorney for Flood, former Supreme Court justice Arthur Goldberg, were all Jewish.) “I think everyone knew that it would be very difficult for a district court to overrule the Supreme Court.” “Judge Cooper only held that it is up to the Supreme Court to overrule the Supreme Court,” said the baseball union’s executive director, Marvin Miller, adding that his side would appeal. If the reserve clause is not modified I think you will have a serious strike by the players.” A drawn-out legal battleĪ few months after Flood’s trial, Judge Irving Ben Cooper ruled against him in his antitrust challenge, which wasn’t a surprise, since the Supreme Court had granted baseball an exemption from antitrust laws in 1922. Whenever there is a one-sided situation, you have a serious, serious problem. Robinson, who was active in the civil rights movement, called the reserve clause one sided in favor of the owners, and argued that it “should be modified to give the player some control over his destiny. The owners should have some control over players, but it should be limited,” and suggested a five-year contract would be fair to both sides - close to the six years that teams currently have control of players before they can seek free agency. Under cross-examination, he discussed the issue as a prospective owner: “I’d be happy to invest in a club tomorrow if there were no reserve clause. We must recognize that times have changed and must go forward harmoniously and the first step, the last step, is to abolish the existing reserve clause and work out a substitute.” “The reserve clause has been in the news since 1923, and has brought objections from players, and confused the public.
“We need more harmonious relations between players and owners, and we need to repair baseball’s image with the public,” Greenberg said. His fellow investor with those teams, Bill Veeck, who had been the first owner to sign a Black player in the American League, also testified on Flood’s side.
#Curt flood made pro athletes trial#
At Flood’s trial that May, Greenberg testified that “the reserve clause is obsolete, antiquated and definitely needs change.” His appearance against baseball owners was striking because he had been a part owner and general manager of two MLB teams himself after his playing days were over. He sat out the 1970 season and pursued his case against MLB. “I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.” “After 12 years in the Major Leagues, I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes,” Flood wrote.
0 kommentar(er)
