Sports Owners\u27 Stand on Player Mobility Puts Ball in Courts; The Failure of the NFL Walkout Makes it Clear that Football Players Will Not Get Free Agency By Striking. Now They and Professional Basketball Players Must Turn to Litigation.

Last month, the Minnesota Twins became the 10th team to win the World Series in the past 10 years. Despite the baseball owners\u27 ominous forecasts regarding the evolution of free agency, no well-heeled franchise has mustered back-to-back championships, much less a league-wracking dynasty. In a sport with the most liberal and most frequently exercised free-agency scheme, this latest development is but one more rejoinder to the fatuous and tiresome refrain that free agency and league parity cannot peacefully coexist. With the conclusion of the 1987 campaign, arbitrator Tom Roberts\u27 collusion decision again occupies baseball\u27s center stage. Arbitrator Roberts has suggested that representatives of management and the players\u27 association reconvene to punctuate his verdict with a voluntarily adjusted damage award. Successful negotiation of a suitable remedy would obviate the need for further disposition by the arbitrator. In any event, whether the ultimate outcome be the product of an amicable resolution or an award by arbitral fiat, the players already have begun to declare free agency on a large scale. Apparently, they have approached the marketplace with a renewed confidence that their overtures will not be summarily rejected as a result of a preordained, leaguewide owner boycott. While Major League Baseball moves forward, awaiting only the damage award in the Roberts case and Arbitrator George Nicolau\u27s decision on alleged 1986 collusion, players of the National Football League and of the National Basketball Association have just begun to fight

Free Agency Becomes Critical Sports Issue As NFL Strike Ends; Football, Basketball, and Baseball are Groping Simultaneously with the Problem of Player Mobility. Two Antitrust Suits and an Arbitrator\u27s Ruling Have the Owners Reeling.

Within the past few weeks, three major professional sports have been forced to confront crucial issues involving the continuing viability of free agency and collateral questions pertinent to player mobility. In Major League Baseball, arbitrator Tom Roberts has sustained the grievance of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) alleging that baseball\u27s owners acted in concert to restrict the market available for free-agent baseballplayers in 1985. In professional football, the National Football League Players\u27 Association (NFLPA) called a strike prompted in part by the owners\u27 intransigence over any significant liberalization of the current system of free agency upon expiration of the 1982 collective bargaining agreement in 1987. After a three-week work stoppage, characterized by the continuation of NFL games with replacements and a few crossovers, the striking players returned to their teams. Immediately, the players filed an antitrust suit alleging that the owners\u27 reserve system (including the college draft) runs afoul of the antitrust laws. This state of autumn unrest is not limited to the NFL, as evidenced by the antitrust class action recently filed by several players, draftees, and the National Basketball Association (NBA) Players\u27 Association, whose labor agreement expired this summer. Again, the gravamen of the basketball complaint, filed two weeks before the NFLPA lawsuit, involves the impediments to unfettered player mobility--the college draft, the right of first refusal (incumbent club\u27s prerogative to match competing offer), and the salary cap (ceiling on team salaries). To the extent the owners press their claim for the continued inclusion of such clauses in the collective bargaining agreement, an impasse is inevitable and a strike possible

The Option Contract: Irrevocable Not Irrejectable

This Article briefly examines the traditional contract principles governing offer and acceptance, particularly the various means to terminate an offer. It also explores the special circumstances governing option contracts and similar mechanisms utilized to transform a revocable offer into an irrevocable one. Further, this Article reviews Restatement (Second) Section 37 and case law that addresses the question of whether a rejection should terminate an irrevocable offer. It explains why the view articulated by section 37 and its decisional predicates are untenable. Finally, this Article presents an alternative to section 37 that reflects logical compliance with established contract formation principles, while doing no violence to the legal and practical considerationsattending the creation of typical option contracts

The Option Contract: Irrevocable Not Irrejectable

This Article briefly examines the traditional contract principles governing offer and acceptance, particularly the various means to terminate an offer. It also explores the special circumstances governing option contracts and similar mechanisms utilized to transform a revocable offer into an irrevocable one. Further, this Article reviews Restatement (Second) Section 37 and case law that addresses the question of whether a rejection should terminate an irrevocable offer. It explains why the view articulated by section 37 and its decisional predicates are untenable. Finally, this Article presents an alternative to section 37 that reflects logical compliance with established contract formation principles, while doing no violence to the legal and practical considerationsattending the creation of typical option contracts