Updated Oct. 7, 2025
Three years ago, Joseph Saveri Law Firm counsel Kevin Rayhill and marketing communications specialist Dan VanDeMortel wrote an article published in the California Daily Journal regarding a seminal antitrust lawsuit brought by baseball player Curt Flood. The suit, adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court in 1972, unsuccessfully challenged the sport’s antitrust exemption. That exemption, unfortunately, still holds to some extent, as evidenced by the United States Supreme Court's October 6 decision to review it in a case brought by minor league players alleging wage suppression and collusion by MLB's franchises.
The Supreme Court Preserves Baseball’s Antitrust Exception and Its Century of Controversy
On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the long-standing antitrust exemption that shields Major League Baseball (MLB). The denial, issued without comment as is customary, leaves in place the First Circuit’s dismissal of a case brought by minor league players who alleged wage suppression and collusion among MLB’s thirty franchises.
A Precedent from Another Era
At the center of the dispute is Federal Baseball Club, Inc. v. National League, the 1922 decision that declared professional baseball “purely a state affair.” The Court reasoned that the exhibition of baseball games did not constitute interstate commerce and therefore fell outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For more than a century, that reasoning has been widely criticized as an artifact of its time. Yet it continues to shape the economic structure of an industry that now spans national television contracts, merchandising, and global player development networks.
The Players’ Challenge
The petitioners, Daniel Concepcion, Aldemar Burgos, and Sidney Duprey-Conde, are former minor league players from Puerto Rico. They alleged that MLB and its affiliates operate as a “cartel,” fixing below-market wages and restricting player mobility through the reserve clause, which binds players to one organization for up to seven years. According to the complaint, their average annual earnings were less than $15,000 despite working weeks exceeding sixty hours.
In urging the Court to revisit Federal Baseball, the plaintiffs argued that the exemption “never had any basis in reality” and now functions as a legal relic inconsistent with modern antitrust and labor law. They further contended that the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which partially repealed the exemption for major league players, unconstitutionally discriminates between major and minor leaguers by denying the latter equal protection under the law.
Judicial Deference and Institutional Inertia
The First Circuit dismissed the case earlier this year, holding that the players’ challenge was barred by binding precedent. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari reflects a long-standing judicial reluctance to disturb Federal Baseball, Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953), and Flood v. Kuhn (1972). These decisions together preserve MLB’s immunity from antitrust scrutiny.
In Flood v. Kuhn, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that the exemption was “an anomaly” but concluded that correcting it was a task “for Congress and not this Court.” That deference persists even though the economic and geographic realities of professional baseball have changed beyond recognition since 1922.
The Legacy of Curt Flood
The timing of the Court’s decision has not escaped notice among those familiar with baseball’s labor history. Curt Flood’s challenge to the reserve clause in the early 1970s, although unsuccessful in the Supreme Court, laid the foundation for player free agency and transformed professional sports. His stand was both moral and legal, a demand that athletes be recognized as workers entitled to the same market freedoms as others.
The Court’s silence this week stands in contrast to Flood’s legacy. Although minor league players achieved unionization in 2022 and a collective bargaining agreement in 2023 that raised average salaries to approximately $35,800, the underlying structure that limits competition among employers remains unchanged.
A National Pastime and an Enduring Exception
Few industries enjoy immunity from antitrust scrutiny, and fewer still justify it on grounds as historically fragile as baseball’s. For now, the “business of baseball” remains insulated from the same market principles that govern nearly every other sector of the economy. The Court’s refusal to reconsider its precedent ensures that MLB’s exceptional status continues into its second century, a lasting reminder of how tradition and economics intersect in America’s pastime.
Original Article
Associate Kevin Rayhill and marketing communications specialist Dan VanDeMortel of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP have written an article published in the California Daily Journal regarding a seminal antitrust lawsuit brought by baseball player Curt Flood. The suit, adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court 50 years ago, challenged the sport’s reserve clause. The full article provides a historical and legal analysis of the summary below:
Flood played for several years for the Cincinnati Reds and St. Louis Cardinals and was anointed by Sports Illustrated as “Baseball’s Best Center Fielder” in a 1968 cover story. After the 1969 season, he was traded without consent to the Philadelphia Phillies in a seven-player swap.
Flood faced two options: retire or accept the trade. Offering his services to another bidder was prohibited due to baseball’s reserve clause, which gave a club the right to renew a player’s contract for a one-year period in perpetuity unless he was given his unconditional release – effectively binding him to his team for his career. The clause allowed owners to keep labor costs artificially low and profits high.
Flood contemplated a third option: suing Major League Baseball for violating the Sherman Act. After conferring with Marvin Miller, the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, Flood committed to pursuing the case to benefit current and future players
Flood’s lawsuit against baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn and baseball’s management commenced in the Southern District of New York in January 1970. Later that August, the Court ruled in favor of baseball. In April 1971, the Second Circuit affirmed.
Flood appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard his case in March 1972. Three months later, the Court narrowly ruled against Flood. But his legal efforts educated his fellow players and the public about the reserve clause’s unfairness. Changes quickly ensued, leading to increased salaries and freedom of movement for professional baseball players. The sport’s economics and management-player relationships were forever changed. As a result, Time named Flood one of the ten most influential athletes of the 20th century.