Major League Baseball v. Butterworth
181 F.Supp. 2d 1316, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22021, 2001 WL 1690202 (2001)
Rule of Law:
The 'business of baseball' is exempt from federal and state antitrust laws, and this exemption extends beyond the player reserve system to include integral league decisions such as the contraction of the number of teams.
Facts:
- Major League Baseball (MLB) is an unincorporated association governed by a Constitution that allows for the contraction (reduction) of teams upon a three-fourths vote.
- On November 6, 2001, the MLB clubs voted 28 to 2 in favor of contracting from 30 clubs to 28 for the upcoming 2002 season.
- Negotiations with the Players Association regarding this change failed, and MLB announced plans to proceed with the contraction.
- The Florida Attorney General issued Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to MLB, its Commissioner, and two Florida baseball clubs.
- The CIDs required the recipients to answer interrogatories and produce documents regarding the proposed contraction under the authority of the Florida Antitrust Act.
- The Attorney General threatened enforcement action, asserting that antitrust laws applied to the league's decision to eliminate teams.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida Attorney General issued Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to the plaintiffs regarding the proposed contraction.
- Plaintiffs (MLB and Florida clubs) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the investigation.
- Plaintiffs filed motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
- The District Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.
- The District Court consolidated the trial on the merits with the hearing for the preliminary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the decision by Major League Baseball to reduce the number of teams in the league exempt from state antitrust investigation under the federal 'business of baseball' exemption?
Opinions:
Majority - Hinkle
Yes, the decision to reduce the number of teams falls squarely within the 'business of baseball' and is therefore immune from antitrust scrutiny. The court reasoned that the United States Supreme Court has established a clear, albeit anomalous, exemption for the 'business of baseball' through a trilogy of cases: Federal Baseball (1922), Toolson (1953), and Flood (1972). While the Attorney General argued that this exemption is limited solely to the 'reserve clause' regarding player contracts, the court found that Supreme Court precedent repeatedly refers to the broader 'business of baseball.' The court cited Eleventh Circuit precedent (Professional Baseball Schools) which confirmed that the exemption covers matters integral to the sport. Determining the number of clubs in the league is essential to the business of baseball. Furthermore, federal law preempts the application of state antitrust laws because a professional sports league requires national uniformity in regulation; it cannot be subject to inconsistent standards across different states.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the unique and rigid status of Major League Baseball's antitrust exemption. Unlike other professional sports like football or boxing, baseball enjoys a judicially created immunity from antitrust laws that the Supreme Court has refused to overturn, deferring instead to Congress. Judge Hinkle’s opinion clarifies that this exemption is not narrow (limited to player contracts) but broad (covering league structure and contraction). Practically, this prevents state attorneys general from using state antitrust statutes to challenge or investigate MLB's structural decisions, ensuring the league operates under a uniform federal standard of non-regulation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Major League Baseball v. Butterworth (2001)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"