[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9942-H9946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CURT FLOOD ACT OF 1998
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 53) to require the general application of the antitrust
laws to major league baseball, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 53
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
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:
``Sec. 27. (a) Subject to subsections (b) through (d), 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 professional major 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 was 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
[[Page H9943]]
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 to 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 players to play baseball at
the major league level may be challenged under subsection (a)
and then only to the extent that they 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
section 151 et seq. of title 29, United States Code (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.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 53, the Curt Flood Act of 1998.
After years of disagreement, the baseball players, the baseball owners,
and the minor leagues have reached an historic agreement on the
application of the antitrust laws to labor relations in baseball. This
agreement has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I
hope we will pass it today.
Mr. Speaker, let me just add, because we are talking about baseball,
let me tip my cap to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. He has
his own bill on this topic, H.R. 21, and he has led the charge on this
issue in the House. I want to thank him for his outstanding work in
bringing this bill to fruition.
I also want to thank my friends, Senators Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy,
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
They worked many long hours to negotiate the delicate compromise that
this bill embodies. We are also indebted to them for their outstanding
efforts in bringing this bill to passage. I am delighted to support
this simple but important bill, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 53, the ``Curt Flood Act of
1998.'' After years of disagreement, the baseball players, the baseball
owners, and the minor leagues have reached a historic agreement on the
application of the antitrust laws to labor relations in baseball. This
agreement has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I
hope that we will pass it today.
The Supreme Court first held that the business of baseball is exempt
from the antitrust laws in 1922. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore,
Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200
(1922). The Court, emphasizing organized baseball's longstanding
reliance on that exemption, has twice declined to overrule its original
1922 decision. Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972); Toolson v. New York
Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953). Instead, the Court has left it to
Congress to decide whether the baseball exemption should continue.
Given the agreement of the parties, Congress has now decided to
legislate in this area, but we do so only in an extremely narrow
manner. S. 53 leaves completely unchanged all aspects of the baseball
exemption except for the narrow issue of the labor relations of major
league players at the major league level as set out in detail in the
new subsection 27(b) of the Clayton Act.
This bill originates from a compromise struck during the last round
of collective bargaining between the major league owners and the major
league players. After a lengthy labor dispute, these parties reached a
collective bargaining agreement that, among other things, required
negotiation to reach agreement on a limited repeal of baseball's
antitrust exemption. They did so because the players' union argued that
the antitrust exemption contributed to the labor disputes that have
long marked its relationship with the owners. Specifically, the union
asserted that it was disadvantaged in its labor negotiations with the
owners because, unlike unions of other professional athletes, it could
not challenge allegedly unlawful employment terms under the antitrust
laws.
The major league clubs, of course, disagreed with this view. They
contended that the baseball exemption was irrelevant to their labor
negotiations with the union. The clubs argued that, like every other
multi-employer bargaining group, they were protected from antitrust
challenges to their employment terms by the nonstatutory labor
antitrust exemption. In that regard, I want to note that nothing in
this bill will affect in any way the protections afforded to the major
league clubs by the nonstatutory labor antitrust exemption.
As a result of this difference of opinion, both the players and the
owners were willing to support the repeal of the specific and narrow
portion of the baseball exemption covering labor relations between
major league players and major league clubs. The bill was carefully
drafted, however, to leave the remainder of the exemption intact.
Before this bill passed the Senate, several changes were adopted to
address concerns raised by owners of the minor league teams--the
members of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues.
Minor league baseball owners were concerned that the original bill
reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee might not adequately protect
their interests. Specifically, the minor league clubs were concerned
that the original version of S. 53 was not sufficiently clear to
preserve antitrust protection for: (1) the relationship between the
major league clubs and the minor league clubs and (2) those work rules
and employment terms that arguably affect both major league and minor
league baseball players.
Members of Congress agreed that this narrow legislation should not
hurt the grass roots minor league baseball played in over 150 towns
across the country. For that reason, the minor league clubs were
invited into the discussion and given an opportunity to suggest changes
to address their concerns, and those changes have been incorporated.
As a result of these three-way negotiations, the parties agreed to
amend the bill in several significant ways. These amendments clarify
the limited reach of the bill and the expansive nature of the continued
protection the bill affords to minor league baseball. For instance, to
accommodate the concerns of the minor league clubs, subsection (b) of
the new section 27 of the Clayton Act was changed by adding the word
``directly'' immediately before the phrase ``relating to or affecting
employment'' and the phrase ``major league players'' was added before
the phrase ``to play baseball.'' These changes were made to ensure that
neither major league players nor minor league players could use new
subsection (a) to attack conduct, acts, practices, or agreements
designed to apply to minor league employment.
In addition, new subsection (c) was added to clarify that only major
league players could sue under the new subsection (a). Again, the minor
leagues were concerned that, without a narrow standing section, minor
league players or amateurs might attempt to attack minor league issues
by asserting that these issues also indirectly affected major league
employment terms.
Therefore, the new subsection (c) carefully limits the zone of
persons protected by the bill to only major league players by providing
that ``only a major league baseball player has
[[Page H9944]]
standing to sue under'' this limited antitrust legislation. The
standing provision gives major league baseball players the same right
to sue under the antitrust laws over the major league employment terms
that other professional athletes have. Of course, the United States has
standing to sue to enjoin all antitrust violations under 15 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 4 and 25, and we do not intend subsection 27(c) to limit that
broad authority.
This bill does not affect the application of the antitrust laws to
anyone outside the business of baseball. In particular, it does not
affect the application of the antitrust laws to other professional
sports. The law with respect to the other professional sports remains
exactly the same after this bill becomes law.
Because we are talking about baseball, let me tip my cap to my good
friend, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers.
Mr. Conyers has his own bill on this topic, H.R. 21, and he has led the
charge on this issue in the House. I want to thank him for his
outstanding work in bringing this bill to fruition.
I also want to thank my friends Senators Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy,
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They
worked many long hours to negotiate the delicate compromise that this
bill embodies. We are also indebted to them for their outstanding
efforts in bringing this bill to passage.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this simple, but important,
bill, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. At this point, I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this Curt Flood Act is an important piece
of legislation. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for
his very charitable comments. As two baseball aficionados, we know that
the right thing is being done as we move this to finality.
Professional baseball is the only industry in the United States
exempt from the antitrust laws without being subject to regulatory
supervision. This circumstance has resulted from a rather sorry Supreme
Court decision in 1922 holding that baseball did not involve interstate
commerce and was beyond the reach of antitrust laws.
{time} 2145
For some reason, we in the Congress have failed to rectify this,
despite subsequent court decisions holding that all the other
professional sports were fully subject to these same laws that baseball
claimed to be exempt from.
There may have been a time when baseball's unique treatment was a
source of pride and distinction for many loyal fans who loved our
national pastime. But with baseball suffering more work stoppages over
the last century than all the other sports combined, including a 1994
strike which ended the possibility of a world series for the first time
in 90 years, and depriving many of our cities of tens of millions of
dollars in tax revenues, we can now no longer afford to treat
professional baseball in a manner enjoyed by no other professional
sport. And that is what S. 53 and H.R. 21 attempt to do.
I am very pleased to be a major sponsor of this legislation, because
concerns have been previously raised that by repealing the antitrust
exemption we would somehow be disrupting the operation of the minor
leagues. That, my colleagues will remember, was the defense that was
always raised. An ugly specter. Or professional baseball's ability to
limit franchise relocation might also occur. This legislation carefully
eliminates these matters from the scope of new antitrust coverage.
In the past, some of us in this body objected to legislating in this
area because of their hesitancy to take any action which could impact
an ongoing labor dispute. But because the owners and the players have
recently agreed to enter into a new collective bargaining agreement,
that objection no longer exists. Additionally, the baseball owners are
now in full support of this legislation, as of course the Major League
Players Association has always been.
This bill was introduced by myself in honor of a very courageous and
beautiful ball player, center fielder, Curt Flood, who passed away
earlier this year, in January, and, unfortunately, is no longer with us
to see the fruit of his work. Mr. Flood, one of the greatest players of
his time, risked his career when he challenged baseball's reserve
clause after he was traded from the St. Louis Cardinals to the
Philadelphia Phillies. Although the Supreme Court rejected the 1972
challenge of Flood, we all owe a debt of gratitude for his willingness
to challenge the baseball oligarchy. And he paid the price, too.
By the way, at his funeral in California, George Will, perhaps the
supreme baseball nut of all, was there, and Reverend Jesse Jackson,
Senior was there as well. It was a very touching event.
Now, this bill has gone through many changes over the years and was
introduced originally in the 103rd Congress by our former beloved
member of the Judiciary, Mike Synar, of Oklahoma.
In order to address the concern of the minor leagues, it contains
many redundancies and, accordingly, a court may have questions about
how the provisions of this bill will interrelate. Any court facing such
questions would be advised, if I may dare suggest, to return to the
purpose section of the bill for aid and interpretation. The purpose
section states what Congress intends; that is, that it is no longer
subject to question that major league baseball players have the same
rights under antitrust laws as do other professional athletes.
This is a simple proposition, yet it is indeed startling that 26
years after this brave and eloquent player, Curt Flood, stood alone
before the Supreme Court to seek an answer to a question whose answer
seemed obvious to him, that it is only just now being addressed by this
branch of government. I am very proud of the Congress for this.
If a court has any doubt as to the meaning or purpose of any
provision of this act, it should be guided by our purpose, which is, at
long last, to give the answer that Mr. Flood indeed knew to be the
correct one. The legislation is not intended to have an adverse effect
on any ongoing litigation nor intended to limit the ability of the
United States Government to bring antitrust actions.
It is overdue. I hope it will be quickly passed for the good of the
game, which has once again demonstrated why we love it, why baseball is
on a resurgence, and we are just delighted that now that McGwire and
Sosa have brought new enjoyment and life to the game that we now have
this legislation to accompany it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Jim Bunning), a member of Baseball's Hall of Fame.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 53, the Curt Flood Act,
named for the player who challenged the antitrust laws all the way to
the Supreme Court.
Baseball is the only sport, and just about the only business in
America, that is immune from the antitrust laws. Because of an outdated
supreme court decision, major league baseball has been operating under
a different set of rules than everyone else for the past 75 years. The
legislation before us today is very simple: It provides for a limited
repeal of that exemption when it comes to labor-management relations.
Baseball has had big troubles in recent years, and the antitrust
exemption has been the root cause. There has been eight work stoppages
in the last three decades, and it is no coincidence that baseball, the
only sport that enjoyed such special treatment, has had more strikes
and lockouts than all other sports combined.
After playing and managing in professional baseball for over 25
years, and serving on the Executive Board of the Players Association, I
know firsthand how the exemption distorts player-owner relationships
and has contributed to the turmoil in baseball. The exemption
effectively removes a negotiating tool from the labor negotiating
process and forces both sides to play hardball when it comes to
bargaining over contracts. It removes a way for the players to push
their grievances, and encourages the owners to take a hard line and
reduces their incentive to compromise.
[[Page H9945]]
Personally, I think this exemption should be repealed altogether.
Baseball is a multibillion dollar business that should have to play by
the same rules as other sports and businesses. The exemption is anti-
competitive and anti-American. But by passing this bill today, and
partially repealing the exemption, we provide another avenue for the
owners and the players to explore another way to vent steam before
calling a strike or staging a lockout.
This is a bipartisan consensus bill that the Senate passed without
opposition. It is supported by all of the affected parties in baseball,
owners, players, and the minor leagues. Everyone agrees that it
represents a positive step forward for our national pastime.
But most importantly, this legislation represents a win for the fans.
Just 4 years ago the players were on strike. The world series was
canceled. Baseball seemed doomed. But this year, as the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has said, baseball has had a renaissance. Mark
McGwire and Sammy Sosa thrilled us with the home run race. The playoffs
are more exciting than ever before. And baseball is back.
Fans are returning to baseball, and passing this bill today will help
ensure that the game does not spiral backwards, down into the abyss of
labor strife. It will help ensure that the fans are not robbed of their
right to the greatest game ever invented.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I neglected to mention that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Jim
Bunning), Hall of Famer, worked diligently on this bill with myself and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and he was also a Detroit
Tiger, where his greatest playing took place, and we still claim him,
although he represents the great State of Kentucky. And, Mr. Speaker,
he has a baseball in his hand now, as we watch.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for
yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) for signing my baseball and being such a great baseball
hero.
I speak as a fan today. In Arkansas, we do not have major league
baseball in the State, but we have minor league baseball and we have a
great baseball tradition. This bill that is before us has been agreed
to by the players and the owners, but, more importantly, in my
judgment, it is a bill for the fans. The fans want to see the boys of
summer out on the field. They want to see them play ball. This has been
a great year for the fans and we want that to continue without
interruption.
This bill, as has been explained, and so eloquently by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and also by the chairman, provides
baseball players with the same rights already afforded the National
Football League and the National Basketball Association players. So
they can act as their counterparts do in other fields of endeavor. But
this also recognizes the importance of an antitrust exemption for
certain aspects of the game so team owners may continue to cooperate on
issues such as league expansion, franchise location and broadcast
rights, without fear of lawsuit. So it protects and helps minor league
baseball that is important in my State.
Mr. Speaker, baseball is America's pastime and it is my State's as
well. Arkansas has produced its share of baseball greats as well, men
like Lou Brock, Dizzy Dean, George Kell, and Brooks Robinson, all Hall
of Famers, that have made us proud as they have carried a little bit of
Arkansas to the far corners of this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for baseball, the players and owners
alike; it is a good bill for the fans, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert).
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report. I do so in my capacity as chairman of the Minor League Baseball
Caucus. The common thread that unites all of us in this caucus is our
love for America's pastime.
I am a little bit disappointed that the two gentlemen that preceded
me in the well, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), who is a
member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, when he talked about the great
year of 1998, I am surprised that he, a great Hall of Fame pitcher, did
not mention that David Wells pitched a perfect game for the New York
Yankees. The gentleman from Kentucky knows more than most that good
pitching beats good hitting all the time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. I would like to point out to the gentleman that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) also pitched a perfect game when
he was in the major leagues.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is
exactly right, and I was one of the great fans cheering him on when he
pitched that perfect game.
And my colleague from Arkansas neglected to mention another great
Hall of Famer from his home State. Arky Vaughn.
The fact of the matter is, one of the reasons why this settlement was
delayed was the genuine concern for the future of minor league
baseball. Because when all is said and done, while we are all thrilled
by America's pastime, most people have to watch it on television. But
across America, 35 million fans are going to the ball parks to see
minor league baseball, in places like Syracuse, New York, and Utica,
New York, and all over America. In Toledo, Ohio, the Mudhens. Who can
forget them.
{time} 2200
It is indeed America's pastime. The great concern that all of us had
was the preservation of minor league baseball. I am pleased to report
to my colleagues that the minor league baseball officials have worked
cooperatively and they do endorse this package. It is good for baseball
at all levels.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to clarify the legislative
intent of S. 53, I would like to place the following Senate colloquy
between Senator Paul Wellstone, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin
Hatch and Ranking Judiciary Committee Member Patrick Leahy in the House
record.
Curt Flood Act of 1998
Mr. Wellstone. Mr. President, late last night (July 30,
1998), the Senate passed by unanimous consent S. 53. I have
been contacted by the Attorney General of my State, Hubert H.
Humphrey III, and asked to try to clarify a technical legal
point about the effect of this legislation. The State of
Minnesota, through the office of Attorney General, and the
Minnesota Twins are currently involved in an antitrust-
related investigation. It is my understanding that S. 53 will
have no impact on this investigation or any litigation
arising out of the investigation.
Mr. Hatch. That is correct. The bill simply makes it clear
that major league baseball players have the same rights under
the antitrust laws as do other professional athletes. The
bill does not change current law in any other context or with
respect to any other person or entity.
Mr. Wellstone. Thank you for that clarification. I also
note that several lower courts have recently found that
baseball currently enjoys only a narrow exemption from
antitrust laws and that this exemption applies only to the
reserve system. For example, the Florida Supreme Court in
Butterworth v. National League, 644 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 1994),
the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in Piazza v. Major
League Baseball, 831 F. Supp. 420 (E.D. Pa. 1993) and a
Minnesota State court in a case involving the Twins have all
held the baseball exemption from antitrust laws is now
limited only to the reserve system. It is my understanding
that S. 53 will have no effect on the courts' ultimate
resolution of the scope of the antitrust exemption on matters
beyond those related to owner-player relations at the major
league level.
Mr. Hatch. That is correct. S. 53 is intended to have no
effect other than to clarify the status of major league
players under the antitrust laws. With regard to all other
context or other persons or entities, the law will be the
same after passage of the Act as it is today.
Mr. Leahy. I concur with the satement of the Chairman of
the Committee. The bill affects no pending or decided cases
except to the extent that courts have exempted major league
baseball clubs from the antitrust laws in their dealings with
major league players. In fact, Section 3 of the legislation
makes clear that the law is unchanged with regard to issues
such as relocation. The bill has no impact on the recent
decisions in federal and state courts in Florida,
Pennsylvania and
[[Page H9946]]
Minnesota concerning baseball's status under the antitrust
laws.
Mr. Wellstone. I thank the Senator. I call to my colleagues
attention the decision in Minnesota Twins v. State by
Humphrey, No. 62-CX-98-568 (Minn. dist. Court, 2d Judicial
dist., Ramsey County April 20, 1998) reprinted in 1998-1
Trade Cases (CCH) 72,136.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. 53, the Curt Flood
Act, which gives major league baseball players the same rights other
professional athletes have under antitrust laws.
As a longtime proponent of lifting baseball's antitrust exemption, I
have sponsored bills in the past to lift this exemption completely as
it applies to all aspects of baseball's business. Although the bill we
are considering now is more limited in scope, it is an important first
step in correcting a seven decade-old mistake.
Federal antitrust laws prohibit businesses from taking actions that
``unreasonably'' constrain interstate commerce. However, many years ago
Major League Baseball was singled out for a complete exemption from
America's antitrust laws by the Supreme Court. The Court said baseball
was an amusement and not a business, exempting it from antitrust laws.
This exemption created a monopoly for baseball and established
artificial barriers to league expansion. It sent the wrong signal to
Americans that baseball did not have to comply with our country's
antitrust laws.
In 1972, the Supreme Court called the situation an ``anomaly'' and an
``aberration'' which Congress should remedy. A 1976 report by the House
Select Committee on Professional Sports concluded that there was no
justification for baseball's special exemption. Unfortunately, no
action was ever taken.
Mr. Speaker, baseball has seen a resurgence since the dark days of
the 1994 strike. Who can forget Cal Ripken's triumphant lap around
Camden Yards after breaking Lou Gehrig's Iron Man streak of consecutive
games played? Or the incredible home run chase this year between Mark
McGwire and Sammy Sosa that culminated in both players smashing the
thirty-seven-year home run record held by Roger Maris?
I felt immense personal pride when I watched my hometown team, the
Tampa Bay Devil Rays, take the field for their inaugural season at
Tropicana field. The debut of a major league team in the Tampa-St.
Petersburg area was delayed for years because Major League Baseball did
not have to abide by our nation's antitrust laws.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 53 because it makes baseball live
by the same laws as the fans who sit in the bleachers. It tells
baseball fans that competition and fairness in baseball boardrooms is
just as important as it is on the field. Let's give America its game
back.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is the
result of a negotiation resulting in a compromise among the union that
represents major league players, the owners of major league baseball
clubs, and by the owners of minor league baseball teams affiliated with
major league clubs. The compromise addresses only the limited area of
the labor relations of major league players at the major league level.
The bill does not affect any other aspect of the organized baseball
exemption. Also, the legislation does not change in any way the
antitrust exemption for the major league players union or the major
league clubs in the collective bargaining process provided by the
nonstatutory labor antitrust exemption available to all unions and
employers.
The legislation is a success because it has been carefully crafted to
make clear that only major league baseball players, and no other party,
can bring suit under this amendment to the Clayton Act.
This protection will help to ensure the continued viability of minor
league baseball.
Minor league baseball owners were concerned that any legislation
preserve the antitrust protections for the historic relationship
between the major league clubs and the minor league clubs. The minor
league owners were particularly concerned about the work rules and
terms of employment that impact both major league and minor league
baseball players. The language of the bill guarantee that neither major
league players nor minor league players can use subsection (a) of new
section 27 of the Clayton Act to attack conduct, acts, practices or
agreements designed to apply only to minor league employment.
I believe the compromise is successful because it protects minor
league baseball by barring minor league players or amateur players from
using the antitrust laws to attack issues unique to the continued
economic success of minor league baseball.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 53, the ``Curt
Flood Act of 1998.'' This is the Senate counterpart of H.R. 21,
legislation I introduced in the each of the last two Congresses
providing for the partial repeal of baseball's antitrust exemption. I'd
like to thank Chairman Hyde for his leadership in seeing that this
vital and long overdue legislation reached the House Floor.
Professional baseball is the only industry in the United States
exempt from antitrust laws without being subject to alternative
regulatory supervision. This circumstance resulted from an erroneous
1922 Supreme Court decision holding that baseball did not involve
``interstate commerce'' and was therefore beyond the reach of the
antitrust laws. Congress has failed to overturn this decision despite
subsequent court decisions holding that the other professional sports
were fully subject to the antitrust laws.
There may have been a time when baseball's unique treatment was a
source of pride and distinction for the many loyal fans who loved our
national pastime. But with baseball suffering more work stoppages over
the last 25 years than all of the other professional sports combined--
including the 1994-95 strike which ended the possibility of a World
Series for the first time in 90 years and deprived our cities of
thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenues--we can no
longer afford to treat professional baseball in a manner enjoyed by no
other professional sport.
Because concerns have previously been raised that by repealing the
antitrust exemption we could somehow be disrupting the operation of the
minor leagues, or professional baseball's ability to limit franchise
relocation, the legislation carefully eliminates these matters from the
scope of the new antitrust coverage.
In the past, some in Congress had objected to legislating in this
area because of their hesitancy to take any action which could impact
the ongoing labor dispute. But because the owners and players have
recently agreed to enter into a new collective bargaining agreement,
this objection no longer exists. In addition, the baseball owners are
now in full support of this legislation as are the Major League Players
Association.
I originally introduced the House version of the bill as H.R. 21, in
honor of the courageous center fielder, Curt Flood, who passed away
earlier this year on January 21. Mr. Flood, one of the greatest players
of his time, risked his career when he challenged baseball's reserve
clause after he was traded from the St. Louis Cardinals to the
Philadelphia Phillies. Although the Supreme Court rejected Flood's
challenge in 1972, we all owe a debt of gratitude for his willingness
to challenge the baseball oligarchy.
This bill has gone through many iterations over the years, beginning
with its first enaction by the House Judiciary Committee at the end of
the 103d Congress. That legislation was introduced by my former
colleague Mike Synar.
In order to address the concern of the minor leagues, it contains
many redundancies. Accordingly, a court may have questions about how
the provisions of this bill interrelate. Any court facing such
questions would be well-advised to return to the purpose section of the
bill for aid in interpretation. The purpose section is the statement of
what Congress intends the bundle of works now known as the ``Curt Flood
Act of 1998'' to mean--that is, it is no longer subject to question
that major league baseball players have the same rights under the
antitrust laws as do other professional athletes. That is a simple
proposition, yet it is indeed startling that 26 years after a brave and
eloquent player stood alone before the Supreme Court to seek an answer
that was obvious to him, it is only now being addressed directly by any
branch of the United States government. If a court has any doubt as to
the meaning or purpose of any provision of this new Act, it should be
guided by our purpose which is at long last to give the answer Mr.
Flood knew to be the correct one. This legislation is not intended to
have any adverse effect on any ongoing litigation nor is it intended to
limit the ability of the United States to bring antitrust actions.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. I hope the House will act
quickly to pass it for the good of the game, which has once again
demonstrated why we love it, and for the good of the fans, who deserve
to enjoy the national pastime without the continuous interruptions that
have become nearly as predictable and plentiful, as McGwire or Sosa
home runs.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 53.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________