Lexplug logoLexplug

Piazza v. Major League Baseball

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10552, 1993 WL 325696, 831 F. Supp. 420 (1993)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The federal antitrust exemption granted to professional baseball is limited strictly to the sport's "reserve system" regarding player contracts and does not extend to the market for team ownership, sale, or relocation.


Facts:

  • Vincent Piazza and Vincent Tirendi (Plaintiffs), Pennsylvania residents, formed a partnership with other investors to purchase the San Francisco Giants baseball club.
  • Plaintiffs signed a Letter of Intent with the Giants' owner to buy the team for $115 million and relocate it to Tampa Bay, Florida.
  • As required, the partnership submitted an application to Major League Baseball (Defendants) for approval of the sale and relocation.
  • MLB's Ownership Committee conducted a background check, after which MLB officials made public statements implying that the Plaintiffs had Mafia connections or 'background questions' due to their Italian heritage.
  • Plaintiffs allege these statements were false and defamatory, and that MLB never intended to allow the team to move to Florida.
  • MLB directed the Giants' owner to consider a lower offer ($100 million) from a different group to keep the team in San Francisco.
  • MLB formally rejected the Plaintiffs' application to purchase and relocate the franchise.
  • Plaintiffs suffered the loss of the acquisition opportunity and alleged damage to their personal reputations.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act), and various state tort laws.
  • Defendants (Major League Baseball and affiliated clubs/individuals) filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Locked

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 antitrust exemption established in Federal Baseball extend beyond the player reserve system to immunize Major League Baseball from liability regarding the purchase and relocation of a team franchise, and do allegations of conspiracy with city officials constitute action "under color of state law" for civil rights claims?


Opinions:

Majority - Padova

No, regarding the antitrust exemption, and yes, regarding the state action claim. The Court held that the antitrust exemption created by the Supreme Court in 1922 is an anomaly that must be narrowly construed. Analyzing the Supreme Court's decision in Flood v. Kuhn, Judge Padova determined that while the Court adhered to the result of previous exemption cases, it stripped them of their reasoning (that baseball is not interstate commerce). Therefore, lower courts are bound only by the specific result of those cases: that the "reserve system" (player contracts) is exempt. The Court reasoned that the acquisition of a business entity (a team) is distinct from the exhibition of baseball games. Consequently, MLB is not immune from antitrust scrutiny regarding team sales and relocations. Regarding the Section 1983 claim, the Court found that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a conspiracy between MLB and the City of San Francisco—specifically that city officials offered indemnification and intervened to stop the move—to survive a motion to dismiss on the grounds that MLB acted under color of state law. However, the Court dismissed direct Constitutional claims as MLB is not a federal actor.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant narrowing of baseball's historic antitrust exemption. By applying a "result stare decisis" analysis, Judge Padova confined the exemption strictly to the facts of the Supreme Court precedents (player reserve clauses) rather than the broader "business of baseball." This distinction opens professional sports leagues to antitrust liability in matters concerning franchise ownership, relocation, and broadcast rights, distinguishing the commercial sale of a team from the unique needs of playing the game. The ruling suggests that unless an activity is essential to the league's structure or the actual playing of the sport (like the reserve clause), it is subject to standard Sherman Act regulation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Piazza v. Major League Baseball (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"