Question

Curt Flood was a National League center fielder who was an All-Star three times and won seven consecutive Gold Glove awards. At the end of the 1969 season, the St. Louis Cardinals traded Flood to the Philadelphia Phillies. Flood rejected the trade, and wrote in a letter to Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn:

After twelve years in the major leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes. I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.

It is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I am capable of playing. I have received a contract offer from the Philadelphia club, but I believe I have the right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decision. I, therefore, request that you make known to all Major League clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them of my availability for the 1970 season.

Flood’s contract, like all major league baseball contracts at the time, contained the following provision: “NOTICE. A club may assign to another club an existing contract with a player. The player, upon receipt of written notice of such assignment, is by his contract bound to serve the assignee.”

The reserve clause, as it was known, also provided that even after his contract expired, a player could not play for another team unless the team that originally signed him agreed to unconditionally release him or the player sat out for a year.

The Commissioner denied Flood’s request, and Flood sued in a case that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972). There is a link to the full decision in your Resources for this chapter. Flood lost, and after he spent a year away from the sport, the Phillies traded him to the Washington Senators. Flood retired in 1971 with a lifetime batting average of .293 after playing only thirteen games with the Senators.

Although Flood was unsuccessful in his legal battle, his actions led to the end of the reserve system and the beginning of free agency in 1975

analyze the portions of the reserve clause above and explain why such terms would or would not ordinarily be enforceable in a contract. Your response should be between 150 and 300 words.   

Answer 1

Solution:

The reserve clause laws is just civil rights abuses. There would be no organisation willing to tie a player to the squad for a longer time than the player himself does. And it is arrogant and improper to delegate the player to other leagues without any consultation. That is why Flood was correct to say that "the regulations did not conform with the laws of the USA and a number of other nations." Keeping a player from playing for other teams understands that his contract with the current team has already expired, but also that this is the only source of money, in addition, limits his human rights. In fact, selling Flood as part of a piece of property to the other league (but naming it 'offered' to play for Phillies) still limits him and dismisses his rights to work as he wasn't even allowed to authorize it. In a critical deal certain kinds of clauses would not be enforceable. A athlete should be allowed to play, should consider whether he desires to continue play for a specific club and how many seasons he chooses to be bound by the deal. When the deal fails, the participant will be allowed to start playing for other teams.

*****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please*****