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. Given what you know about assignments, 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

Answer- The rules of Reserve clause were simply against human rights. No organisation should be able to bind a player to the team for a period longer than what the player could actually accept. And assigning the player to other leagues pretty much without any consultation with the player is disrespectful and inappropriate. And this is why Flood was right when he said that "the rules were inconsistent with the laws of United States and of several other states." Holding a player back from playing for other teams knowing that his contract with the current team has already expired and while also knowing that it's the only source of his income is binding him in the contract that's actually limiting his human rights. Also, trading Flood to the other league (but terming it as being "offered" to play for Phillies) like a piece of property is also restricting him and cutting him off his working rights, because the organisation didn't even ask for his approval. These kinds of terms should NOT be enforceable in a sensible contract.

A player should be allowed to play, should be allowed to decide if he even wants to play for a particular team and for how many seasons he wants to be binded to that team/the contract. If the contract has expired, the player should be allowed to consider playing for other teams.