SPORTS LAW OUTLINE
Powe- Spring 2011
I. The Role of the Commissioner and the Law
Mythic commissioners
Kennesaw Mountain Landis for Baseball (lasted 24 years)- See more actions typically by baseball commissioners than commissioner of other sports
Pete Rozelle for Football (ended TV rights owned by teams)
David Stern for Basketball (fixed 3 problems: too black, too many drugs, not making money because of this; added salary cap, drug testing)
MLB determined, as every league sport has, that it needed a commissioner for the following reasons:
Union will take care of the players.
Team owners will take care of their own teams.
Thus, no other party is looking out for the overall good of the league.
A. Pete Rose v. Bart Giamatti
Prior to Rose’s hearing Peters, the key witness against Pete Rose, was about to be sentenced in a separate trial; Giammatti wrote a letter to the sentencing judge asking for a lighter penalty for Peters because he had been so honest with the MLB’s investigation. In other words, Giammatti was saying he believed Peters’s testimony against Rose prior to being the decision maker in Rose’s hearing. But nothing in the MLB rules says the commissioner has to give a fair hearing. However, from the cases in this section, it seems that a court will set aside a commissioner’s decision if it is arbitrary.
Powe: The easiest way to find an arbitrary decision is to find one that makes no pretense of due process.
But there was no judicial review in this case, despite Giammatti giving the appearance of having decided the case prior to Rose’s hearing because Rose settled
B. The Legal Scope of the Commissioner’s Authority
Two main questions:
1) What is the commissioner’s authority?
· Commissioners always say their actions are for the best interest of their sport.
2) To what extent can a court review the decisions of a commissioner?
· This question is most notable with regards to commissioners vs. baseball owners, because baseball owners sign the Major League Agreement, which includes a clause saying they have no recourse to the courts. Players don’t sign this; they never contract to not have recourse to the courts.
Milwaukee Am. Ass’n v. Landis (N.D. Ill. 1931):
Team v. Landis over contract: Court says MLB commissioner (“benevolent despot”) has broad authority to be an arbiter in preventing any conduct detrimental to MLB. His decisions are binding, so long as they are made in good faith.
Landis’ only real loss in the long run: He was unable to prevent the creation of the farm system, which he opposed as he believed it would create competitive imbalances with teams with more resources having stronger farm systems (Example: All-American football league was dominated by the Browns and collapsed for lack of attendance)
1976: Free agency created in MLB; the most important sports law event ever.
There was a time when players (perhaps brainwashed by owners) didn’t want free agency because they thought it would be bad for baseball
Charles O. Finley v. Bowie Kuhn (7th Cir. 1978):
Finley underpaid his stars on the A’s. Figuring they’d leave when they became free agents, he sold them to the Yankees and Red Sox. Commissioner Kuhn voids the sale, saying it will debilitate the A’s and upset competitive balance (i.e., he claimed it was in the best interests of the league). When Finley sues, the MLB bases their defense on the owners’ waiver of judicial review.
Powe’s take: Kuhn wins because he was right on the merits; of course the sale would greatly upset competitive balance. Thus, this opinion likely doesn’t create any deference to the contractual waiver of judicial review in cases where the commissioner’s actions were incorrect.
Atlanta Nat’l League Baseball Club & Ted Turner v. Bowie Kuhn:
Turner talked with Matthews prior to the period they could talk to free agents. This is tampering. Rather than voiding the player’s contract, Kuhn suspends Turner for a year and takes away a Braves’ first round draft choice.
Kuhn’s rationale: Free agency is designed for players to pick the team they wish to play for, and Matthews wished to play for the Braves. Therefore, the Braves should be punished but Matthews should not.
Court determines that the CBA gives the Braves the right to that draft choice, and the CBA cannot be circumvented by commissioner punishment. Thus, the Braves get Matthews, the right to tamper, and the loss of Turner for a year (a punishment he asked for so he could captain an America’s Cup team).
Ted Turner and Finley are interesting owners because baseball, more than any other sport, hates owners who rock the boat. Example: baseball owners didn’t allow Mark Cuban to but the Cubs
A commissioner might really go far in taking actions in the best interests of baseball (such as force trades to increase competition)
Kuhn once ordered the owners to stop a 1981 lockout of the players, under the rationale of the best interests of the sport.
Chicago Nat’l League Ball Club v. Francis Vincent, Jr.: Fay Vincent determined that the Cubs and Cardinals should move to the NL West (end of pretense that commissioners are neutral). The Cubs didn’t want to move to the NL West because games starting in the Pacific Time Zone would mess up TV start times in the Central Time Zone. The Cubs won this case because specifics will always trump generals:
Vincent had the general clause about best interests of baseball; Cubs had a specific clause saying no team would be realigned w/o their permission.
Later, the owners suspected Vincent would pull a Kuhn (i.e. side with the union, preventing a lockout) so they fired him. After initially arguing that he couldn’t be fired, he chose to resign. The owners chose to not fill the commissioner’s position, appointing Selig as acting commissioner. By the time they made him official commissioner, they had made a change in the rules; the commissioner would be the chair of the Player Relations Committee, and therefore a partisan for the owners in collec
l early to request parking, so players have advance notice
NBA: Only 6 players have tested positive in the past 15 years- Come on!
Hill v. NCAA (California Supreme Court, 1994): Court in Hill I stated that NCAA has failed to show a compelling interest to invade privacy of student-athlete but court in Hill II reversed (that court used a less rigorous legitimate interest standard). Court said that the NCAA’s interest in clean competition and in protecting the health and safety of student-athletes is sufficient to justify any invasion of privacy.
Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton: Student-athletes have a diminished privacy expectation (“locker room mentality”) for purposes of determining the reasonableness of drug urinalysis as search.
Miller v. Wilkes: Court upholds random drug testing for every HS student in Oklahoma engaged in extracurriculars. In essence, court said that you can constitutionally test a HS kid whether there is a community drug problem or not.\
The moral of all this: Unions really matter. Where there is not a union, strict testing measures are in place (i.e. WADA). Where there is a union the measures are not so strict.
4. Sports and Social Ethics—Minorities
Rooney Rule (NFL): You cannot fill a coaching job without interviewing a black candidate. However, consider the following two examples:
Cowboys hired Parcells without interviewing any black coaches. Jerry Jones called Dennis Green. Green said it was an interview, and Jones did not get fined.
Millen called five black coaches about interviews before hiring Mariucci; none would interview. NFL fined Millen for not interviewing a black candidate.
These cases suggest the NFL rule clearly has sham possibilities. However, even sham interviews can have advantages: gives black candidates the chance to build relationships, practice interviewing, and break down the good ol’ boy network to some degree.
Following John Rocker’s interview with Sports Illustrated, he was suspended by Selig for 60 days and fined $20K. The MLBPA did not defend Rocker. Selig’s punishment was outrageous, and MLBPA’s decision not to defend Rocker was even worse. Rocker’s interview was in the offseason, and he did nothing illegal. MLBPA allowed a precedent that MLB has the right to suspend players in the offseason for engaging in stupid and reprehensible but legal behavior (although they haven’t pushed it). There has been disproportionality in the punishments handed down for these types of violations.
