Gardella v. Chandler
172 F.2d 402, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 4478 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The business of professional baseball, particularly through its systematic sale of rights for the interstate broadcasting of games via radio and television, may constitute interstate commerce subject to federal antitrust laws. A prior Supreme Court exemption for baseball may not apply where these modern, substantial interstate activities are a core part of the business and not merely incidental to local exhibitions.
Facts:
- Danny Gardella was a professional baseball player under contract with the New York Giants, owned by the National Exhibition Company.
- Gardella's contract, like all standard player contracts in 'organized baseball,' contained a 'reserve clause' that prevented him from playing for any other club without the consent of his original club or its assignee, even after his contract expired.
- This reserve clause was part of a system of agreements between the major and minor baseball leagues designed to control the sport.
- In violation of the reserve clause, Gardella played professional baseball in Mexico.
- As a result, Albert B. Chandler, the Commissioner of Baseball, and other league officials barred Gardella from playing in 'organized baseball' in the United States for a period of years.
- This ban effectively deprived Gardella of his means of livelihood as a professional baseball player.
- The business of 'organized baseball' involves teams regularly traveling across state lines to play games.
- The leagues and clubs also earn substantial revenue by selling the exclusive rights to broadcast play-by-play descriptions and moving pictures of the games over radio and television, which are transmitted across state lines.
Procedural Posture:
- Danny Gardella filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against Albert B. Chandler, the Commissioner of Baseball, and other league officials, seeking treble damages under the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
- The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction.
- The District Court's dismissal was based on the Supreme Court precedent in Federal Base Ball Club v. National League, which held that the business of baseball was not interstate trade or commerce.
- Gardella, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the business of 'organized baseball,' which includes the sale of interstate radio and television broadcast rights and a restrictive 'reserve clause' in player contracts, constitute interstate trade or commerce subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act?
Opinions:
Concurring - Judge Frank
Yes, the business of organized baseball, through its lucrative interstate radio and television contracts, is engaged in interstate commerce and is subject to the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court's precedent in Federal Baseball Club v. National League should be confined to its exact facts, which only considered team travel as incidental to local exhibitions. The interstate communication via modern radio and television is not incidental; it is a direct and substantial form of interstate commerce that makes the games themselves 'played interstate as well as intrastate.' Furthermore, the 'reserve clause' is morally repugnant, resembling 'peonage,' which provides a strong public policy reason to apply the Sherman Act, as Congress intended the Act to extend to the full reach of its Commerce Clause power.
Concurring - Judge L. Hand
Yes, potentially, the business of organized baseball may constitute interstate commerce if its interstate activities are substantial enough to impress an interstate character on the business as a whole. The transmission of game narratives and pictures across state lines via radio and television is itself interstate commerce, and the contracts with broadcasters are a 'common venture' making the leagues part of that commerce. Unlike the incidental team travel in Federal Baseball Club, these broadcasts are a core part of the business of public entertainment. The case must be remanded for a trial to determine if the combination of all interstate activities—team travel plus broadcasting—is substantial enough to subject the entire business to the antitrust laws, under which the 'reserve clause' would likely be an unlawful restraint of trade.
Dissenting - Judge Chase
No, the business of organized baseball is not interstate trade or commerce subject to the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Federal Base Ball Club v. National League is a controlling precedent that this subordinate court is bound to follow. The addition of radio and television broadcasting does not meaningfully distinguish this case, as the earlier case also involved the sale of rights to transmit game descriptions interstate via telegraph; the method of transmission is insignificant. Even if the business were commerce, the complaint fails because the alleged injury—depriving Gardella of his employment—is not a restraint on commercial competition in the marketing of goods and services as required by the Sherman Act, which does not cover restraints upon employment.
Analysis:
This decision represented a significant judicial challenge to professional baseball's antitrust exemption, established in Federal Base Ball Club v. National League. By focusing on the economic realities of modern broadcasting, the Second Circuit signaled that the exemption was not absolute and that new technological and business facts could bring baseball within the Sherman Act's reach. Although the Supreme Court later reaffirmed the exemption in Toolson v. New York Yankees, this case heavily influenced the legal debate by highlighting the logical inconsistency of treating baseball differently from other professional sports. It demonstrated a judicial willingness to reconsider outdated precedents in light of new economic realities, setting the stage for future legal and legislative challenges to the exemption.
Unlock the full brief for Gardella v. Chandler