Court Opinion

ID: 9456938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:06:53.816339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:09.144329
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
Baseball for almost a century has been our country’s “national” sport. Every decade since the days of Abner Doubleday and A. G. Spalding has developed *269outstanding players, heroes in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans— heroes whose names are enshrined in a baseball “Hall of Fame.” In this century alone the names of such players (to select a few) as Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, the remarkable Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth of home-run fame, Lou Gehrig and more recently Ted Williams and Willie Mays were probably better known to a greater number of pur populace than many of our statesmen; and their exploits better remembered than the activities of our outstanding public figures. Such slogans as “Tinker-to-Evers-toChance” became by-words. Even big businesses — at least their employees— were apt to subordinate their important affairs to baseball at the time of the October World Series. And such names as the Dodgers, the Yankees, Cubs, Giants and Braves were household words. In short, organized baseball existed almost as an enclave or feudal barony throughout the years, managing its own affairs as best calculated to preserve the sport and maintaining its own officialdom for self-regulation purposes — and, except for the brief scandal of the so-called Chicago Black Sox of 1919, apparently has handled its little kingdom and its subjects very well.1
Until 1913 there were two leagues, the National and the American, which were known as the major leagues, each league consisting of eight teams in major cities of the country. In that year a new league came into being, the “Federal League of Professional Baseball Clubs.” This league issued franchises to clubs also in various cities, some of which had teams in the National and American Leagues. The “Federal League” continued in existence until December 1915 when by agreement with the National and American Leagues it and its constituent clubs dissolved except for the “Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc.” (Baltimore). Assorting that the dissolution was caused by acts in violation of the federal antitrust laws, Baltimore brought suit fop treble damages against the major leagues and certain of their officers. A judgment of $240,000 was obtained by Baltimore. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was reversed with instructions to enter judgment for the defendants in the suit.
Since the suit was based on the antitrust laws which in turn involved interstate commerce, the Court of Appeals after reviewing the modus opercmdi of the two major leagues and their regulatory body, the National Commission, discussed the case in relation to these laws and directed itself to answering the question whether baseball exhibitions constituted “trade or commerce within the meaning of the Sherman Act?” and involved interstate commerce.
The court concluded that a “game of baseball” was purely “local in its beginning and in its end” and that although the players traveled from place to place in interstate commerce, “they are not the game.” The Court said, “Not until they [the players] come into contact with their opponents on the baseball field and the contest opens does the game come into existence.” — hence—“the game effects no exchange of things according to the meaning of ‘trade or commerce.’ ” National League of Prof. Baseball Clubs v. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc., 50 App.D.C. 165, 269 F. 681, 684-685 (1920).
The court also considered the restrictive clauses (as here) in the players’ contracts as allegedly violative of the antitrust laws and commented that “If the reserve did not exist, the highly skillful players would be absorbed by the more wealthy clubs, and thus some clubs in the league would so far outstrip others in playing ability that the contests between the superior and inferior clubs would be uninteresting, and the public would refuse to patronize them.” Moreover, the reserve clause had the effect “of preventing players from disregarding their obligations.” 269 F. at *270687. The case was then argued before the Supreme Court.
This somewhat lengthy preamble is deemed necessary both to understand and put in proper perspective the Supreme Court decision,2 featured in appellant’s and appellees’ arguments. The syllabus of the arguments reveals that the points urged in 1971 were not dissimilar to those urged in 1922. In a brief opinion, Mr. Justice Holmes wrote for the court (there being no dissent): “The decision of the Court of Appeals went to the root of the case and if correct makes it unnecessary to consider other serious difficulties in the way of the plaintiff’s recovery.” 259 U.S. at 208, 42 S.Ct. at 465. The Court adopted the lower court’s concept of baseball exhibitions as “purely state affairs” and that interstate transportation of players and equipment was only incidental thereto. 259 U.S. at 208, 209, 42 S.Ct. 465. In short, the Court held that the personal efforts of the players was “not a subject of commerce,” and that “restrictions by contract that prevented the plaintiff from getting players to break their bargains * * * were not an interference with commerce among the States.” 259 U.S. at 209, 42 S.Ct. at 466.
After this decision some 31 years elapsed during which the New York Yankees and Giants vied for supremacy in many of these years in Worlds Series before huge crowds concentrating in New York from the then 48 States. Other clubs broke the Yankee-Giant monopoly without the aid of antitrust laws and achieved championship rank, including the Senators, the Reds, the Tigers, the Athletics and the Cards (the cities can be identified without footnotes).
In the interval between 1922 and 1953, this court considered a suit based upon the alleged illegality of the reserve clause in Gardella v. Chandler, 172 F.2d 402 (1949). Although by a two-to-one decision the court remanded the case for trial, Judge Frank’s prediction that the Supreme Court had “completely destroyed the vitality of Federal Baseball” and had “left that case but an impotent zombie.” 172 F.2d at 408, 409, turned out to be highly inaccurate in the light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent 1953 and 1957 decisions.
In 1953, on facts not dissimilar from those of this case, the Supreme Court again had an opportunity to examine (or better to re-examine) organized baseball through antitrust glasses. Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78, 98 L.Ed. 64 (1953) had originated in a suit by Toolson, a professional baseball player who claimed that while under contract with Newark his contract was assigned to Binghamton. He refused to report to Binghamton and was placed on an ineligible list, thus preventing him from playing. On motion the action was dismissed “for want of jurisdiction.” The district court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Baseball and referred to the many cases in which that decision had been cited with approval.3 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the lower court’s opinion. 200 F.2d 198 (1952).
The Supreme Court in its decision left no doubt “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,” and that “Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.” 346 U.S. at 357, 74 S.Ct. at 79. The majority commented that for thirty years Congress had allowed baseball “to develop, on the understanding that it was not subject to existing antitrust legislation” and that any change should be made by congressional action. Id. The Court did not restrict itself to *271federal or state laws but said “existing antitrust legislation.” Id.
During the intervening years from 1922 to date, other sports developed their professional intercity teams, formed leagues and achieved a public popularity scarcely envisioned in the earlier days. As communications facilities and techniques developed that which was clicked out by telegraph key or transmitted by telephone was superseded by radio and television. However, the interstate transmission of news was not changed; only the methods. Although arguments are made by court and counsel based upon alleged factual changes with respect to interstate communications, the business of baseball has not changed its interstate character over the years. Of necessity it has always been interstate. Now there are more viewers across the nation but this fact is not relevant to the interstate nature of the sport except to make it more so.
In 1954 two types of entertainment by means of public exhibition sought to take advantage of Federal Baseball and Tool-son, i.e., theatrical performances and boxing. Interstate commerce was definitely involved in both cases and in each case the government’s antitrust complaint had been dismissed on motion in reliance by the district court on Federal Baseball and Toolson. United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222, 75 S.Ct. 277, 99 L.Ed. 279 (1955) and United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., 348 U.S. 236, 75 S.Ct. 259, 99 L. Ed. 290 (1955), decided the same day. In Shubert the Supreme Court interpreted Federal Baseball as “dealing with the business of baseball and nothing else,” and that Federal Baseball “did not automatically immunize the theatrical business from the antitrust laws.” 348 U.S. at 228, 229, 75 S.Ct. at 282. As to Tool-son the Court said, “For over 30 years there had stood a decision of this Court specifically fixing the status of the baseball business under the antitrust laws and more particularly the validity of the so-called ‘reserve clause,’ ” a ruling which Congress had actively considered but which it had “not seen fit to reject [it] by amendatory legislation.” 348 U.S. at 229, 75 S.Ct. at 282. In International Boxing Club the Court refused to extend the baseball exemption to boxing but continued to recognize the unique position of organized baseball as buttressed by Federal Baseball and Toolson. See 348 U.S. at 242, 75 S.Ct. 259.
Two years later the Supreme Court had to face the claim of a professional football player that the National Football League, its member clubs and the commissioners of two leagues had conspired to violate the antitrust laws because of a restrictive player contract. Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445, 77 S.Ct. 390, 1 L.Ed.2d 456 (1957). Again the Supreme Court clearly indicated that organized baseball still occupied its exempt status, saying, “[W]e now specifically limit the rule there established to the facts there involved, i.e., the business of organized professional baseball.” 352 U.S. at 451, 77 S.Ct. at 394. The Court stated its reasons for its limitation:
“The Court did this because it was concluded that more harm would be done in overruling Federal Baseball than in upholding a ruling which at best was of dubious validity. Vast efforts had gone into the development and organization of baseball since that decision and enormous capital had been invested in 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 harassment that would ensue, and the retroactive effect of such a decision, led the Court to the practical result that it should sustain the unequivocal line of authority reaching over many years.”
352 U.S. at 450, 77 S.Ct. at 393.
The Court’s own policy for the future was set forth: “As long as the Congress continues to acquiesce we should adhere to — but not extend — the interpretation of the Act made in those [Federal Baseball and Toolson] cases.” 352 U.S. at 451, 77 S.Ct. at 394. That interpreta*272tion was: “But Federal Baseball held the business of baseball outside the scope of the Act.” 352 U.S. at 452, 77 S.Ct. at 394. The Court recognized that “the doctrine of Toolson and Federal Baseball must yield to any congressional action and continues only at its sufferance.” but concluded that “[t]his is not a new approach. See Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U.S. 249, 255, 63 S. Ct. 225, 87 L.Ed. 246 (1942); compare Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 [72 S.Ct. 571, 96 L.Ed. 833] (1952).” Id.
The last word from this court is to be found in Salerno v. American League of Prof. Baseball Clubs, 429 F.2d 1003 (1970), cert. denied, sub nom. Salerno v. Kuhn, 400 U.S. 1001, 91 S.Ct. 462, 27 L. Ed.2d 452 (January 12, 1971). The suit was brought in the district court by two discharged umpires who claimed that their discharge was caused by their en-' deavor to organize American League umpires for collective bargaining. Charges of unfair labor practices were also filed with the National Labor Relations Board. The motion to dismiss the cause of action based on the antitrust laws was granted. On appeal this court said that there was “serious doubt whether the complaint here stated a claim under them [antitrust laws],” but then went on to discuss the likely overruling of Federal Baseball and Toolson. The court recognized that Toolson was based upon the ground that “Congress had no intention to bring baseball within the antitrust laws, not that baseball’s activities did not sufficiently affect interstate commerce.” The dismissal was affirmed, the court reserving for the Supreme Court “the exclusive privilege of overruling its own decisions.” 429 F.2d at 1005.
In my opinion there is no likelihood that such an event will occur. As I analyze the history of organized professional baseball over the last 50 years, it has shown without Court interference remarkable stability under self-discipline. The Supreme Court in 1922 undoubtedly felt that it should adopt a “hands off” policy as to this one particular sport which had attained by then such a national standing that only Congress should have the power to tamper with it. And properly so. Baseball’s welfare and future should not be for politically insulated interpreters of technical antitrust statutes but rather should be for the voters through their elected representatives. If baseball is to be damaged by statutory regulation, let the congressman face his constituents the next November and also face the consequences of his baseball voting record.
Just as the Supreme Court in 1955 recognized that baseball “had grown and developed” and “in reliance on the Federal Baseball precedent,” United States v. Shubert, supra, 348 U.S. at 229, 75 S.Ct. at 282, so much the more has it grown between 1955 and 1971. The eight teams in each league have been expanded to twelve. Thus twenty-four teams are playing intersectional games in many cities which did not have major league exhibitions available in former years. The reasons for adopting a “hands off” policy by the courts of this particular sport have multiplied. Congressional and Labor Board attention is being given in such areas of baseball as may be appropriate for regulation.
Appellant argues that even if this court follows Federal Baseball and Tool-son, “THEN IT MUST SUBJECT BASEBALL TO STATE LAWS.” True, in Federal Baseball the distinguished justice did refer to baseball exhibitions as “purely state affairs.” But from this reference does not follow the conclusion that, therefore, state antitrust laws apply. To the contrary, the decision was based upon the assumption that baseball is “not a subject of commerce.” 259 U.S. at 209, 42 S.Ct. at 466. However, if there were to be any doubt, the Supreme Court itself resolved those doubts in Toolson.
The organization of professional baseball as it now exists cannot be better stated than in the findings of fact of the trial court and in the opinion of Mr. Justice Fairchild in State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis.2d 699, 144 N.W.2d *2731 (1966). Equally well set forth are the reasons why organized professional baseball could not possibly be subjected to the antitrust laws of the several States in which the games are played.
Therefore, without any reservations or doubts as to the soundness of Federal Baseball and Toolson, I would affirm the decision below on all four counts and would limit the participation of the courts in the conduct of baseball’s affairs to the throwing out by the Chief Justice (in the absence of the President) of the first ball of the baseball season.

. For a detailed description of modern baseball organization, see the findings of fact in State v. Milwaukee Braves, Inc., 31 Wis.2d 699, 144 N.W.2d 1, 3-5 (1966).

. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Prof. Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922).

. Toolson v. New York Yankees, 101 F.Supp. 93, 94 (S.D.Cal.1951).