Evening star., 1953-11-09
Supreme Court
|Ho|dsBasebaII
|0n|Y a Sport
II Decision Rules
Game Isn't Subject
To Antitrust Lows
By Robert K. Walsh

held a 31-year-old decision that
organized baseball is sport
and hence is not subject to the
Federal antitrust laws.
The 7-to-2 decision, from
which Justices Burton and Reed
dissented, left the legal status OF
baseball, together with it's con-
troversial reserve clause" ex-
actly where it has been since the
late Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes read the tribunals de-
ciSion in 1922 that baseball is
essentially game and is not
engaged in interstate trade OF
commerce.
The courts opinion today was
a per curiam" pronouncement
in that it was unsigned and was
merely read by Chief Justice
Warren.
Acclaimed by Griffith.
Clark Griffith, president of the
Washington Baseball Club
greeted the Supreme Courts de-
ciSion enthusiastically when
awakened from his customary
midday nap at the ball park.
That's wonderful" Mr.. Grif-
fifth said. II thought they'd do
that. We wouldn't have baseball
without the reserve clause.
hope this will end all of those
nonsensical suits against base
ball"
Recalling the 1922 decision,
the court noted that congress
Sional committees in recent
years have looked into the ques-
ton of whether organized base
ball should be brought within
antitrust laws.
But Congress has not seen fit
to bring such business under
these laws by legislation having
prospective effect" the opin9On
continued. THE business has
thus been left for 80 years to de-
velop on the understanding that
it was not subject to existing
antitrust legislation. The pres
ent cases ask us to overrule the
prior decision and, without re-
prospective effect, hold tire leg
islation applicable.
Legislation Suggested.
1--WE think that if there are
evils in this field which now war
rant application to it of the anti
trust laws, it should be by legis-
lation. Without re-examination
of the underlying issues, the
judgments (of the courts be-
low are affirmed on the author
ity of Federal Baseball Club of
Baltimore VS.. National League of
Professional League of Baseball
Clubs (the 1922 deciSion) so far
as that decision determines that
Congress had no intention of in
cluding the business of baseball
within the scope of the Federal
antitrust laws"
The opinion today came less
than a month after the court
heard arguments on three cases
contending that professional
baseball should be suject to the
antitrust laws and that the "re-
serve clause" violated the con-
stitutional rights of players.
Under the reserve clause-in-
cluded in all baseball contracts
a player is the property of a club
with which he signs contract
and remains so until released or
sold by the club.
Triple Damages Asked.
The suits were filed by two
players who were with farm clubs
of the New York Yankees and
the Brooklyn Dodgers, and by
the former owner of the Ell Pasc
(Tex.) baseball club. The two
former players asked triple dam
ages because they said they were
unable to play or to advance in
baseball because of the reserve
clause provisions. The Ell Pasc
man asked damages on the
ground that he was prevented
from hiring several Mexican
players.
All three suits were dismissed
by the lower courts on the basis
of the 1922 Holmes decision.
Attorneys for the major and
minor leagues warned that q
Supreme Court reversal of the
1922 decision would necesSitate
an almost complete overhauling
of the organized baseball setup
and possibly would wreck the
system as it operates today.
They insisted that baseball is
essentially a sport which is ex-
empt from the antitrust laws
and that it's status has not been
essentially changed because OF
the development of radio and
teleyiSion programs.