Curt Flood: 'A Well Paid Slave'

Curt Flood: 'A Well Paid Slave'

By Austin Jones

There are many important figures in the history of baseball.  Some of them were great players, and some of them were individuals who had physical gifts, but, impacted the game to a far greater degree off of the diamond.  Jackie Robinson is a renowned figure because he broke the “color barrier”.  Curt Flood isn’t as famous as Robinson, but he is on the short list of the most important figures in the development of the game today was we know it.

  “A well-paid slave is nonetheless, a slave.” spoke Curt Flood while under the microscope from reporters who argued that he should be happy with his $100,000 contract.  Why challenge the establishment of baseball when you made so much money?  To Flood, this wasn’t the point.  He valued his freedom, and the rules of baseball did not allow for him to obtain the freedom he sought.  

Baseball and the history of this country are intertwined.  Baseball grew as the country developed.  It was a prosperous game.  Americans valued their independence and identified with the game as something uniquely “American”.  Henry Chadwick stated, ” It was not long before I was struck with the idea that base ball was just the game for a national sport for Americans.”   At the turn of the century, baseball was becoming such an institution that owners realized that they could generate great amounts of revenue off of the game.  Rival leagues formed and teams fought for the services of other players.  It eventually reached the point where teams finally had to agree on terms that would allow teams to retain the rights to their players.  Too many players were jumping ship to other teams.  This was the “reserve clause”, and it ruled over the game for decades. 

Under the clause, the teams in all practicality, own the players.  The players were not allowed to sign with another team.  Under the clause, a player could only play for another team if they were traded or released outright and allowed to sign with another team.  Because the clause prevented the players from truly earning their value by signing with other teams, player salaries would not get out of hand and could be controlled, and allowed for the owners to maximize profits for “the good of the game”.  At the end of a season, there was hardly any negotiation to a deal.  There was an evident disparity in bargaining power.  Players were signed to a ballclub, and the team would offer the players their salary for the season, and that was it.  This was the way it had been for decades, and it became a hot topic of discussion when Flood decided to make his stand against this apparent form of indentured servitude.  It would take a special kind of person to again tackle one of the barriers facing Major League Baseball.  In 1947, it took a unique and strong individual to break the color barrier, and starting in 1969, Curt Flood would be a key figure in eventually defeating the reserve clause.

            Curt Flood was a multiple time all-star, multiple time gold glove winner and a two-time World Series Champion.  Had he continued to perform at the high level he was performing, he would possibly have a plaque in Cooperstown.  He was successful on the baseball field and was a fan favorite.  He, like many African-American during the times, still had to feel the effects of the uphill climb facing the civil rights movement.  He felt comfortable in St. Louis, and did not want to be traded to Philadelphia, with fans that he felt were “racist”.  Flood had the support of the union and the MLBPA president, Marvin Miller.  With that, he wrote to Commissioner Bowie Kuhn that he was “not a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes”.  As would be predicted, Kuhn denied Flood’s request for free agency.

            There are previous rulings that relate to Flood’s case.  In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed Major League Baseball exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act following the ruling of  Federal Baseball Club v. National League - 259 U.S. 200 (1922).  It was stated that "The business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players in a league and between clubs of rival leagues, although necessarily involving the constantly repeated traveling of the players from one state to another, provided for, controlled, and disciplined by the organizations employing them, is not interstate commerce.”  Furthermore, Section 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act states that “Every contract in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States is declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract shall be deemed guilty of a felony”.  Although it was acknowledged that baseball was indeed a corporate entity, the Supreme Court ruled that baseball did not engage in interstate commerce but in public exhibition.  With this exemption, the reserve clause remained intact. 

            Toolson v. New York Yankees  reaffirmed the 1922 ruling.  In this case, George Toolson filed a restraint of trade lawsuit against the New York Yankees in 1951.  In 1953, the case reached the Supreme Court where the lower court’s decision was upheld.  The Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of the Yankees.  The decision was based largely on the previous ruling in the Federal Baseball case.  The Court pronounced that "without re-examination of the underlying issues, the judgments below are affirmed on the authority of Federal Baseball so far as that decision determines that Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of antitrust law.” (Toolson, 346 U.S. at 356-57).  It was stated in a later case that “vast efforts had gone into the development and organization of baseball since that decision and enormous capital had been invested in reliance on its permanence” (Radovich v. Nat. Football League, 352 U.S. 445 (1957).  Organized baseball, not just Major League Baseball, was subject to the antitrust exemption, but the NFL, NHL and NBA were not.   

Along with the denial for free agency, Commissioner Kuhn also argued that Flood had agreed to the terms of his contract every year of his career, and in that contract contained the reserve clause, which was still part of the collective bargaining agreement.  With these terms agreed to and signed off on by Flood, it did not look like he had strong legs to stand on.  Marvin Miller, the MLBPA president helped the player’s association through negotiation of the first collective bargaining agreement prior to Flood’s request for free agency.  In the years that followed the player’s union had become a strong entity, negotiating again in 1970, raising the minimum salary and winning the right to have arbitration.  Despite the momentum building behind Miller and the MLBPA, all of the individuals prior to Flood who challenged the reserve clause found themselves defeated and in some cases, out of a job.  Players feared that they would be blacklisted from the sport.  Flood knew the risk he was taking.  Many did not think Flood would be successful, or that he even stood a chance.

His suit was filed in January of 1970.  Flood sued the commissioner and the owners of baseball for 1 million dollars.  Curt Flood missed the entire 1970 season and in the process, forfeited his $92,000 salary.  No active players testified at the trial for fear that they may be banned from the game.  The case was upheld at the trial level, and Flood’s claim was denied.  The defense argued that the clause protected the game.  After this trial, the case was appealed to the second circuit appellate court.  Flood did not stick around during the process of appeals, instead opting to take a vacation out of the country.  Acting as Flood’s proxy, Arthur Goldberg delivered an argument against the reserve clause before the Supreme Court  This argument was poorly delivered and was (and still is) heavily criticized.  It is said that Goldberg was not prepared for the task.  Goldberg did not deliver persuasive arguments and clumsily listed Flood’s season-by-season stats.  He spoke as if he did not understand baseball, citing the several “Golden Gloves competitions” Flood won for his excellent work as a center fielder (Snyder, “A Well Paid Slave”).  Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of Major League Baseball.  The chief reason being that baseball was entitled to stare decisis, and previous rulings on the subject matter were referenced.  Baseball’s “For the good of the game” arguments were antiquated and feeble at best.  In the 1922 ruling, baseball was spared and given exception from the Sherman Antitrust Act because of the fact that it was an American institution and must be allowed to prosper.  Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun read aloud an inane, rambling and over-romanticized account of the history of baseball (along with poetry!).  Included in his account, was a list of his favorite players (who all happened to be white).  Finally, Blackmun orates that the ruling in 1922 was wrong, but so much time had passed that that the Supreme Court could not right the wrong, and put the burden on Congress to change it.  Also siding on the side of baseball, was Chief Justice Warren Burger, who reluctantly stated that the “Courts are not the forum in which this tangled web ought to be unsnarled.” (New York Times, 2011).  The nature of the clause was still clouded, and it continued be not entirely clear the extent to which the scope reached.  The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower court 5-3, and Flood was not rewarded his monetary damages, or his freedom.

While the case was being reviewed, Curt Flood did eventually return to the game of baseball.  The Phillies still owned his player rights, but Flood would never play in Philadelphia.  Instead, in 1971 he was again traded, this time to the Washington Senators.  Flood, slowed by alcoholism and an apparent decline in his athletic skills, only lasted 13 games with the Senators before leaving the game as a player for good. 

Although he came up short, the effort of a man with the stature of Curt Flood galvanized series of events that would circumnavigate the reserve clause and pave the way toward player free agency.  The MLBPA grew even stronger under the guidance of president, Marvin Miller.  In 1970, Miller and the union successfully included salary arbitration in the collective bargaining agreement.  With the very threat of arbitration, team owners did not want to go to mediation, and therefore would pay the player more in order to avoid it.  Along with arbitration, salary increases and the threat of strikes the MLPBA gained traction and made the reserve clause look more and more vulnerable.  Players began to challenge the owner’s interpretation of the reserve clause.  They did not see it as a perpetual 1-year contract with a rolling option.  The players eventually began to threaten to take this interpretation of the reserve clause into their arbitration hearings.  A very smart thing occurred, a player would accept their 1 year contract and allow the team to exercise the option, the thinking was that if this occurred, and the renewal term expired, then the teams would no longer own the rights to their services.  In 1975, the big break came when Andy Messersmith and David McNally refused to sign contracts.  In what has since been referred to as the “Seitz Ruling”, arbitrator Peter Seitz agreed that the reserve created only a one year option.  With this, Messersmith and McNally were able to become free agents.

            This decision was huge for MLB players.  The ability to become a free agent was negotiated into a new collective bargaining agreement the following year, and while there were some limitations to when a player could become a free agent, salaries around the league sky-rocketed.  In 1980, the average player salary jumped from $51,501 in 1976 to $143,756. 

In Major League Baseball today, some players such as Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols make tens of millions of dollars per season.  Curt Flood brought this issue to the attention of the American public, and even though he was not successful, it was pivotal in the labor history of professional sports.  After free agency was granted to MLB players, all of the rest of the professional sports leagues followed suit.  In 1998, following Flood’s death, The Curt Flood Act was passed by Congress, which clarified “that major league baseball players would be covered under the federal antitrust laws to the same extent as are other professional athletes, and defined “major league baseball players” as persons who are or were parties to major league players’ contracts.” (congressionalresearch.com)

            I do not agree with the 1922 ruling.  But, at the time baseball was viewed as a game and was for all of the imperfections prior (corruption, Black Sox Scandal, etc.) it was viewed as something pure.  The three biggest sports at the time were baseball, horse racing and boxing.  Baseball may not have been taken into consideration when the Sherman Act was created, but it certainly fell underneath the umbrella.  Perhaps while blinded by the nostalgic-tint in their glasses, the Supreme Court granted the exception.  It is apparent to me that baseball engages in interstate commerce and the reserve clause certainly qualifies as a “restraint of trade”.  I don’t believe the correct ruling was rendered in 1922, ’53 or ’72.  But, the history of baseball wouldn’t be as interesting if these events had not occurred.  While I don’t agree with the rulings, the nostalgist in me accepts them.  That seems like kind of a cop-out doesn’t it?   

I believe that if Flood had the backing of his fellow players he would have stood a better chance of winning the Supreme Court decision.  Being how it came to be in the end, however, just proves the importance of Flood’s plight, regardless of winning or losing.  In losing, he brought support to himself and to the subject of player’s rights in baseball.  It wasn’t about the money, because Flood was already making enough of it.  This was an issue of moral and civil rights.  Understanding what means the most to a person and understanding a person’s worth.  Flood understood what meant most to him as a person.  “In the history of man, there is no other profession except slavery where one man is tied to one owner for the rest of his life… I don’t want anyone to own me.  That’s mine.”