keyboard_arrow_uptop
Image credit: Syndication: Poughkeepsie

No one has attempted to punish Major League Baseball in any way for their forced shrinking of Minor League Baseball, but that might be changing. Four teams who were disaffiliated before the 2021 season—the Staten Island Yankees, Tri-City Valley Cats, Norwich Sea Unicorns, and Salem-Keizer Volcanoes—filed an antitrust suit against MLB in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on December 20. 

This is a better place than where these fights were a year ago. The Valley Cats and Staten Island Yankees previously sued their former parent clubs—the Astros and Yankees, respectively—as well as MLB early in 2021, and while that was a positive in a vacuum, there was something missing. The suits were too individualistic, and weren’t about to change anything: if the Valley Cats got the $15 million they were demanding, that was going to be good for the team’s owners, sure, but like with a settlement that leads to a monetary payment and everyone forgetting what happened, what real good was going to come of the suit? 

Now, though, those two clubs and another pair have banded together, and turned this from a suit seeking more personal damages into one focused on MLB’s antitrust behavior. That’s a significantly different fight, and one that might result in some kind of long-lasting, structural change—the kind that could keep another round of disaffiliation, which is certainly on the horizon someday given how easily MLB got away with this first go of things, from happening in the future.

Let’s take a step back before we start declaring victory over a 100-year-old exemption that the Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, has hinted at or outright said has outlived its usefulness and the context within which it was granted. It is very easy to get excited about an attack on MLB’s antitrust exemption, as its existence allowed for the league to do things like, well, disaffiliate dozens of clubs, shrink the minors, get rid of the Professional Baseball Agreement instead of negotiating a new one with MiLB’s leaders, and then create amateur wood bat leagues to replace some of what was discarded. As has been written about in this space before, the existence of the antitrust exemption makes challenging their power grabs a difficult proposition. Challenging the antitrust exemption itself has also proven difficult, however, and while there are some reasons to hope, I also fear that this is simply going to be another successful defense for MLB, by default.

Here is the most significant hurdle: retroactive liability. Nathaniel Grow wrote about retroactivity in an antitrust exemption primer for FanGraphs back in 2015, and it is vital, when discussing these matters, to remember that word:

…the Court feared that any decision reversing baseball’s antitrust immunity would unfairly subject the sport to retroactive liability, holding MLB legally accountable for activity that it had reasonably believed was beyond the scope of the antitrust laws. Because any monetary damages in federal antitrust suits are tripled, the Court may have even feared that MLB could potentially be driven into bankruptcy if countless current and former players affected by the reserve clause were freed to file their own antitrust lawsuits against the league.

Just four disaffiliated teams filed an antitrust suit against MLB, but if they succeed and SCOTUS scraps the exemption, you can bet that every other disaffiliated club would also file their own suits in order to get their own closure on the matter, and at triple the damages rate, to boot. Additional suits would follow from there, be they from players past and present, on any number of items that the antitrust exemption could be blamed on having to do with pay, or opportunities for work, or whatever else lawyers who know more about this than I do can think up. Consider how much impact the class action lawsuit Senne v. MLB could have on the league’s past, present, and future, and then ratchet it up a few notches for the chaos that would follow a successful antitrust suit that removes that very exemption.

Now, I’m not saying that shouldn’t happen—former minor-league players should bleed the league and its owners for every penny they refused to pay out because, structurally, they were put at an advantage where they could exploit, exploit, exploit—but the fact that it is a possibility makes it seemingly unlikely that it would happen. As Grow explained in that same piece, retroactive liability wouldn’t be an issue if Congress removes the antitrust exemption instead of SCOTUS, and Congress does, indeed, have the power to remove it on their own. However, they have shown no real interest in doing so, either in the past or the present—the best time to truly threaten MLB’s antitrust exemption, and Representative Lori Trahan even hinted that this threat was on the table back in late-2019, was when the whole disaffiliation drama began. Before Trahan and Congress could get truly serious about putting a stop to what MLB was doing, however, coronavirus hit, the government’s attention was diverted, and MLB just went about doing whatever they felt like with no one in their way to stop them. 

Congress could, of course, get the task force that Trahan and others formed back together, converting it from its initial goal of saving minor league baseball and refocusing it on punishing MLB for so blatantly acting beyond the initial scope of the antitrust exemption by muscling their way past whatever defenses MiLB was supposed to have against a corporate takeover and disaffiliating dozens of clubs. Congress has the power to remove the antitrust exemption, and could use it without any of the trouble that SCOTUS has to go through, and without even needing to be inspired by a slew of antitrust lawsuits. You have to imagine, though, that this is low on the list of Congress’ priorities at the moment, especially since the thing they could rally around, the thing that might get voters’ attention, has already happened. (I could have also said, “because the pandemic is ongoing,” but that would require Congress acknowledging that it is, in fact, ongoing, so I chose a different kind of honesty instead.)

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has recently gone after the NCAA and their precious student-athlete distinction in a way that was not necessarily considered possible, and the door is open for further dismantling of that exploitative system. So maybe precedent will mean less than it used to with regards to MLB’s antitrust exemption, even if the Supreme Court’s involvement would be akin to opening up Pandora’s box, or cans of worms, or cans of whoops ass, take your pick of contextually appropriate idiom there. That being said, though, the NCAA does not have an antitrust exemption: MLB does, and therefore, they have more leeway to run their business in a way that would violate antitrust law than the NCAA does. And the NCAA has gotten plenty of leeway for a long time even without an exemption to back them up, so you can imagine how protected MLB must feel. Supreme Court Justices can mention MLB in their NCAA write-up, but in the end, this is the truth of things unless a notably conservative court is suddenly and surprisingly going to go to bat [sports term] for someone other than a major corporation in a more meaningful way than just some lip service.

That the suit might fail is no reason to avoid filing it, though. It is entirely possible that, at some point, Congress reacts to the string of challenges to the antitrust exemption that SCOTUS seemingly wants to overturn but will not due to retroactivity concerns, and takes it upon themselves to remove it in the least harmful or confusing way possible. That, of course, would require Congress to take action in a way no one should have real faith in them to do, which is why so much hope rests on these antitrust suits in the first place, but still. The offseason is a time for dreaming about better baseball to come, even when that offseason is mired in a lockout designed to keep you from much dreaming at all.

Marc Normandin currently writes on baseball’s labor issues and more at marcnormandin.com, which you can read for free but support through his Patreon. His baseball writing has appeared at SB Nation, Defector, Deadspin, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Sports on Earth, The Guardian, The Nation, and TalkPoverty, and you can read his takes on retro video games at Retro XP.

Thank you for reading

This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.

Subscribe now
You need to be logged in to comment. Login or Subscribe
Jim Maher
1/11
I see the Supremes' point-- imagine if there were a class action suit by descendants of Negro league players demanding compensation for their ancestors' denial of the right to play MLB. The thousands of players with compound interest and penalty could bankrupt MLB if awarded. And with the ban on little people imposed by Happy Chandler after Eddie Gaedel's at bat for the Browns, and the possibility of suits by women denied the chance to play over the last 130 years, not to mention steroid manufacturers and users, the number of lawsuits is almost endless. The antitrust exemption serves a purpose, as the NCAA is finding with the current chaos in NIL money for student-athletes and a sense of helplessness to rationalize it in the name of fair competition. The best response for the downsized teams may be to form independent leagues and continue playing, with the possibility of selling players to MLB as occurred in the 1930s and 40s
-
Maureen mielke
1/12
Aa someone who doesn't consider themselves to be pro or anti either side, this guy's articles come off like the diatribes of a zealot.
Maureen mielke
1/12
I also think in regard to the minor leagues the players don't really generate profit margins that merit them to be compensated at the levels some people think they should.

Joe Sheehan has talked about how the financial merit based argument for paying the players past a certain point really is not there.

Also it's kt a regular job. The players are either chasing a dream or past a certain point playing a kids game at an age past the point where their Major League prospects are reasonable possibility.
Maureen mielke
1/12
*not a regular job
Maureen mielke
1/12
That being said certainly owners of Major League teams should certainly be cognizant of the need to invest in the pipeline of future talent. I just think the morality or legal arguments can misconstrue the real pressure points here.
Jim Maher
1/12
I have to agree-- minor league baseball is like college-- training hopefully for a lucrative job--While most don't make it, same is true for actors, music majors, and some other professions where many try and few are successful. While those who don't make it might be able to get a job coaching, those who haven't finished college might have trouble even doing that. But why is this different than college football other than the college athlete hopefully getting a meaningful education while the minor league player is paid at a low wage (perhaps about the minimum wage for a year). While 0.5% of college football or basketball players may end up with a job paying what I only dreamed of, isn't the same true in MLB?
Craig Goldstein
1/12
Minor league baseball is a lot like college in that it is needlessly exploitative, I agree.
Maureen mielke
1/12
I'm not completely aware of the level of financial profitability for all college.

The big time coaches get huuuuuge salaries but they are also integral in the recruiting process. Also many times their salaries and the facilities are funded by wealthy alumni backers or boosters.

Many college football players don't obviously make the pros but they experience a life thrill and are availed the opportunity to achieve meaningful college education.

In many cases the college football teams profits can subsidize the not profit sports of which many are.

No doubt certain individuals and parties are profiting in a way that may be perceived as beyond their contribution and that deserves to have attention and amelioration brought forward.
Craig Goldstein
1/12
Everything up to the last sentence is almost explicitly not how it actually functions.
Jim Maher
1/12
As someone who studied premed in college and got into medical school, I never felt exploited by my college. I look at college as being training for a future job-- whether as a physician, a lawyer, teacher, journalist, or businessman. And paying for college may be pretty exhorbitant, but there is a possible payoff at the end. For you to feel that college is needlessly exploitive, to me suggests your bitterness toward your teachers, and I am sorry you feel that way. The difference between college and minor league baseball is that you pay for college and baseball players are paid (at least something) in class A, and both are training for a later job. I suppose you feel that college students should be paid a living wage, too-- I disagree-- college is an investment of time and treasure for a possible future payoff, as is minor league baseball.
Craig Goldstein
1/13
Jim, you assume a lot that you shouldn't. I have no bitterness towards my professors, I loved my college program and also went to grad school. None of that has any bearing on whether colleges are exploitative or price gouge or any of that. Beyond which, just because you didn't feel exploited doesn't mean you weren't, and just because you might not have been exploited doesn't mean colleges aren't generally exploitative.

Also the number of differences between attending college generally and playing minor league baseball is much more vast than you imply. Your comparison is incredibly shallow, in my opinion.

As to your second assumption, it's a great straw man, I hope you had fun coming up with it.
Craig Goldstein
1/12
This comment is just absolutely laden with pernicious, bad reasoning it's hard to know where to start. I've read Joe's arguments on this and I think he's wrong. The players deserve to make a living wage regardless, but both minor league and major league baseball are profitable industries even if there's a substantial difference in scale. To toss around "chasing a dream" and "kid's game" as though that is remotely relevant to the work that they're doing, the specialized talent it takes to do it, *and* the market demand for such skills is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly people are good at things that don't pay, but to act like minor league baseball isn't a profit center or that the skills aren't in high demand by couching it in these terms just because it's your default position not to really give a shit is absurd. Why you want to keep making up reasons people shouldn't get a living wage, I guess that's your business, but for the love of god, make them better reasons.
Maureen mielke
1/12
Well. I suppose they should make a living wage but the baseball season is not a full time job. I get the training year round part, however their are varying degrees to which each individual based on talent needs to partake in that. Also to say that it should be legally mandated that they get paid for off-season training time is a dubious proposition.

Certainly if the entity developing players deems it in their interests to do so they may be wise to do so. However when I hear people say minor league player from 10 or 20 years ago should paid for off-season training time they did in for of back pay and other such arguments I disagree.
Craig Goldstein
1/12
You can disagree all you want on backpay for guys, I'm not really speaking to that. I'm speaking to the idea that hiding the actual arguments behind "chasing dreams" and "kid's game" sentiment is pernicious. Also, as far as "not a full-time job" I'll disagree that the hours aren't consistent with a full-time year-round job, when you incorporate training (which everyone, even the talented, does) and travel, which is a demand of the job. If you don't want them to get paid for off-season training time, make the in-season pay equivalent to that of a living wage for a full year.
Maureen mielke
1/12
How much is Minor League baseball really a profit center? If it was so why was MLB eager to cull the herd so to speak with regard to certain teams and tiers?

I cant imagine the media rights are much in way of lucrative endeavors and mostly function as a promotional tool to boost gate attendance in whatever rudimentary form they exist.
Craig Goldstein
1/12
Because Major and Minor League baseball are (or were) different entities. The teams that profit from minor league baseball (the affiliates) are by and large not owned by major league teams, the ones footing the bill for the players on the roster. Why was MLB eager to cull the herd? Because they're short-sighted and over confident? Because it won't be their problem when they decide to sell in a decade? There are a number of reasons, but the profitability of the minor league affiliates themselves doesn't really come into play. Why did Endeavor just buy nine minor league teams if they're loss leaders? Just asking a question and assuming the answer isn't really argument.
Maureen mielke
1/12
I don't get where you say profitability doesn't really come into play? Or where you say the teams that profit from minor league ball by and large arenot owned by the ones footing the bill? How does this relate justifying your argument or supporting it?
Craig Goldstein
1/12
The profitability of minor league teams has no bearing on MLB's decision to cull the teams they did, because MLB was not invested in those teams (all the teams that are owned by MLB teams remained affiliated).
Maureen mielke
1/12
I appreciate to thoughtout-ness of your arguments. I may sometimes come across in contrarian way to some of the articles on this site and I just feel like we should make sure we look at things through the various prisms of the relevant parties and the legislators who make decisions and laws That impact allocation of pie of prosperity. I just think there are many constituencies who will portray themselves as aggrieved and In many cases it becomes a case the loudest and largest pulpit of protest being heard while others don't have a seat at the table.
Craig Goldstein
1/12
Right I hear you, but literally the ones without a seat at the table are the minor leaguers? Or am I misunderstanding? (And as before I appreciate your replies and POV too)
Maureen mielke
1/12
Yes. I certainly don't believe the minor league players should be able to be employed and not be of access to the same rights and legislation that a regular employee would have. I suppose with regard to off-season training pay and the like I am little circumspect about taking a strong stance on one side of the debate I find more difficult to quantify responsibility of the employer and employee.
Maureen mielke
1/12
Ok however if wasn't a monetary impetus what was the reason? Because many have suggested if was an example of short sighted greed or cost cutting.
Maureen mielke
1/12
In regard to off season training time and "chasing the dream" so to speak I for instance have paid for many things to enhance my career opportunities out of my own pocket. Part of this is based on the idea I will be remunerated during future employment to recuperate these costs. However I am not guaranteed so. Also I have allocated personal funds toward accreditations and skill based development in the interest of pursuing fields of employment I find more amenable to my interests and enjoyment. I don't expect someone else to fund these out of legal obligation with no proposition of value enrichment and instead at their expense.
Craig Goldstein
1/12
Right, and that's not the kind of training I'm speaking about. I'm talking about the training to keep you in place for your current position. The one that keeps you employed. Also, separately, you may have done that but believe it or not a lot of people think businesses should be responsible for developing their talent (especially when the business benefits from that development in exponential ways), and should be responsible for paying for training that is relevant to the job at hand. And please look at your caveat of "no proposition of value enrichment" even though teams *do* have a significant proposition of such. Further, again, the minor leaguers do a level of work that is commensurate with year-round compensation. Whether you want to give that to them all during the season or stretch it out year round, that's up to whomever. The workload is not "seasonal" though.
Michael
1/12
So, if you have an abnormal job by your standards, exploitation is OK.
Cool. Cool.