Main Arguments Of The Antitrust Cases In Baseball

Question 2-3: What were the main arguments of the case? How do they differ from the previous antitrust cases in baseball?
A month later in January 1907, Curt Flood filed a suit against Bowie Kuhn for relief from the reserve clause and 1 million dollars in damages. Flood’s arguments against Kuhn are controversial because he as an African American who compared the reserve clause to slavery. While the Major League’s attorneys argued that baseball was an important part of American culture and the reserve system caused greater good for the sport of baseball. The case Question 2-3: What were the main arguments of the case? How do they differ from the previous antitrust cases in baseball?
A month later in January 1907, Curt Flood filed a suit against

Flood’s arguments against Kuhn are controversial because he as an African American who compared the reserve clause to slavery. While the Major League’s attorneys argued that baseball was an important part of American culture and the reserve system caused greater good for the sport of baseball. The case was taken to the Supreme Court was because Arthur Goldberg and his colleagues, the lawyers for Flood, believed the reserve clause violated the Constitution’s thirteenth amendment. The case was assigned to Judge Irving Ben Cooper, who had been a New York State Judge before his federal and Supreme Court judge career. This is interesting because the case has originally been opened in New York, where Major League Baseball was headquartered. Goldberg and his associates presented testimony demonstrating that if the reserve clause was modified, baseball could continue to be profitable. While the opposing side, presented evidence that investments in the game were made with the reliance of the exemption of antitrust laws. In order to be successful, Flood’s lawyers had to make points clear. The first one being that baseball was

Although the court ruled that baseball is still exempt from antitrust laws, they consented that baseball was in fact a business and interstate commerce. The decision paved the way for free agency in the future. The law might not have changed, but it brought awareness to the issue of antitrust in baseball and changed the sentiments in labor relations. Only three after Flood had lost his case in the Supreme Court, baseball players were granted the right to choose their employer. Flood might have lost in the short run, but ultimately all professional players won in the long