[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9494-S9498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CURT FLOOD ACT OF 1997
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar 231, S. 53.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 53) to require the general application of the
antitrust laws to major league baseball, and for other
purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which has been reported
from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment to strike all
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Curt Flood Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this legislation to clarify that major
league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws
(i.e., that major league players will have the same rights
under the antitrust laws as do other professional athletes,
e.g., football and basketball players), along with a
provision that makes it clear that the passage of this Act
does not change the application of the antitrust laws in any
other context or with respect to any other person or entity.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.
The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 27. (a) The conduct, acts, practices, or agreements
of persons in the business of organized professional major
league baseball relating to or affecting employment to play
baseball at the major league level are subject to the
antitrust laws to the same extent such conduct, acts,
practices, or agreements would be subject to the antitrust
laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional
sports business affecting interstate commerce: Provided,
however, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed
as providing the basis for any negative inference regarding
the caselaw concerning the applicability of the antitrust
laws to minor league baseball.
``(b) Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section
shall be deemed to change the application of the antitrust
laws to the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements by,
between, or among persons engaging in, conducting, or
participating in the business of organized professional
baseball, except the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements
to which subsection (a) of this section shall apply. More
specifically, but not by way of limitation, this section
shall not be deemed to change the application of the
antitrust laws to--
``(1) the organized professional baseball amateur draft,
the reserve clause as applied to minor league players, the
agreement between organized professional major league
baseball teams and the teams of the National Association of
Professional Baseball Leagues, commonly known as the
`Professional Baseball Agreement', the relationship between
organized professional major league baseball and organized
professional minor league baseball, or any other matter
relating to professional organized baseball's minor leagues;
``(2) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of
persons in the business of organized professional baseball
relating to franchise expansion, location or relocation,
franchise ownership issues, including ownership transfers,
and the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner
and franchise owners;
``(3) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements protected
by Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. 1291 et seq.) (commonly known
as the `Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961'); or
``(4) the relationship between persons in the business of
organized professional baseball and umpires or other
individuals who are employed in the business of organized
professional baseball by such persons.
``(c) As used in this section, `persons' means any
individual, partnership, corporation, or unincorporated
association or any combination or association thereof.''.
Amendment No. 3479
Mr. JEFFORDS. Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk. I
ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Hatch,
proposes an amendment numbered 3479.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Curt Flood Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this legislation to state that major
league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws
(i.e., that major league baseball players will have the same
rights under the antitrust laws as do other professional
athletes, e.g., football and basketball players), along with
a provision that makes it clear that the passage of this Act
does not change the application of the antitrust laws in any
other context or with respect to any other person or entity.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.
The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 12 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
[[Page S9495]]
``Sec. 27(a) Subject to subsections (b) through (d) below,
the conduct, acts, practices or agreements of persons in the
business of organized professional major league baseball
directly relating to or affecting employment of major league
baseball players to play baseball at the major league level
are subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent such
conduct, acts, practices or agreements would be subject to
the antitrust laws if engaged in by persons in any other
professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.
``(b) No court shall rely on the enactment of this section
as a basis for changing the application of the antitrust laws
to any conduct, acts, practices or agreements other than
those set forth in subsection (a). This section does not
create, permit or imply a cause of action by which to
challenge under the antitrust laws, or otherwise apply the
antitrust laws to, any conduct, acts, practices or agreements
that do not directly relate to or affect employment of major
league baseball players to play baseball at the major league
level, including but not limited to--
``(1) any conduct acts, practices or agreements of persons
engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of
organized professional baseball relating to or affecting
employment to play baseball at the minor league level, any
organized professional baseball amateur or first-year player
draft, or any reserve clause as applied to minor league
players.
``(2) the agreement between organized professional major
league baseball teams and the teams of the National
Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, commonly known
as the `Professional Baseball Agreement,' the relationship
between organized profession major league baseball and
organized professional minor league baseball, and organized
professional minor league baseball, or any other matter
relating to organized professional baseball's minor leagues;
``(3) any conduct, acts, practices or agreements of persons
engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of
organized professional baseball relating to or affecting
franchise expansion, location or relocation, franchise
ownership issues, including ownership transfers, the
relationship between the Office of the Commissioner and
franchise owners, the marketing or sales of the entertainment
product of organized professional baseball and the licensing
of intellectual property rights owned or held by organized
professional baseball teams individually or collectively;
``(4) any conduct, acts, practices or agreements protected
by Public Law 87-331 (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 et seq.) (commonly
known as `the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961');
``(5) the relationship between persons in the business of
organized professional baseball and umpires or other
individuals who are employed in the business of organized
professional baseball by such persons; or
``(6) any conduct, acts, practices or agreements of persons
not in the business of organized professional major league
baseball.
``(c) Only a major league baseball player has standing to
sue under this section. For the purposes of this section, a
major league baseball player is--
``(1) a person who is a party to a major league player's
contract, or is playing baseball at the major league level;
or
``(2) a person who is a party to a major league player's
contract or playing baseball at the major league level at the
time of the injury that is the subject of the complaint; or
``(3) a person who has been a party to a major league
player's contract or who has played baseball at the major
league level, and who claims he has been injured in his
efforts to secure a subsequent major league player's contract
by an alleged violation of the antitrust laws, provided
however, that for the purposes of this paragraph, the alleged
antitrust violation shall not include any conduct, acts,
practices or agreements of persons in the business of
organized professional baseball relating to or affecting
employment to play baseball at the minor league level,
including any organized professional baseball amateur or
first-year player draft, or any reserve clause as applied to
minor league players; or
``(4) a person who was a party to a major league player's
contract or who was playing baseball at the major league
level at the conclusion of the last full championship season
immediately preceding the expiration of the last collective
bargaining agreement between persons in the business of
organized professional major league baseball and the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of major
league baseball players.
``(d)(1) As used in this section, `person' means any
entity, including an individual, partnership, corporation,
trust or unincorporated association or any combination or
association thereof. As used in this section, the National
Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, its member
leagues and the clubs of those leagues, are not `in the
business of organized professional major league baseball.'
``(2) In cases involving conduct, acts, practices or
agreements that directly relate or affect both employment of
major league baseball players to play baseball at the major
league level and also relate to or affect any other aspect of
organized professional baseball, including but not limited to
employment to play baseball at the minor league level and the
other areas set forth in subsection (b) above, only those
components, portions or aspects of such conduct, acts,
practices or agreements that directly relate to or affect
employment of major league baseball players to play baseball
at the major league level.
``(3) As used in subsection (a), interpretation of the term
`directly' shall not be governed by any interpretation of 29
U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq. (as amended).
``(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
the application to organized professional baseball of the
nonstatutory labor exemption from the antitrust laws.
``(5) The scope of the conduct, acts, practices or
agreements covered by subsection (b) shall not be strictly or
narrowly construed.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I offer on behalf of myself and
Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 53, the Curt Flood Act of
1997. This bill, which was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on
July 31, 1998, by a vote of 12-6, clarifies that the antitrust laws
apply to labor relations at the major league level, but does not have
any affect on any other persons or circumstances. Given our limited
time, I will only make a few brief comments, and would ask unanimous
consent that my full statement be entered into the Record.
In a baseball season that is likely to set records in a number of
different categories, I am extremely pleased to be able to report that
a truly historic milestone in the history of professional baseball has
been reached. People said it would never happen, but today I can tell
you that major league baseball players, along with both major and minor
league club owners, have reached an agreement on a bill clarifying that
the antitrust laws apply to major league professional baseball labor
relations. This agreed upon language is reflected in the substitute we
are offering today.
With this historic agreement, I am confident that Congress will, once
and for all, make clear that professional baseball players have the
same rights as other professional athletes, and will help assure
baseball fans across the United States that our national pastime will
not again be interrupted by strikes. With the home run battles and
exciting pennant races, baseball is enjoying a resurgence. And, as fans
are returning to the ballparks, they deserve to know that players will
be on the field, not mired in labor disputes. I am pleased that
Congress will, it now appears, be able to help guarantee that this is
the case.
Due to an aberrant Supreme Court decision in 1922, labor relations in
major league baseball have not been subject to antitrust laws, unlike
any other industry in America. In every other professional sport,
antitrust laws serve to stabilize relations between the team owners and
players unions. That is one of the principal reasons why, in recent
years, baseball has experienced more work stoppages, including the
disastrous strike of 1994-95, than professional basketball, hockey and
football combined.
In the 103d Congress, the House Judiciary Committee took the first
important step by approving legislation which would have ensured that
the antitrust laws apply to major league baseball labor relations,
without impacting the minor leagues or team relocation issues. During
the 104th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved and
reported S. 627, The Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act, to
apply federal antitrust laws to major league baseball labor relations.
None of these bills were passed, however, as many Members of Congress
were reluctant to take final action while there was an ongoing labor
dispute.
With the settling of the labor dispute and with the signing of a long
term agreement between the major league baseball team owners and the
players union, the time was right this Congress finally to address this
matter. In fact, in the new collective bargaining agreement, the owners
pledged to work with the players to pass legislation that makes clear
that major league baseball is subject to the federal antitrust laws
with regard to owner-player relations.
At the beginning of this Congress, we introduced S. 53, a bill which
was specifically supported by both the players and owners and which was
reported out of the Judiciary Committee almost exactly one year ago. At
the Committee markup, however, several Members indicated a concern that
the bill might
[[Page S9496]]
inadvertently have a negative impact on the Minor Leagues. Although
both Senator Leahy and myself were firmly of the view that the bill as
reported adequately protected the minor leagues against such a
consequence, we pledged to work with the minor leagues'
representatives, in conjunction with the major league owners and
players, to make certain that their concerns were fully addressed.
Although this process took much longer, and much more work, than I
had anticipated, I am pleased to report that it has been completed. I
have in my hand a letter from the minor leagues, and a letter co-signed
by Don Fehr and Bud Selig, indicating that the major league players,
and major and minor league owners, all support a new, slightly amended
version of S. 53. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association of
Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc.,
Washington, DC, July 27, 1998.
Re baseball legislation.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Senate
Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the National Association of
Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. (``NAPBL'') objected to
S. 53 as it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last
year. Since that time, we have been consulted about proposals
to amend the bill to assure the continued survival of minor
league baseball. We understand that a draft of an amended
bill has been put forth by the major leagues and the Players'
Association (copy attached) that I believe addresses the
concerns of the NAPBL which we support in its final form.
Respectfully yours,
Stanley M. Brand.
____
July 21, 1998.
Hon. Orrin Hatch, Chairman,
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy: As requested by the
Committee, the parties represented below have met and agreed
to the attached substitute language for S. 53. In particular,
we believe the substitute language adequately addresses the
concerns expressed by some members of the Judiciary Committee
that S. 53, as reported, did not sufficiently protect the
interests of the minor leagues. We understand that the minor
leagues will advise you that they agree with our assessment
by a separate letter.
We thank you for your leadership and patience. Although,
obviously, you are under no obligation to use this language
in your legislative activities regarding S. 53, we hope that
you will look favorably upon it in light of the agreement of
the parties and our joint commitment to work together to
ensure its passage.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Fehr,
Executive Director, Major League Baseball Players
Association.
Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig,
Commissioner, Major League Baseball.
____
Office of the Commissioner,
Major League Baseball,
July 21, 1998.
Donald M. Fehr, Esquire,
Executive Director and General Counsel, Major League Baseball
Players Association, New York, NY.
Dear Don: As you know, in our efforts to address the
concerns of the minor leagues with S. 53, as reported by the
Senate Judiciary Committee, several changes in the bill were
agreed to by the parties, i.e., the Major League Clubs, the
Major League Baseball Players Association and the National
Association of Professional Baseball Leagues (minor leagues).
Among those changes was the addition of the word ``directly''
immediately before ``relating to'' in new subsection (a) of
the bill.
This letter is to confirm our mutual understanding that the
addition of that word was something sought by the Minor
leagues and is intended to indicate that this legislation is
not meant to allow claims by non major league players. By
using ``directly'' we are not limiting the application of new
subsection (a) to matters which would be considered mandatory
subjects of bargaining in the collective bargaining context.
Indeed, that is the reason we agreed to add paragraph (d)(3).
There is no question that, under this Act, major league
baseball players may pursue the same actions as could be
brought by athletes in professional football and basketball
with respect to their employment at the major league level.
I trust you concur with this intent and interpretation.
Very truly yours,
Allan H. Selig,
Commissioner of Baseball.
Mr. HATCH. This new bill specifically precludes courts from relying
on the bill to change the application of the antitrust laws in areas
other than player-owner relations; clarifies who has standing under the
new law; and adds several provisions which ensure that the bill will
not harm the minor leagues.
Senator Leahy and I have incorporate these changes into our
substitute, which, given its support across the board, we hope and
expect to be passed today without objection. I urge my colleagues to
adopt this substitute.
This amendment, while providing major league players with the
antitrust protections of their colleagues in the other professional
sports, such as basketball and football, is absolutely neutral with
respect to the state of the antitrust laws between all entities and in
all circumstances other than in the area of employment as between major
league owners and players. Whatever the law was the day before this
bill passes in those other areas it will continue to be after the bill
passes. Let me emphasize that the bill affects no pending or decided
cases except to the extent a court would consider exempting major
league clubs from the antitrust laws in their dealings with major
league players.
But because of the complex relationship between the major leagues and
their affiliated minor leagues, it was necessary to write the bill in a
way to direct a court's attention to only those practices, or aspects
of practices, that affect major league players. It is for that reason,
that a bill that ought to be rather simple to write goes to such
lengths to emphasize its neutrality. And, although much of the Report
filed by the Committee with respect to S. 53 is still applicable to
this substitute, there have been some changes.
Section 2 states the bill's purpose. As originally contained in S.
53, the purpose section used the word ``clarify" instead of the word
``state'' as used in this substitute. That language had been taken
verbatim from the collective bargaining agreement signed in 1997
between major league owners and major league players. When the minor
leagues entered the discussions, they objected to the use of the word
``clarify'' on the grounds that using this term created an inference
regarding the current applicability of the antitrust laws to
professional baseball. The parties therefore agreed to insert in lieu
thereof the word ``state.'' Both the parties and the Committee agree
that Congress is taking no position on the current state of the law one
way or the other. It is also for that reason that subsection (b) was
inserted, as will be discussed.
Section 3 amends the Clayton Act to add a new section 27. As was the
case with S.53, as reported, new subsection 27(a) states that the
antitrust laws apply to actions relating to professional baseball
players' employment to play baseball at the major league level and as
in S.53 is intended to incorporate the entire jurisprudence of the
antitrust laws, as it now exists and as it may develop.
In order to accommodate the concerns of the minor leagues however,
new subsection (a) has been changed by adding the word ``directly''
immediately before the phrase ``relating to or affecting employment''
and the phrase ``major league players'' has been added before the
phrase ``to play baseball.'' These two changes were also made at the
behest of the minor leagues in order to ensure that minor league
players, particularly those who had spent some time in the major
leagues, did not use new subsection (a) as a bootstrap by which to
attack conduct, acts, practices or agreements designed to apply to
minor league employment. This is in keeping with the neutrality sought
by the Committee with respect to parties and circumstances not between
major league owners and major league players.
Additionally, the new draft adds a new paragraph (d)(3) that states
that the term directly is not to be governed by interpretations of the
labor laws. This paragraph was added to ensure that no court would use
the word ``directly'' in too narrow a fashion and limit matters covered
in subsection (a) to those that would otherwise be known as mandatory
subjects of bargaining in the labor law context. The use of directly is
related to the relationship between the major leagues and
[[Page S9497]]
the minor leagues, not the relationship between major league owners and
players. Mr. President, I have a letter from the Commissioner of
Baseball, Mr. Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig, to the Executive Director of the
Major League Baseball Players Association, confirming this
interpretation of the use of the word ``directly'' and I ask unanimous
consent that it be inserted in the Record at this time.
As in S. 53, as reported, new subsection (b) is the subsection which
implements the portion of the purpose section stating that the
``passage of the Act does not change the application of the antitrust
laws in any other context or with respect to any other person or
entity.'' In other words, with respect to areas set forth in subsection
(b), whatever the law was before the enactment of this legislation, it
is unchanged by the passage of the legislation. With the exception of
the express statutory exemption in the area of television rights
recognized in paragraph (d)(4), each of the areas set forth depend upon
judicial interpretation of the law. But Congress at this time seeks
only to address the specific question of the application of the
antitrust laws in the context of the employment of major league players
at the major league level.
Thus, as to any matter set forth in subsection (b), a plaintiff will
not be able to allege an antitrust violation by virtue of the enactment
of this Act. Nor can the courts use the enactment of this Act to glean
congressional intent as to the validity or lack thereof of such
actions.
New subsection ``c'' deals specifically with the issue of standing.
Although normally standing under such an act would be governed by the
standing provision of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, the minor
leagues again expressed concern that without a more limited standing
provision, minor league players or amateurs would be able to attack
what are in reality minor league issues by bootstrapping under this Act
through subsection (a). The subsection sets forth the zone of persons
to be protected from alleged antitrust violations by major league
owners under this Act.
New paragraph (d)(1) defines ``person'' for the purposes of the Act,
but includes a provision expressly recognizing that minor league clubs
and leagues are not in the business of major league baseball. This
addition was requested by the minor leagues to ensure that they would
not be named as party defendants in every action brought against the
major leagues pursuant to subsection (a).
New paragraph (d)(2) was added to give the courts direction in cases
involving matters that relate to both matters covered by subsection (a)
and to those matters as to which the Act is neutral as set forth in
subsection (b). In such a case, the acts, conducts or agreements may be
challenged under this Act as they directly relates to the employment of
major league players at the major league level, but to the extent the
practice is challenged as to its effect on any issue set forth in
subsection (b), it must be challenged under current law, which may or
may not provide relief.
New paragraph (d)(5) merely reflects the Committee's intention that a
court's determination of which fact situations fall within subsection
(b) should follow ordinary rules of statutory construction, and should
not be subject to any exceptions or departures from these rules.
As stated in the Committee Report, nothing in this bill is intended
to affect the scope or applicability of the ``nonstatutory'' labor
exemption from the antitrust laws. See, e.g., Brown v. Pro Football,
116 S.Ct. 2116 (1996).
Before yielding to my good friend from Vermont, I would like to thank
him for his hard work on this bill. His bipartisan efforts have been
vital to the process. I would also like to thank our original
cosponsors, Senators Thurmond and Moynihan. I urge the quick adoption
of this bill, which will help restore stability to major league
baseball labor relations.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this summer we are being treated to an
exceptional season of baseball, from the record breaking pace of the
New York Yankees and the resurgence of the Boston Red Sox, to a number
of inspiring individual achievements, including the perfect game of
David Wells and the home run displays of McGwire, Griffey and Sosa.
Such are the exploits that childhood memories are made of--and which we
all thought could be counted on, that is until the summer of 1994.
Now finally, after years of turmoil, major league baseball is just
beginning to emerge from the slump it inflicted upon itself, by
returning to that which makes the game great--the game and the players
on the field. And, last weekend, Larry Doby and others at long last
were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. These are steps in the
right direction.
Today, the Senate will give baseball another nudge in the right
direction by passing S. 53, the ``Curt Flood Act of 1998.'' Murray
Chass, a gifted reporter writing for The New York Times noted that on
this issue we have finally ``moved into scoring position with a bill
that would alter the antitrust exemption Major League Baseball has
enjoyed since 1922.''
I am gratified that 76 years after an aberrant Supreme Court
decision, we are finally making it clear that with respect to the
antitrust laws, major league baseball teams are no different than teams
in any other professional sport. For years, baseball was the only
business or sport, of which I am aware, that claimed an exemption from
antitrust laws, without any regulation in lieu of those laws. The
Supreme Court refused to undue its mistake with respect to major league
baseball made in the 1922 case of Federal Baseball. Finally, in the
most well-known case on the issue, Flood v. Kuhn, the Court reaffirmed
the Federal Baseball case on the basis of the legal principle of stare
decisis while specifically finding that professional baseball is indeed
an activity of interstate commerce, and thereby rejecting the legal
basis for the Federal Baseball case.
Mr. President, as a result of that and subsequent decisions, and with
the end of the major league reserve clause as the result of an
arbitrator's ruling in 1976, there has been a growing debate as to the
continued vitality, if any, of any antitrust exemption for baseball. It
is for precisely this reason that this bill is limited in its scope to
employment relations between major league owners and major league
players. That is what is at the heart of turmoil in baseball and what
is at the heart of the breach of trust with the fans that marked the
cancellation of the 1994 World Series. At least we can take this small
step toward ensuring the continuity of the game and restoring public
confidence in it.
When David Cone testified at our hearing three years ago, he posed a
most perceptive question. He asked: If baseball were coming to Congress
to ask us to provide a statutory antitrust exemption, would such a bill
be passed? The answer to that question is a resounding no. Nor should
the owners, sitting at the negotiating table in a labor dispute, think
that their anticompetitive behavior cannot be challenged. That is an
advantage enjoyed by no other group of employers.
The certainty provided by this bill will level the playing field,
making labor disruptions less likely in the future. The real
beneficiaries will be the fans. They deserve it.
Mr. President, I just wanted to comment briefly on a couple of
changes made in the substitute from the bill as reported by the
Committee. First, the changes in the language in subsection (a) are not
intended to limit in any way the rights of players at the major league
level as they would be construed under the language of the bill as
reported by the Judiciary Committee last July. The additional language
was added to ensure that a minor league player, or someone who had
played at the major league level and returned to the minor leagues,
cannot use subsection (a), concerned with play at the major league
level, to attack what is really a minor league employment issue only.
Alternatively, neither can the major leagues use the wording of
subsection (a) and that of subsection (d) to subvert the purpose of
subsection (a) merely by linking a major league practice with a minor
league practice. That linkage itself may be an antitrust violation and
be actionable under this Act. It cannot be used as a subterfuge by
which to subject players at the major league level to acts, practices
or agreements that teams or owners in other sports could not subject
athletes to.
[[Page S9498]]
Finally, the practices set forth in subsection (b) are not intended
to be affected by this Act. While this is true, it should be remembered
that although the pure entrepreneurial decisions in this area are
unaffected by the Act, if those decisions are made in such a way as to
implicate employment of major league players at the major league level,
once again, those actions may be actionable under subsection (a). More
importantly, we are making no findings as to how, under labor laws,
those issues are to be treated.
In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank all those involved
in this undertaking: Chairman Hatch, of course, without whose unfailing
efforts this result would not be possible; our fellow cosponsors,
Senators Thurmond and Moynihan, and other members of our Committee; and
John Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee,
for making this bill a priority. And I want to commend the interested
parties for working to find a solution they can all support. Not only
have they done a service to the fans, but they may find, on reflection,
that they have done a service to themselves by working together for the
good of the game.
Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the
man for whom this legislation is named, Curt Flood. He was a superb
athlete and a courageous man who sacrificed his career for perhaps a
more lasting baseball legacy. When others refused, he stood up and said
no to a system that he thought un-American as it bound one man to
another for his professional career without choice and without a voice
in his future.
I am sad that he did not live long enough to see this day. In
deference to his memory and in the interests of every fan of this great
game, I hope that Congress will act quickly on this bill. I am
delighted that we are moving forward today and that we are finally able
to enjoy the game once again.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as
read and agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed
as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that
any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3479) was agreed to.
The bill (S. 53), as amended, was considered read a third time and
passed.
____________________