Removing the Major League Baseball from Antitrust Law Exemption

移除美國職棒大聯盟之反托拉斯法豁免權

10.5297/ser.200603_8(1).0006

邵于玲(Jackie Yu-Lin Shao)

美國職棒大聯盟 ； 反托拉斯法 ； antitrust law ； Major League Baseball

大專體育學刊

8卷1期（2006 / 03 / 31）

85 - 95

英文

自從1922年，美國職棒大聯賬(MLB)已經享有反托拉斯法之豁免權。這是當時美國聯邦高等法庭法官在Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore，Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs一案中所做出的宣判。雖然後來Curt Flood Act賦予大聯盟球員能在反托拉斯法下控告與其自身權利相關之訴訟案，但是對於球隊擴張(franchise expansion)、小聯盟棒球(Minor League Baseball)、及電視轉播權利(broadcasting right)等議題並無加以解除豁免權。本研究首先簡述反托拉斯法及勞資協商的演進過程、及討論MLB反托拉斯法豁免權的過程及相關之重要案例；再進一步提出移除MLB豁免權之論述。雖然對於是否將這些議題納入反托拉斯法之管轄仍有爭議，但以反托拉斯法來牽制MLB，應有助於重整美國職業棒球發展架構，且在自由市場機制運作下，聯盟的發展應會更健全、更具競爭力。

The Major League Baseball (MLB) has been exempt from the antitrust laws since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. Although the Curt Flood Act gave Major League players the same right to sue under the antitrust laws challenging the Major League Baseballp's employment terms, yet the issues such as franchise expansion, Minor League Baseball, and broadcasting rights are still under the domain of the antitrust exemption. Whether or not these issues should be exempted from the antitrust laws is controversial. This paper provides an overview of the development of the antitrust law and collective bargaining, and the history of baseball exemption and landmark cases. Both sides of arguments of removing baseball exemption, as well as the related cases are presented Finally, this paper concludes with a suggestion that removing baseball completely from the antitrust exemption and rebuilding the infrastructure of baseball with the natural market forces is a more effective approach to benefit the business of the professional baseball.

1. (1976).Mackey v. National Football League, 543 F.2d 606.
2. Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U. S. 356.
3. (1994).Sherman Act, 1, 15 U.S.C.,1
4. (1953).Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U. S.,356
5. (1998).Curt Flood Act of 1998, 2, 15 U.S.C. 27a note (Supp. IV 1998).
6. United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657
7. (1908).Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S.,274
8. National Basketball Association v. Williams, 45 F.3d 684 (2d Cir 1995).
9. (1994).Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C..
10. (1994).Clayton Act, 27, 15 U.S.C.,7
11. Curt Flood Act of 1998, 2, 15 U.S.C. 27a note (Supp. IV 1998).
12. (1922).Federal Baseball Club, Inc. v. Federal League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U. S. 200.
13. Mackey v.National Football League, 543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir 1976).
14. (1972).Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S..
15. (1922).Federal Baseball Club, Inc. v. Federal League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U. S. 200,258
16. (1965).United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S.,657
17. (1994).National Labor Relations Act 8, 29 U.S.C. 157.Nine: A journal of baseball history and culture,13(1),1-9.
18. (1991).Powell v. NFL, 888 F.2d 559 (8th Cir 1989), cert. Denied, 418 U.S. 903.
19. (1995).National Basketball Association v. Williams, 45 F.3d 684.
20. Abrams, R. I.(1998).Legal bases: Baseball and the law.Colorado Law Review.
21. Abrams, R. I.(1998).Legal bases: Baseball and the law.Philadelphia, PA:Temple Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, Colorado Law Review.
22. Bautista, P. R.(2000).Congress Says, “Yooou`re out!!!” to the antitrust exemption of professional baseball: A discussion of the current state of player-owner collective bargaining and the impact of the Curt Flood Act of 1998.Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution
23. Brown v.(1996).Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S.,231
24. Brown v.(1996).
25. Celler, E.(1956).Concentration of economic power.Vital Speeches of the Day,22(17),526-530.
26. Clayton Act(1994).
27. Day, F. J.(2004).Clubhouse lawyer: Law in the world of sports.Universe:Incorporated.
28. Day, F. J.(2004).Universe, IncorporatedUniverse, Incorporated,未出版
29. Flood v. Kuhn(1972).
30. Johnson, B.,D. R. Marburger(Ed.)(1997).Stee-rike four!: What's wrong with the business of baseball.Westport, CN & London:Praeger.
31. Johnson, B.,D. R. Marburger(Ed.)(1997).Stee-rike four!: What's wrong with the business of baseball.Westport, CN & London:Praeger..
32. Johnson, J. W.,C. E. Quirk(1996).Sports and the law.New York & London:Garland Publishing, Inc..
33. Johnson, J. W.,C. E. Quirk(Ed.)(1996).Sports and the law.New York & London:Garland Publishing, Inc..
34. Loewe v. Lawlor(1908).
35. Macaluso, P. M.(2000).Bang the gavel slowly: A call for judicial activism following the Curt Flood Act.The Boston Public Interest Journal
36. Macaluso, P. M.(2000).The Boston Public Interest Journal.
37. National Labor Relations Act 8, 29 U.S.C.157(1994).13(1),1-9.
38. Norris-LaGuardia Act(1994).
39. Powell v. NFL(1991).
40. S. W. Waller(Eds.),N. B. Cohen(Eds.),P. Finkelman(Eds.)(1952).Baseball and the American legal mind.New York & London:Garland Publishing, Inc.
41. S. W. Waller,N. B. Cohen,P. Finkelman(1952).Report of Subcommittee on study of Monopoly Power, House Committee on the Judiciary.New York & London:Garland Publishing, Inc..
42. Sherman Act(1994).
43. Shughart, W. F. II,D. R. Marburger(Ed.)(1997).Stee-rike four!: What's wrong with the business of baseball.Westport, CN & London:Praeger.
44. Smith, L. C.(1996).Beyond Peanuts and Cracker Jack: The implication of lifting baseball`s antitrust exemption.University of Colorado Law Review,67,113-141.
45. Smith, L. C.(1996).Beyond Peanuts and Cracker Jack: The implication of lifting baseball`s antitrust exemption.University of Colorado Law Review
46. United States v.(1955).International Boxing Club, Inc.
47. United States v. International Boxing Club, Inc., 348 U.S. 236(1955).University Press,243
48. Zimbalist, A.(2004).Baseball`s Antitrust Exemption: Why It Still Matters?.Nine: A journal of baseball history and culture,13(1),1-9.