Background

Argued March 20, 1972; decided June 19, 1972. The opinion is famous for Part I, titled 'The Game,' in which Blackmun recited a list of 88 notable baseball figures — beginning 'Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Walter Johnson, Henry Chadwick, Eddie Collins, Lou Gehrig, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Rogers Hornsby, Harry Hooper, Goose Goslin, Jackie Robinson, Honus Wagner, Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Deacon Phillippe, Rube Marquard, Christy Mathewson, Tommy Leach, Big Ed Delahanty, Davy Jones, Germany Schaefer, King Kelly, Big Dan Brouthers, Wahoo Sam Crawford, Wee Willie Keeler, Big Ed Walsh, Jimmy Austin, Fred Snodgrass, Satchel Paige, Hugh Jennings, Fred Merkle, Iron Man McGinnity, Three-Finger Brown, Harry and Stan Coveleski, Connie Mack, Al Bridwell, Red Ruffing, Amos Rusie, Cy Young, Smokey Joe Wood, Chief Meyers, Chief Bender, Bill Klem, Hans Lobert, Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Roy Campanella, Miller Huggins, Rube Bressler, Dazzy Vance, Edd Roush, Bill Wambsganss, Clark Griffith, Branch Rickey, Frank Chance, Cap Anson, ...' (407 U.S. at 262) — and quoted at length from Ernest Lawrence Thayer's 'Casey at the Bat' (407 U.S. at 263–264). Part I was joined by only three justices (Stewart, Rehnquist, Blackmun); Burger and White concurred 'in all but Part I,' a tacit rejection of the historical pageantry. Flood's challenge originated in his October 1969 trade from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies, after which he refused to report and wrote to Commissioner Kuhn requesting free-agent status, beginning the antitrust litigation. The reserve clause was not formally dismantled by this case; instead, it was effectively ended via the Messersmith-McNally arbitration decision (1975) under Peter Seitz, operating through CBA mechanics rather than antitrust law. Congress eventually responded to Blackmun's invitation in the Curt Flood Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-297), which removed the antitrust exemption only as it applies to major-league players' labor relations — leaving the broader exemption (franchise relocation, minor-league players, amateur draft, broadcasting) intact.

Key provisions

• Holding: 'The longstanding exemption of professional baseball from the antitrust laws, Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953), is an established aberration, in the light of the Court's holding that other interstate professional sports are not similarly exempt, but one in which Congress has acquiesced, and that is entitled to the benefit of stare decisis.' (407 U.S. at syllabus, citing pp. 269–285 for the holding.)
• Held further: 'Removal of the resultant inconsistency at this late date is a matter for legislative, not judicial, resolution.' (407 U.S. at syllabus.)
• The 'third time in 50 years' framing: Blackmun opened the substantive analysis: 'For the third time in 50 years the Court is asked specifically to rule that professional baseball's reserve system is within the reach of the federal antitrust laws.' (407 U.S. at 259.)
• Court structure: Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court, joined in full by Stewart and Rehnquist, and in all but Part I by Burger, C.J., and White, J. (Burger filed a concurring opinion at 407 U.S. 285.) Douglas filed a dissenting opinion (407 U.S. 286) and Marshall filed a dissenting opinion (407 U.S. 288), both joined by Brennan. Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
• Affirmed the Second Circuit's affirmance of the district court's judgment for the defendants (443 F.2d 264).

Notable provisions

For the third time in 50 years the Court is asked specifically to rule that professional baseball's reserve system is within the reach of the federal antitrust laws.— 407 U.S. 258, 259

It is a century and a quarter since the New York Nine defeated the Knickerbockers 23 to 1 on Hoboken's Elysian Fields June 19, 1846, with Alexander Jay Cartwright as the instigator and the umpire. The teams were amateur, but the contest marked a significant date in baseball's beginnings.— 407 U.S. 258, 260–61 (Part I, 'The Game')

The longstanding exemption of professional baseball from the antitrust laws, Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953), is an established aberration, in the light of the Court's holding that other interstate professional sports are not similarly exempt, but one in which Congress has acquiesced, and that is entitled to the benefit of stare decisis.— 407 U.S. 258, syllabus

Removal of the resultant inconsistency at this late date is a matter for legislative, not judicial, resolution.— 407 U.S. 258, syllabus

Further context

Flood v. Kuhn

The third and most recent Supreme Court direct ruling on baseball's antitrust exemption. A 5–3 decision (Powell not participating), with Justice Blackmun writing for the majority. The Court reaffirmed the exemption established by Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922) and continued by Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953), characterizing it as "an established aberration" that nonetheless remained entitled to stare decisis protection. The opinion explicitly invited Congress — for the second time — to legislate if change was warranted.

Procedural posture

Curt Flood, a 31-year-old All-Star outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals, was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies in October 1969 along with three other players. Flood refused to report. He wrote to Commissioner Bowie Kuhn requesting free-agent status; Kuhn refused. Flood filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that baseball's reserve system violated the Sherman Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, federal labor law, and various state-law theories. The district court ruled for the defendants. The Second Circuit affirmed (443 F.2d 264). The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Major League Baseball Players Association supported Flood's challenge, with MLBPA Executive Director Marvin Miller as the principal organizational backer. Former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg argued for Flood.

Court composition

• Majority (5): Blackmun (authoring), Stewart, Rehnquist, Burger (concurring), White (joining all but Part I).
• Burger concurrence (407 U.S. at 285): Brief; expressed reservation about overruling Toolson on stare decisis grounds.
• Dissents (3): Douglas (407 U.S. at 286, joined by Brennan); Marshall (407 U.S. at 288, joined by Brennan). The dissents argued that baseball's exemption was a doctrinal embarrassment and that the Court should overrule the prior cases.
• Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

The opinion's structure

• Part I — "The Game" (407 U.S. at 260–264): A historical narrative of baseball from the Knickerbockers vs. New York Nine game (June 19, 1846 — a notable date-coincidence with the Court's own decision date of June 19, 1972) through to the formation of the MLBPA in 1966. Includes a recitation of 88 notable baseball players and an extended quotation from "Casey at the Bat." This section was joined by only Stewart and Rehnquist; Burger and White concurred "in all but Part I" — a notable distancing from the literary excursion.
• Part II: Procedural history and posture.
• Part III: The reserve system's mechanics.
• Part IV: Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922) and Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953) recapitulation.
• Part V: Other professional sports cases (Radovich v. NFL on football; United States v. International Boxing Club on boxing).
• Part VI: The Court's reasoning for reaffirmance — stare decisis, reliance interests, and the appropriate role of Congress.
• Part VII: Holding.

Doctrinal significance

Flood entrenched the exemption while explicitly conceding its anomalous character. The majority's structural argument — that baseball had developed in reliance on the exemption and that retrospective change should come from Congress — exactly mirrors Toolson's. Blackmun's opinion is unusual for its open acknowledgment that the doctrinal foundation is weak:

• Federal Baseball Club's holding (that baseball is not interstate commerce) had been functionally overruled by the Court's modern commerce-clause jurisprudence (per Wickard, Heart of Atlanta, and similar).
• Other professional sports — football (Radovich, 1957), boxing (International Boxing Club, 1955), basketball (Robertson litigation) — had no comparable exemption.
• Yet baseball's exemption survived because, in the Court's view, Congress had been on notice for 50 years and had not acted.

The "established aberration" framing is the doctrinal payload Flood is cited for. The decision did not end baseball's reserve clause; that was done three years later by arbitrator Peter Seitz in the Messersmith-McNally grievance arbitration (December 1975), operating through the CBA's grievance procedure rather than antitrust law.

Congressional response

Congress responded to Blackmun's invitation 26 years later via the Curt Flood Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-297, 112 Stat. 2824), which removed baseball's antitrust exemption only as it applies to major-league players' labor relations. The Act left intact the exemption's application to franchise relocation, minor-league players, the amateur draft, broadcasting, and other facets — meaning baseball's exemption is still uniquely broad among American professional sports.

Related documents in the archive

• 1922-05-29_caselaw_federal-baseball-club-v-national-league.md — the foundational case.
• 1953-11-09_caselaw_toolson-v-new-york-yankees.md — the first reaffirmance.
• 1998-10-27_legislation_curt-flood-act-of-1998.md — partial Congressional response.
• 1975_arbitration_messersmith-mcnally.md — the labor-side dismantling of the reserve clause via arbitration, the operative end of the system Flood challenged.

Research notes

The famous "Casey at the Bat" section and the 88-player recitation in Part I have been the subject of considerable legal scholarship and commentary on judicial opinion writing. Stewart and Rehnquist were the only justices who joined Part I in full; Burger and White expressly concurred "in all but Part I." This is itself a small but telling commentary on how the literary departures were received within the Court.

Flood's career effectively ended with this litigation — he played briefly for the Washington Senators in 1971 (during the case's pendency) but his suit cost him roughly $90,000 in salary and significantly damaged his career. The MLBPA paid his legal costs.

Related documents

Cites

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, Toolson v. New York Yankees

Related documents

Curt Flood Act of 1998, Messersmith Arbitration (1975)

File replacement history

Per STANDARDS.md §3.2, prior file hashes are preserved when an asset is replaced. This document has been replaced once.

• 88a2a33269c6699da8da7c736965b21a88f4b687d3f739d55258296322d21f15 replaced 2026-05-17 — Initial download returned a 15-byte Cloudflare 520 error page rather than the PDF; re-downloaded successfully on retry. The 88a2... hash corresponds to the error response, not the document.

Source provenance

• Primary source
• Wayback Machine archive
• Library of Congress (U.S. Reports catalog record)
• Cornell Legal Information Institute
• Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center