Curt Flood Trial and Appeals: 1970-72

Plaintiff: Curt Flood
Defendants: Commissioner of baseball, presidents of the National League and American League, and owners of all 24 major league baseball clubs
Plaintiff Claim: Organized baseball does fall under the definition of interstate commerce and is a monopoly; therefore the trading of baseball players without their agreement is an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law.

Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff: Trial: Arthur J. Goldberg, Jay Topkis; Supreme Court: Arthur J. Goldberg
Chief Defense Lawyers: Trial: Mark Hughes, Victor Kramer; Supreme Court: Lou Hoynes, Paul Porter
Judge: Trial: Irving Ben Cooper; Final Appeal: U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger presiding
Places: Trial: New York, New York; Final Appeal: Washington, D.C.
Dates of Trial and Final Appeal: Trial: May 19-June 10, 1970; Decision, August 12, 1970. Final Appeal Heard: March 20, 1972; decision, June 19, 1972
Decisions: Trial: Flood's suit rejected. Supreme Court: Lower courts' findings upheld, 5-3

SIGNIFICANCE: Although Curt Flood lost in the trial and in the subsequent Supreme Court decision, his suit to break the reserve clause of organized baseball led the way to the end of this practice within a few years. By his independent and often reviled action, Flood had opened the door for baseball's "free agents," which undeniably led to the late twentieth century revolution in baseball players' salaries and team loyalties.

Americans had long adopted as one of their national "myths" that baseball played such a special role in their lives and society that even the major leagues differed from all other business operations. In particular, organized baseball's team owners had been able to defy the government's legal prohibition of restraint of trade by maintaining the sanctity of the so-called reserve clause. This refers to the agreement, first adopted by major league teams in 1879, to place their players "on reserve," meaning that so long as they were under contract to one team, they could not move to any other team. Conversely, the team could sell or trade the players at the owners' will. This practice was challenged over the years—by players' unions, by new leagues, by the occasional individual player—but to no avail. In fact, two Supreme Court rulings—one in 1922, the other in 1953—held that the Federal courts were powerless to regulate organized baseball, although in the latter case the justices advised Congress to effect legislation to do so. But not until 1970 was the reserve clause to be put to a true trial by a prominent player with much to lose, Curt Flood.

Flood's Conditioning

Born in Texas in 1938, raised in California, Flood had come up to the majors with the Cincinnati Reds in 1956. After the 1957 season he was traded to the St. Louis Cardinals, and he was soon displaying the skills that would make him a leading player—not only a solid hitter but a superb center fielder. Yet like all ballplayers up to that time, he was totally "under contract" to the owner of his team, and at the end of the 1969 season he was abruptly informed that he had been traded to the Philadelphia Phillies.

Thousands of players before this had quietly packed their bags and moved on to the new team. But something about the way this was handled upset Flood. He had settled into St. Louis and felt at home there. He was a proud man, and a sensitive man—among other things, he was a talented artist: his portrait of Martin Luther King, Jr., hung in Coretta King's home. Perhaps most significantly, Flood was an African American who had been moved by the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. He himself would describe his own reaction to the trade as, "By god, this is America. I'm a human being. I'm not a piece of property."

So Flood decided to challenge the reserve clause. He turned to the Major League Players Association, which not only agreed to finance his suit but also hired Arthur J. Goldberg, the former Supreme Court justice, as his lawyer. On January 16, 1970, he formally filed his suit, taking on the entire baseball establishment.

The Playoffs

The trial opened on May 19, 1970, at the Federal Court of the Southern District of New York, Judge Irving Ben Cooper presiding. Given the role that baseball did play in the nation's life, it was well covered by the media and well attended by people hoping to catch a glimpse of some of the celebrity witnesses. Flood himself was the first to take the stand and at one point he was asked to supply his batting averages during his years in the majors. He was unable to recall these until one of his lawyers handed him a bubble gum baseball card that had the exact statistics. His salary over the years also had to be recorded, and the fact that he was to be paid $90,000 (plus $8,000 for spring training) by the Phillies would be widely cited by those who derided his claim that he was being treated like a slave.

The trial revolved around a basic conflict. Flood claimed that organized baseball exerted a monopolistic hold on all major and minor league teams and that its contracts giving teams total power over the players effectively lowered salaries. The defendants' claim was that this system was essential to the operation and survival of organized baseball, that "the totality of players are better off in the present system," and that to drop it would lead to the destruction of many teams.

Both sides called on numerous witnesses to buttress their sides, and one tactic they both employed was to call upon individuals who might have been expected to oppose their position. Thus in addition to calling up former major league stars such as Jackie Robinson and Hank Greenberg, Flood called on Bill Veeck, former owner of the Chicago White Sox. Flood also called up the heads of the National Basketball Association and National Hockey League, both of which allowed their players more freedom in negotiating contracts. Meanwhile, the defendants, in addition to calling up the then-commissioner of baseball Bowie Kuhn and the presidents of the two major leagues, also called up a former player, Joe Garagiola, who defended the reserve clause. But it was also true that witnesses on both sides showed some flexibility, those for Flood agreeing that the reserve clause should be replaced gradually and partially, those for the defendants agreeing that the present contract system might be somewhat modified.

The trial was not without its lighter moments. Judge Cooper would refer to the 'occasional recess as a "seventh inning stretch." At one point, when Flood was showing some awkwardness in giving his testimony:

Judge Cooper: You're not finding this as easy as getting up to bat.

Flood: No, sir.

Judge Cooper: Well, you see, other people have their problems, too.

Another humorous exchange came when the lawyer for the defendants, Mark Hughes, asked Flood, "What do you think would happen if every player were free after each season?" Flood's lawyer, Arthur Goldberg, immediately objected on the grounds that this was "speculative," but the judge overruled him. When Flood then replied, "They'd have a good chance to renegotiate better contracts," Judge Cooper slyly asked, "Do you want that stricken from the record, counselor?" A smiling Goldberg replied, "No, no, I like that answer."

After the trial ended, the judge took two months before announcing his decision. In his 47-page opinion, Judge Cooper ruled against Flood's suit, basing his position primarily on the legal point that he felt he lacked authority to overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. He also stated that he was not totally convinced that the reserve clause "had occasioned rampant abuse and that it should be abolished," but he did recommend that players and owners cooperate in making the reasonable changes.

Three Strikes …

By the time that Judge Cooper issued his decision, Flood himself had gone off to Europe, but his lawyers immediately commenced the appeals process. To the astonishment of many, however, in November 1970, Flood signed a contract with the Washington Senators, accepting the reserve clause but with the provision that this would have no bearing on his legal suit. He had barely started the 1971 season, when on April 7 the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion upholding Judge Cooper's finding. Then on April 27, citing "very serious personal problems," Flood quit baseball and flew off to Spain. Again, though, the appeals process continued, this time to the Supreme Court.

On March 20, 1972, the full Court heard the oral arguments. This time, the baseball establishment took a new line, arguing that the issue was really one merely of labor-management bargaining. They went even further and said that the true plaintiff in this case should be the Major League Players Association, since it had accepted the terms Flood was opposing. Goldberg, meanwhile, stressed that the Court should uphold their decisions in other related cases involving practices counter to antitrust laws.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 19, 1972, upholding the lower court's findings by a decision of 5-3. At least as controversial as the vote itself was the language of the majority's decision, for it sounded less like a jurists' finding than a tribute to the national pastime. It cited dozens of baseball "legends," from Cap Anson and Babe Ruth to "Casey at the Bat" and "Tinker to Evers to Chance." But even though it upheld the reserve clause, the majority described it as an "aberration" and an "anomaly" and concluded, "It is time the Congress acted to solve this problem."

Extra Innings

Curt Flood returned from Europe in 1976 to serve as a sportscaster in California. He had sacrificed his career and a very good chance of being elected to baseball's Hall of Fame (although there remains a movement to get him there). But in the end, he had triumphed. In 1975 the reserve clause was effectively struck down by an arbitrator. And the year after Flood died in 1997, President Bill Clinton signed what Congress had called "The Curt Flood Law," finally setting aside the exemption that allowed the reserve clause to control players.

—John S. Bowman

Suggestions for Further Reading

Flood, Curt. "Why I Am Challenging Baseball." Sport (March, 1970): 10-3.

Flood, Curt, with Richard Carter. Curt Flood. The Way It Is. New York: Trident Press, 1971.

"Found—An Abe Lincoln of Baseball: Curt Flood's Court Action for Changing the Reserve Clause." Ebony (March 1970): 110-11.

"A Loss for Curt Flood." Newsweek (July 3, 1972): 67.

New York Times. See Flood, Kurt in the New York Times Index, Jan. 17, 25, 1970; May 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 1970; June 11, 1970; Aug. 13, 1970. Jan. 28, 1971; April 8, 11, 28, 30, 1971; Oct. 20, 1971; Mar. 21, 1972; June 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 1972; July 1, 1972.

Zimbalist, Andrew. Baseball and Billions. New York: Basic Books, 1992.