Newspaper article on Curt Flood\u27s lawsuit against major league baseball over the right to be a free agent

Koppett, Leonard

English

Digital Commons@Lindenwood University

Lindenwood University Digital Commons@Lindenwood University Curt Flood Baseball Clippings 3-21-1970 Way Cleared for Trial of Flood Antitrust Suit Leonard Koppett Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/cflood  Part of the United States History Commons Way Cleared for Trial o Flood Antitrust Suit By LEON.A.RD KOPPETT NEW YORK, N. Y.--Curt Flood's request for a temporary Injunction, whkh would have made him a free agent Immediately, was turned down in Federal Court here March 4 by Judge Irvin Ben Cooper. The decision, expected by law-yers on both sides, eliminated the PoSSibility that Flood would be able lo play for a team of his choice this year-and cleared the decks for an actual trial on the merits of his antitrust suit against baseball's reserve clause. Neither the request for the in-junction nor Judge Cooper's de-cision dealt with lhe real issues. The only thing at slake was an at-tempt to get Flood "immediate" relief. Far-Reaching Issues Judge Cooper rejected the plea on several grounds. One was that granting such an injunction would amount to giving Flood at once what he sought to gain m the en-tire action. Another was that the far-reaching Issues raised, and their effect on aJJ baseball, should be settled by a full-scale trial and not by a pre-liminary lnjunclion proceeding. The injunction sought .by Flood, who has objected to being traded to the Phillies by the Cards, would have forbidden the league clubs to agree not to negotiate with him as a rree agent. Judge Cooper said that Flood had not shown that the two condi-tions that justify such an emergen-cy remedy had been mer-that is, that the damage to him would be "irreparable" or thal he had a good chance or winning the case eventually. Flood's eventual victory w a s questionable, the judge asserted, because getting the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn a previous de-cision represented a "formidable" obstacle. On the other hand, Judge Coo-per expressed much approval or Flood's arguments in the course or Curt Flood and Attorney Allan Zerman Confer After l earning the Court's Decision. his 55-page opinion and said, in a footnote: ''The basebaJJ reserve rule ap-pears excessively restrictive (far beyond that necessary lo protect its aim of insuring stability or team membership, maximizing ran Interest, and protecting club in-vestments in player development). Less restrictive alternatives have been adopted in rootball, basket-ball and other proressionai sports. Accordingly, t h e r e appears a strong likelihood that the reserve system would be held an unrea-sonable restraint or trade." The next step is up to Flood's at-torneys, Arthur Goldberg or New York and Allan Zerman or St. Louis. They can ask for an immediate trial, which can be a jury trial or a trial berore 1 judge. They can wait their tun-. in normal pretrial procedure. They can ask for a summary judgment, in which the arguments a r e presented to a judge (without a full trial) and he decides. Or they can appeal Judge Cooper's demAI of the Injunction to o higher court. Must Go to Hlgh Court In any case, the ma tler cannot rea fly be ·settled unlit it reaches the Supreme :ourt. First, there must be a trial of some sort. That decision can he appealed. by lhe loser, to the Circuit Court of Ap-peals. Only then can the de-cision of the appeals court be ap-pealed lo the Supreme Court and, even at that point. the Supreme Court must decide whether it wants to accept the case or not. As outlined In Judge Cooper's discussion, the issues seem to be: I. The Supreme Court ruled, In 1922, that baseball did not come under Federal anti-trust lows. 2. II ruled in 1953 that, although it seemed now that baseball should come under these laws, Congress had not seen rlt to say so specifi-cally, and that it would be unfair to reverse a ruling under which baseball had been allowed 10 op-erate ror 31 years. 3. In 1955 and 1957, in cases that did put boxing and football under antitrus iur sdtction, lhe Supreme Court reaffirmed baseball 's excep. tion. It noted that this seemed illogical, but stressed the fact that baseball had been told, by the court, that it's way or operating was legal, while other sports had never been told that. In other words, the court was unwilllng to upset a system that had been al-lowed to grow with its specific per-mission (even if that permission would not have been granted by the the present court). The 1953 case is called Toolson, the 1957 case Radovich. Judge Cooper, in his conclusion. wrote: Players Cite Grievances "For years professional b a I I players have chared under the re-strictions or baseball's reserve sys-tem; a long line of litigation so at-tests. Many or their grievances appear justified. Yet, regretrully, as the Supreme Court stated in Radovich, we are not writmg here on a clean slate. Recognizing the equity of plaintiff's claims, we must also recognize existing, well-established and controlling prece-dents against bis position. "If plaintiff is to achieve by court a c t I o n the fundamental changes he seeks In the reserve system, then we believe that such determination on a mauer or vital importance to Organll.ed Baseball and with such potential for open-ing the noodgates to litigation must at least be the result of a full trial, and not on the basis or a mo-uon for preliminary relier. "To grant plaintHr the prelimi-nary injunction he seeks would work the type of unfair surprise and carry the same sort or sud-den errect that the Supreme Court in Toolson was al such pains to prevent. " Accordingly, we are constrained to deny plaintiff's motion for the extraordinary remedy of a pre-liminary Injunction. As a matter of law, we are pawerless to hold otherwise." 

Way Cleared for Trial of Flood Antitrust Suit

https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=cflood

Way Cleared for Trial of Flood Antitrust Suit

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons@Lindenwood University