Quote:
Originally Posted by ArquimedezPozo
[I]Historical Note: Obviously this is where we enter really different terrain. First, a disclaimer: I'm far from a legal scholar, and have no idea if what I wrote up there is remotely plausible. It serves the story, so I'll keep it.
|
As you should. Your scenario is entirely plausible. The actual ruling was widely criticized, as MLB was a rather obvious example of an antitrust violation. The decision appears to have been result-oriented. The Justices were afraid that eliminating the reserve clause would ruin the game, so they created a kind of sports exception.
If, as you suggest, the roles of plaintiff and defendant were switched, the merits would look different. (The Federal League would make a better defendant, and the Terrapins as plaintiff were seen as foolish for having failed to take a buyout from MLB as the other teams did.)
Plus the roots of your scandal, as with the Black Sox, exposed the greed of the MLB owners and ridiculously low level of salaries for the top players (and everybody else). Players could make more from gamblers in a single day, than from owners for a full year.
So, yeah, from this lawyer’s perspective, your alternative path is plausible, and ultimately a better legal result. That said, I’m a bit worried what free agency will do to the financial side of the game. As we have learned since 1976, without the “guardrails” of player contracts, the rich owners will get richer and the small market teams will suffer. Plus, you have the Great Depression looming ahead, when survival even with the reserve clause was tenuous. Hoping your leagues can work out a system (e.g. arbitration, salary caps, minimum investment) that achieves competitive balance.