scholarly journals Rethinking Major League Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-40
Author(s):  
Roger D. Blair ◽  
Wenche Wang
Keyword(s):  
Labor Market ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Major League Baseball ◽  
Policy Recommendation ◽  
Current Interest ◽  
Department Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Major League ◽  
Or Organization ◽  
Antitrust Immunity

For nearly a century, Major League Baseball (MLB) has enjoyed antitrust immunity. No other sports league or organization is similarly exempt. Shielded by precedent from antitrust prosecution, MLB clubs are free to exploit both monopolistic and monopsonistic power. In this paper, we call for a repeal of MLB’s antitrust exemption. In doing so, we examine some recent antitrust challenges to MLB conduct, the current interest of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in labor market issues, the welfare consequences of the exemption, and a policy recommendation for legislative action.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Grow
Keyword(s):  
Major League Baseball ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Interstate Commerce ◽  
Oliver Wendell Holmes ◽  
Major League ◽  
History Of ◽  
National League ◽  
Antitrust Immunity

This book examines the history of the Federal Baseball litigation and explains how Major League Baseball first came to be exempt from antitrust law. In a unanimous ruling, penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in the 1922 case of Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, the United States Supreme Court held that the “business of base ball” was not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act because it did not constitute interstate commerce. The Court has affirmed Federal Baseball on two separate occasions, first in 1953 and then again in 1972, giving Major League Baseball antitrust immunity. This book examines how baseball came to enjoy its unique antitrust status, and more specifically why Justice Holmes concluded that the sport was not interstate commerce and thus not subject to federal antitrust law. It argues that the decision was consistent with the prevailing judicial precedents of the day and highlights several critical tactical mistakes committed by the Baltimore Federals's counsel throughout the litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document