Background

Phase 1 wantlist hit cleared. The Curt Flood Act of 1997 (Senate version) became the Curt Flood Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-297, enacted October 27, 1998) — the partial congressional response to Justice Blackmun's invitation in Flood v. Kuhn (1972) to legislate. The Act split the antitrust-exemption baby in a politically careful way: subjected MLB players' labor relations to antitrust law (consistent with Piazza v. MLB's narrow exemption reading) while explicitly preserving the broader exemption for franchise relocation (consistent with what San Jose v. MLB (2015) would later affirm). The Act was jointly lobbied for by MLB and the MLBPA — a structurally unusual labor-management cooperation reflecting both parties' interest in stabilizing the post-1994-strike legal landscape. Article XXVIII of the 1997-2001 Basic Agreement explicitly bound both Parties to seek this legislation. Foundational legislative-history document for the Curt Flood Act's framing. The Section 3(b) carve-outs in particular are doctrinally important — they are the textual basis for City of San Jose v. MLB (2015) and any modern argument about why MLB still has antitrust immunity for franchise relocation. Witnesses: Donald Fehr (MLBPA) testified; Selig was invited but did not attend. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing took place June 17, 1997. Minority Views from Grassley, Biden, Feinstein, and Durbin — likely arguments that the Act doesn't go far enough (i.e., should remove the exemption entirely). Worth a content-review pass to extract.

Key provisions

• Calendar No. 231 / Senate Report 105-118, 105th Congress 1st Session, October 29, 1997. Submitted by Chairman Hatch.
• Bill: S. 53, the Curt Flood Act of 1997, sponsored by Senators Hatch (R-UT), Leahy (D-VT), Thurmond (R-SC), and Moynihan (D-NY), introduced January 21, 1997.
• Committee hearing: held June 17, 1997. Witnesses: Donald A. Fehr (MLBPA Executive Director) and Dan Peltier (former minor league player). Selig and Stanley Brand were invited but did not attend.
• Predecessor bill: S. 627 from the 104th Congress (the 'Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act of 1995') — reported out of Judiciary Committee but not enacted.
• Substantive change: Section 3 amends the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §12 et seq.) by adding Section 27: 'The conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons in the business of organized professional major league baseball relating to or affecting employment to play baseball at the major league level are subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent such conduct, acts, practices, or agreements would be subject to the antitrust laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.'
• Carve-outs in Section 3(b) (preserving antitrust exemption for): (1) organized professional baseball amateur draft, reserve clause as applied to minor league players, Professional Baseball Agreement; (2) franchise expansion, location, or relocation, including ownership transfers, and relationship between Commissioner and franchise owners; (3) Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 conduct (Pub. L. 87-331); (4) relationship between organized baseball and umpires.
• Source of legislative impulse: The 1997-2001 Basic Agreement Article XXVIII explicitly committed MLB and the MLBPA to jointly lobby Congress for this Act — the only example in modern labor history of management and labor jointly seeking to limit management's existing legal protections.
• Minority Views (Section VII): Senators Grassley, Biden, Feinstein, and Durbin filed separate minority views. The specific content of those views is on page 9 and would warrant detailed review.

Notable provisions

It is the purpose of this legislation to clarify that major league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws (i.e., that major league baseball players will have the same rights under the antitrust laws as do other professional athletes, e.g., football and basketball players), along with a provision that makes it clear that the passage of this Act does not change the application of the antitrust laws in any other context or with respect to any other person or entity.— S. Rept. 105-118 at 1-2 (Section 2 — Purpose)

After protracted negotiations, a new Basic Agreement was finally signed in March 1997. As part of this new agreement, the owners and players reached what was described by both sides as a landmark pact regarding the applicability of the antitrust laws to major league baseball.— S. Rept. 105-118 at 3 (Section II — Legislative History)

The 1990 collective-bargaining agreement between the major league baseball players union and major league owners ('Basic Agreement') expired in December 1993, subsequent to which the industry, and the Nation, suffered through the unfortunate strike that suspended portions of the 1994 and 1995 seasons, including the 1994 World Series.— S. Rept. 105-118 at 3 (Section II.B.1)

The Clubs and the Association will jointly request and cooperate in lobbying the Congress to pass a law that will clarify that Major League Baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws (i.e. that Major League Players have the same rights under the antitrust laws as do other professional athletes, e.g. football and basketball players)...— S. Rept. 105-118 at 3 (Section II.B.1, quoting Art. XXVIII of the 1997-2001 Basic Agreement)

Further context

Curt Flood Act of 1997 — Senate Judiciary Committee Report

Senate Report 105-118, the immediate legislative predecessor to the Curt Flood Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-297). 12 pages. Phase 1 wantlist hit.

What the Act does

Adds Section 27 to the Clayton Act: subjects MLB players' labor relations to federal antitrust law — but preserves the broader exemption for:

1. Amateur draft, minor league players, Professional Baseball Agreement
2. Franchise expansion, location, relocation, ownership transfers
3. Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 conduct
4. Umpire and other employee relations

Why this is structurally important

The Act split the antitrust-exemption baby. Codified the Piazza v. MLB narrow exemption reading (also in archive) for player labor — while preserving the broader exemption for franchise relocation that San Jose v. MLB (2015, also in archive) later relied on.

It was jointly lobbied for by MLB and the MLBPA — Article XXVIII of the 1997-2001 Basic Agreement (also in archive) explicitly committed both parties to seek this legislation. Structurally unusual labor-management cooperation.

Minority views

Senators Grassley, Biden, Feinstein, and Durbin filed separate minority views (Section VII). Likely arguing the Act doesn't go far enough. Worth a content-review pass.

Related documents

• 1993-08-04_caselaw_piazza-v-mlb.md — the narrow-exemption case the Act partially codifies.
• 2015-01-15_caselaw_city-of-san-jose-v-mlb.md — the later case relying on the Section 3(b) carve-outs.
• 1996-12-07_cba_mlb-cba-1997-2001.md — the CBA whose Article XXVIII committed both parties to lobby for this Act.

Related documents

Related documents

Piazza v. MLB, Flood v. Kuhn, 1997-2001 MLB Basic Agreement

Source provenance

• Primary source