Reserve Clause Essay

The reserve clause was one of the most controversial conditions within player’s contracts in Major League Baseball. This clause, in essence, retained players from signing with other teams once the current contract expired. Players like Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause because how unfair the terms were. He was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season, but refused to leave the St. Louis Cardinals. Flood filed a lawsuit and Flood v. Kuhn made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Although no active players backed Flood, Jackie Robinson agreed with Flood. Flood lost the case by in the end, but opened a gateway for change in Major League Baseball. A few years later in 1974, Oakland Athletics pitcher Catfish Hunter became

It made it easier to move players to and from a team. On the other hand, this sometimes created rooster turnover and players were constantly joining and leaving the club. This can throw off team chemistry because a team might have a different short stop every few months. For fans, free agency was a benefit because they had the opportunity to see players play that they might have never seen if the reserve clause was still the policy. Teams could no longer hold players from leaving so they could show their talent elsewhere. Fans could also view the rooster turnover as a negative. This is because if their team is constantly being altered or changed with different players, they might get the impression that no player has loyalty to the team. For owners, free agency was a blessing and a curse. It was beneficial because they could sign players easier, but could no longer have complete control over players. Because players were easier to get, owners kept buying players and overwhelmed themselves. Not only were the players’ salaries were more, they had to worry about paying salaries of players already on the team. Some owners had to sell their teams because of rising cost of players. Charlie Finley actually sold the Oakland A’s to Walter Haas. Free agency caused a panic with owners because it was a completely new playing field that they had to get used

This is because if opened a new plane for players. Their salaries increased substantially and there are three factors that contributed to this rise. First, owners could not control spending and always thought they were just one more player from creating the perfect team. Owners wanted to win games and spent a lot of money to get the best players. Second, the rise of player agents in the league helped increase salaries. Finally, arbitration helped because players were able to negotiate with clubs to be paid based off performance. Free agency sparked owners to try to build the best teams possible, which in return provided great entertainment for fans. After all, free agency is still around today, so it must have been a beneficial development for the players. For the owners, it was another story. Salary arbitration caused problems for owners and Major League Baseball. Helyar states, “A harmless mechanism when created in 1973, it was to become a monster in the post-Messersmith world” (Heyler 308). Salary arbitration did not seem like a problem until it was combined with free agency. Players linked their demands in salary arbitration with what free agents demanded in the open market (Heyler 308). It was like a double edged sword for owners. Players were no more than average demanded a raise in salary and often won the case. For example, Bobby Clark demanded an 83% increase in salary and he was only batting .211. He