Hubbry Logo
Reserve clauseReserve clauseMain
Open search
Reserve clause
Community hub
Reserve clause
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Reserve clause
Reserve clause
Reserve clause
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The reserve clause, in North American professional sports, was part of a player contract which stated that the rights to players were retained by the team upon the contract's expiration. Players under these contracts were not free to enter into another contract with another team. Once signed to a contract, players could, at the team's discretion, be reassigned, traded, sold, or released.

The only negotiating leverage of most players was to hold out at contract time and to refuse to play unless their conditions were met. Players were bound to negotiate a new contract to play another year for the same team or to ask to be released or traded. They had no freedom to change teams unless they were given an unconditional release. In the days of the reserve clause, that was the only way a player could be a free agent.

Once common in sports, the clause was abolished in baseball in 1975. The reserve clause system has, for the most part, been replaced by free agency.

Baseball

[edit]

In the late 19th century, professional baseball in America became popular enough that its major teams began to be businesses of considerable value, and the players were paid sums that were well above the wages earned by common workers. To control player salary demands, team owners used a standardized contract for the players, in which the major variable was salary. The players unsuccessfully tried to fight the growing reserve system by forming a labor union, the Brotherhood, and founding their own Players' League in 1890, but the Player's League lasted just one season. For the next 80 years, the so-called reserve system ruled the game. All player contracts were for one year. There were no modern-day long-term contracts, because the reserve clause negated the need for them.

The reserve clause inception was in 1879, when it was proposed as a way to formalize an unofficial rule known as the "five man rule". It would allow teams to reserve players for each season, unless a player opted out of his contract and did not play in the league for a year. While the previous informal rule was no secret, teams had started to sign other teams' "reserved players", thus encroaching the rule. The resulting controversies caused the National League to instate the rule officially on December 6, 1879.[1]

Teams realized that if players were free to go from team to team then salaries would escalate dramatically. Therefore, they seldom granted players (at least valuable ones) a release, but retained their rights, or traded them to other teams for the rights to other players, or sold them outright for cash. Players thus had a choice only of signing for what their team offered them, or "holding out" (refusing to play, and therefore, not being paid).

Under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, two or more non-affiliated companies in any other interstate business were prohibited from colluding with each other to fix prices or establish schedules or rates. Enforcement of the act reached its apotheosis in 1911 when the Supreme Court of the United States decided Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (221 U.S. 1) by affirming the government's order to dissolve the Standard Oil conglomerate.

In 1914, Hal Chase successfully challenged the reserve clause in American League Baseball Club of Chicago v. Chase, a landmark case that preceded Curt Flood's challenge by 56 years. After Chase left the Chicago White Sox to join the Buffalo Blues of the rival Federal League, White Sox owner Charles Comiskey sought an injunction to enforce the reserve clause. On July 21, 1914, New York Supreme Court Justice Herbert Bissell ruled in Chase's favor, finding that organized baseball constituted "a complete monopoly of the baseball business for profit" and that this monopoly violated common law rights to labor and contract. The court also noted the "absolute lack of mutuality" in player contracts—teams could release players at will, but players could not leave teams.[2] While the ruling allowed Chase to play for Buffalo, it did not dismantle the reserve clause system. American League president Ban Johnson and Comiskey retaliated by effectively blacklisting Chase from the American League, demonstrating the power of informal enforcement even when legal challenges succeeded.[3]

However, under the reasoning that keeping baseball (the only large-scale professional sport in America during the 1920s) prosperous required granting it immunity from the Sherman Act, the Supreme Court had held in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League (259 U.S. 200) that baseball was an "amusement", and that organizing a schedule of games between independently owned and operated clubs operating in various states, and engaging in activities incidental thereto, did not constitute "interstate commerce" and therefore antitrust laws did not apply to such activity.

In 1951, Representative Emanuel Celler announced that he would hold hearings in the United States House Judiciary Committee to examine baseball's antitrust exemption.[4] Celler entered the hearings believing that baseball needed laws to support the reserve clause.[5] Star players, such as Lou Boudreau and Pee Wee Reese, indicated their support of the reserve clause. Minor league veteran Ross Horning testified about his experiences in baseball, which he said were more common for rank-and-file players.[6] Cy Block testified about his experiences and how the reserve clause prevented him from getting an extended trial in the major leagues.[7] Celler's final report suggested that the U.S. Congress should take no action, allowing for the matter to be settled in the federal judiciary of the United States. The Supreme Court upheld baseball's antitrust exemption and the reserve clause in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. (346 U.S. 356) in 1953.[6]

This pass on "trust-busting" essentially codified the legal legitimacy of the reserve clause for many years, and gave what came to be known as Major League Baseball (MLB) unprecedented power over both players and the independent organizations of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues (NAPBL). Major-league owners could dictate not only how and where players could move between major league clubs, but as they took the opportunity of the Great Depression to establish systems of farm teams of players wholly owned by the parent clubs placed on independent teams from the NAPBL leagues around the country, they developed a way of expanding control of contracts of virtually the entire pool of professional baseball players.

When other team sports, particularly ice hockey, football, and basketball developed professional leagues, their owners essentially emulated baseball's reserve clause. This system stood largely unchallenged other than by the occasional holdout (such as the 1966 Koufax–Drysdale holdout) for many years.

Curt Flood

In October 1969, St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Curt Flood unsuccessfully challenged his trade to the Philadelphia Phillies and sacrificed the remainder of his playing career to pursue this litigation.[8] In Flood v. Kuhn (407 U.S. 258), the Supreme Court established that the reserve clause was a legitimate basis for negotiation in collective bargaining between players and owners, and that the historic baseball antitrust exemption was valid for baseball only and not applicable to any other sport. Although the Court ruled in baseball's favor 5–3, it admitted the original grounds for the antitrust exemption were tenuous at best, that baseball was indeed interstate commerce for purposes of the Sherman Act, and the exemption was an "anomaly" it had explicitly refused to extend to other professional sports or entertainment.[9]

The specific language of the reserve clause, as quoted in the Supreme Court decision for Flood v. Kuhn, was:[10]

10. (a) On or before January 15 (or if a Sunday, then the next preceding business day) of the year next following the last playing season covered by this contract, the Club may tender to the Player a contract for the term of that year by mailing the same to the Player at his address following his signature hereto, or if none be given, then at his last address of record with the Club. If prior to the March 1 next succeeding said January 15, the Player and the Club have not agreed upon the terms of such contract, then on or before 10 days after said March 1, the Club shall have the right by written notice to the Player at said address to renew this contract for the period of one year on the same terms, except that the amount payable to the Player shall be such as the club shall fix in said notice; provided, however, that said amount, if fixed by Major League Club, shall be an amount payable at a rate not less than 80% of the rate stipulated for the preceding year.

Removing the reserve clause from player contracts became the primary goal of negotiations between the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the owners. In December 1975, arbitrator Peter Seitz ruled that since pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally had played for one season without a contract, they could become free agents. That is, the unilateral renewal of a player's contract by his team was valid only once, not in perpetuity. The Seitz decision, as it became known, essentially dismantled the reserve clause and opened the door to widespread free agency in the major leagues.

Further information: Free agency (Major League Baseball)

Basketball

[edit]

The National Basketball Association (NBA) went through several phases of compensation and other arcane provisions before reaching almost unrestricted free agency. The first player in that league—and the first American major-league athlete—to challenge the reserve clause was Rick Barry. In 1969, he wanted to leave the San Francisco Warriors after his second season to play for the American Basketball Association’s (ABA) Oakland Oaks, who were coached by his father-in-law, Bruce Hale. Barry sat out a season before joining the Oaks.[11]

Football

[edit]

On June 18, 1921, the National Football League (NFL) ratified its first constitution.[12] The reserve clause ratified in the constitution was similar to that of baseball's at the time. The reserve clause stipulated that a team had the first opportunity to sign a player after the length of the contract had expired. If the team chose not to offer a contract, then the player could try to sign with a team of his choosing.[13] Theoretically, the reserve clause bound the player "...to his employer in perpetuity".[14] The reserve clause had been abolished in the NFL constitution in 1948 when the option clause was created.[15] The option clause stated that a team may choose to automatically keep a player on their team for another year, at the same pay, after his contract had expired.[16][17] The term, option clause, was not used by the print media and it was instead referred to as the reserve clause.[17] Nevertheless, in the NFL's attempt to gain antitrust exemption from Congress in 1957, Bert Bell still referred to the clause as the option clause (and also as the "option and reserve clause").[18]

Decades later, NFL players' mobility was limited by the so-called "Rozelle rule", named for the commissioner who first implemented it, which allowed the commissioner to "compensate" any team who lost a free agent to another team by taking something of equivalent value, usually draft picks, from the team that had signed the free agent and giving it to the team the player had left. Fear of losing several future high draft picks greatly limited free agency as no team wanted to sign a veteran player only to learn that it would lose, for example, its next two first-round draft picks.

The Rozelle rule was eventually replaced by "plan B", which allowed a team to name a thirty-seven man roster the reserve clause would apply to, and all players not included on this list were free agents. Few top-echelon players were left off this thirty-seven man roster unless they happened to be injured. Judge Earl R. Larson declared that the rule was a violation of antitrust laws in Mackey v. National Football League on December 30, 1975,[19][20] and something resembling true free agency came to pro football. Now, exclusive rights to a player are only for the first three years after his selection in the college draft. At the end of the first three years, a player can be a "restricted free agent", allowing his former team to match any offer made to him by another. After four years in the NFL all contracts end with the player becoming an unrestricted free agent without reserve.

There is a franchise tag option that is similar to the reserve clause; however, teams can only tag one player each year, although they can tag the same player for consecutive years. Franchised players are eligible to receive at least 120% of their previous year's salary, and players tagged "non-exclusive" can accept offers from other teams; if the original team does not match the offer, they receive draft picks as compensation. In recent years, many teams have opted not to exercise their right to designate the franchise tag.

Hockey

[edit]

The reserve clause was the basis for the National Hockey League (NHL)'s injunction against the large number of players who had signed with the rival World Hockey Association in 1972, with all but one—against Chicago Black Hawks star Bobby Hull—ultimately thrown out by lower courts. The appellate court, however, sided strongly with the WHA and Hull, calling the NHL's business practices monopolistic, conspiratorial, and illegal. While the reserve clause was not explicitly struck down, the court did effectively block any further injunctions based on the reserve clause, meaning the NHL could not use it to maintain a monopoly on talent. The WHA, meanwhile, voted at its founding to not include any form of the reserve clause. The courts' refusal to enforce the reserve clause between leagues in hockey remains a significant part of the WHA's legacy, and it ultimately contributed to the evolution of the NHL's modern free agency system.

Nevertheless, the reserve clause remained in effect within the NHL itself. One notorious feature of the NHL version of the clause was that it remained enforceable notwithstanding whether a player was offered a new contract or not, as either way teams retained the NHL "rights" to no-longer-wanted players and could demand whatever compensation they saw fit in exchange for allowing such players to sign for another NHL team. Perhaps the most egregious example involved Toronto Maple Leafs veteran Dave Keon, who had developed a highly contentious relationship with Leafs owner Harold Ballard. Despite making it clear there was no place for Keon on the Leafs, Ballard insisted on an unreasonable compensation "price," including among other concessions at least one first round draft pick, and as such effectively blocked Keon from signing with any other NHL team. Keon was ultimately able to continue his career in the WHA, due to Ballard's aforementioned inability to enforce the reserve clause against the rival league.

The highly contentious negotiations between NHL owners and players that led to a lockout, wiping out the entire 2004–05 NHL season, were in part about free agency; the previous system precluded unrestricted free agency before the player reached 31 years of age. Most younger hockey free agents were restricted free agents whose teams could retain them by matching an offer from another club or making a "qualifying offer", which usually consisted of a ten percent raise above the pay in the former contract.

Following the 2004-05 lockout, owners eventually agreed to phase in a much lower age for unrestricted free agency (27 years of age or 7 years in the NHL, whichever comes first) in exchange for the players meeting owners' principal demand in the new NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement—an overall salary cap. Nevertheless, the league demanded the re-imposition of the 31-year-old threshold for free agency in the most recent lockout, but when union responded by threatening to disclaim interest and file antitrust suits against the league, the owners backed down.

Soccer

[edit]

Major League Soccer (MLS) is a professional soccer league representing the sport's highest level in both the United States and Canada.[21] MLS constitutes one of the major professional sports leagues of the United States and Canada.[22]

Unlike the other four major leagues of North American professional sport, MLS still retains a reserve clause in every player's contract. For Major League Soccer, this was initially to prevent clubs from competing with each other for player contracts, an aspect of single-entity designed to protect it from antitrust lawsuits.[23] MLS is a single entity in which each team is owned and controlled by the league's investors.[24] The investor-operators control their teams as owners control teams in other leagues, and are commonly (but inaccurately) referred to as the team's owners.[25] In MLS's view of the global professional sports marketplace, internal bidding leads to increased costs. The league takes an additional step, imposing the reserve clause for players indefinitely, making player rights a commodity within the team structure for long after the player has left the league.[26]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Algeo, Matthew (2006), Last Team Standing. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81472-3
  • Lyons, Robert S. (2010). On Any Given Sunday, A Life of Bert Bell. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-59213-731-2
  • Ruck, Rob; with Paterson, Maggie Jones and Weber, Michael P. (2010) Rooney:a Sporting Life. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-2283-0
  • Willis, Chris (2010). The Man Who Built the National Football League:Joe F. Carr. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8108-7669-9
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reserve clause

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The reserve clause was a contractual mechanism in contracts that bound players to their teams in perpetuity, enabling owners to renew contracts unilaterally without player consent and severely restricting player mobility and bargaining power. Originating in the late amid competitive bidding wars for talent, the clause was formalized by National League owners in 1879 and explicitly included in contracts by 1887, allowing teams to reserve up to 14 players per roster to maintain stability and suppress wages. This system, which effectively eliminated free agency, was protected by Major League Baseball's unique antitrust exemption affirmed by the U.S. in cases such as Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922), Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953), and (1972), despite arguments that it constituted an unlawful . The clause's most prominent challenge came from outfielder , who in 1969 refused a trade from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies and sued MLB, alleging violations of antitrust laws and involuntary servitude; although the upheld the exemption in 1972, the case galvanized the players' union and contributed to the clause's eventual dismantling through the 1975 arbitration decision in the Messersmith-McNally grievance, which interpreted the renewal option as limited to one year, ushering in modern free agency. While enabling league stability and competitive balance in its era, the reserve clause drew criticism for perpetuating economic exploitation of players, akin to feudal or indentured arrangements, and its longevity highlighted judicial deference to baseball's peculiar legal status over evolving labor realities.

Definition and Origins

Contractual Provisions

The reserve clause constituted a core provision in standard player contracts, granting the employing club unilateral authority to retain the player's services beyond the initial contract term. Typically embedded as a renewal option, it allowed the club to extend the agreement for an additional year at the same and conditions, without the player's or rights with other teams. This mechanism, formalized in contracts by , transformed one-year agreements into instruments of indefinite control, as successive renewals could be invoked perpetually unless the player was released, traded, or placed on an ineligible list. Key contractual language centered on the club's reserved right to renewal, often phrased in uniform s as permitting the team to "renew a player's for another year at the same salary" via written . For instance, in the standard National League of the late 19th century, the provision—frequently in paragraph 20 or 21—stipulated that the club reserved the right to retain the player for the succeeding season, effectively binding him to exclusive service and prohibiting play for any other entity. This wording ensured that upon expiration, the player entered a reserved status, where failure to report or sign the renewal could result in across organized baseball, enforced through league agreements. The clause's provisions also intertwined with ancillary rules, such as the requirement for players to provide prompt of to play and the club's authority to assign or the player, further entrenching dominance. Salaries remained fixed upon renewal unless renegotiated at the club's discretion, suppressing player mobility and ; historical data from the shows average player pay stagnating amid roster expansions under the clause, from reserving five players per in to full 14-man rosters by 1887. These elements collectively formed a self-perpetuating system, upheld through league-wide uniformity in contract templates dictated by owners. Enforcement relied on the clause's integration with the National Agreement among leagues, which mandated mutual recognition of reservations, rendering unsigned renewals binding via penalties rather than direct contract law. Players challenging the provision, such as through holdouts, faced suspension without pay, as the clause lacked mutual obligations beyond the initial term, prioritizing club interests. This structure persisted until legal challenges in the , but its contractual foundation remained rooted in the 19th-century that prioritized league stability over individual rights.

Emergence in 19th-Century Baseball

The reserve clause emerged amid the instability of early , particularly following the dissolution of the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players in 1875, which suffered from rampant player mobility and bidding wars that drove up salaries and led to team financial failures. In response, the National League (NL), founded in 1876, implemented measures like salary caps and standardized contracts to curb such chaos, but player desertions persisted into the late 1870s, exemplified by high-profile jumps such as those involving stars like and in 1878. Owners, facing repeated roster disruptions and league contraction from eight to six teams by 1878, sought a mechanism to retain talent without perpetual renegotiation. On September 29, 1879, NL club owners formalized the initial reserve system during a meeting in , agreeing that each of the eight teams could designate five players as reserved for the 1880 season, barring other clubs from signing them without permission—a pact justified as necessary to prevent salary inflation and ensure competitive balance. This "five-man rule" originated as a among owners, spearheaded by Boston Red Caps owner Arthur Soden, who argued it would stabilize operations by limiting player leverage in a nascent industry prone to monopolistic tendencies among teams. The provision was not yet embedded in player contracts but enforced through mutual owner pledges and the threat of blacklisting defectors, with the first reserve lists published in late 1879, covering players like Adrian "Cap" Anson for and Candy Cummings for . Compliance was imperfect initially, as some reserved players still negotiated elsewhere, but it marked the clause's debut as a tool for owner control over labor. Throughout the 1880s, the reserve system evolved amid growing player resistance and league expansions. By 1883, following the rise of the rival American Association, the NL expanded reservations to eleven players per team to counter inter-league poaching, and by the decade's end, it encompassed entire rosters, transforming the informal rule into a standard contract stipulation around that perpetually renewed team rights unless waived. This progression reflected owners' prioritization of cartel-like stability over free-market player movement, suppressing wages—for instance, average NL salaries stagnated near $2,000 annually despite rising attendance—while fostering accusations of from players like , who formed the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players in 1885 to challenge it. The clause's entrenchment underpinned the NL's survival through wars with upstart leagues but sowed seeds for labor conflicts that erupted in the 1890 revolt.

Implementation in Baseball

Enforcement Mechanisms

The reserve clause was initially enforced through collusive agreements among National League owners, beginning with a unanimous resolution on September 26, 1879, that permitted each club to reserve five players while prohibiting other teams from signing them. This informal pact, expanded to eleven players per team by 1883, suppressed salary competition and player mobility by ensuring no alternative employment within the league structure. Such owner solidarity formed the core mechanism, relying on mutual non-tampering rather than individual contracts, and effectively bound players to their teams indefinitely. Formalization shifted enforcement to league rules and standardized contracts. By 1887, the clause appeared explicitly in player agreements, granting teams unilateral renewal options and requiring adherence to reserve lists compiled annually by each club. Inter-league pacts, such as the National Agreement of 1883 between the National League and American Association, and its 1903 successor incorporating the , mandated cross-league recognition of reservations, curbing poaching and stabilizing the system. Violations triggered declarations of ineligibility, rendering reserved players unable to compete in affiliated leagues without release, trade, or sale. Defections prompted blacklisting and selective legal recourse. During the 1890 Players' League uprising, owners sued defectors like Buck Ewing and Monte Ward for contract breaches, seeking injunctions to prevent play elsewhere, though federal courts in cases such as Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ewing (1890) often rejected enforcement for lack of contract mutuality and definiteness. Despite judicial skepticism, leagues wielded monopoly authority to blacklist jumpers—evident in responses to the 1914–1915 Federal League war, where reserved players faced permanent bans unless rights were purchased—depriving them of livelihoods. The 1920 creation of the Commissioner's office further institutionalized enforcement under figures like , who interpreted uniform player contracts, adjudicated disputes, and imposed penalties to uphold reservations amid scandals and rival threats. This centralized power, bolstered by the Supreme Court's 1922 antitrust exemption in Federal Baseball Club v. National League, shielded the system's collusive practices from federal scrutiny, sustaining enforcement through economic coercion rather than frequent litigation.

Contributions to League Formation and Stability

The reserve clause, introduced in the National League on September 30, 1879, as a secret agreement proposed by Boston Red Stockings owner Arthur Soden, permitted each of the eight teams to reserve five players—approximately half their rosters—for the following season, with violators subject to blacklisting by all league clubs. This mechanism addressed chronic instability in earlier professional baseball, such as the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players (1871–1875), where unrestricted player movement fueled bidding wars, roster raids, and frequent franchise failures due to talent drain and escalating costs. By curbing such mobility, the clause enabled the National League, established in February 1876, to consolidate control over its talent pool, fostering the conditions for sustained league operations amid competitive pressures. Financially, the reserve system reduced average player salaries by an estimated 8–10% for high-quality performers between and , after accounting for player attributes and economic factors, while halving the premium players received for switching teams. These effects lowered operational expenses, boosted team profits, and diminished the risk of that had plagued prior associations, thereby enhancing franchise viability and league cohesion. Expansion of the reserve list—to 11 players by 1883 and all 14 roster spots by 1887—further entrenched these benefits, complemented by the 1883 National Agreement with the American Association, which extended restrictions on inter-league player transfers and shielded rosters from external raids. In terms of competitive structure, the clause promoted roster continuity, preventing the talent concentration that could arise from unchecked bidding and thereby supporting balanced scheduling and reduced disruptions from player holdouts or defections. This stability proved instrumental during the 1880s, as the National League withstood challenges from emerging rivals like the American Association (founded 1882), maintaining a unified front that deterred fragmentation and facilitated the 1892 consolidation into a 12-team circuit. Owners contended that such controls ensured "fair play" by discouraging strategic underperformance or holdouts aimed at forcing better offers, though empirical outcomes centered on cost containment rather than explicit balance metrics.

Extensions to Other Sports

American Football

The reserve clause was adopted in American professional football through the National Football League's (NFL) inaugural constitution, drafted on September 17, 1920, which mirrored the system established in to restrict player mobility and maintain competitive balance among franchises. This provision embedded a standard clause in one-year player contracts, granting teams perpetual renewal rights and effectively binding athletes to their original club indefinitely unless traded or released, thereby suppressing salaries and preventing bidding wars. Enforcement relied on league-wide blacklists, prohibiting reserved players from signing with other teams and imposing fines or suspensions on violators, a mechanism that stabilized rosters during the NFL's formative years amid financial instability. By the mid-1940s, competitive pressures from the rival (AAFC), founded in 1946 and offering higher pay without such restrictions, prompted reforms; the replaced the perpetual reserve system with a one-year option clause in , limiting teams to a single unilateral renewal after contract expiration rather than indefinite control. This adjustment curbed the most draconian aspects of player restraint while preserving team priority, though it still curtailed free agency and drew criticism for perpetuating owner leverage, as evidenced by average player salaries remaining below $5,000 annually into the . Unlike baseball's prolonged legal battles, football's version faced fewer direct antitrust suits early on, with challenges emerging through the NFL Players Association (formed 1956) via strikes and negotiations rather than individual litigation, reflecting the sport's rapid unionization amid growing television revenues. The modified option system endured until the 1980s, evolving into partial free agency under "Plan B" in 1989, which allowed teams to protect only 37 players per roster, exposing others to restricted bidding; full unrestricted free agency arrived in 1993 following a federal court ruling in favor of players in White v. , which struck down remaining restraints as antitrust violations after the agreement expired. These developments, driven by player activism and judicial scrutiny absent in baseball's earlier exemptions, marked football's reserve system's quicker erosion, though compensatory draft picks and franchise tags retained elements of reservation to this day.

Basketball

The reserve clause in professional basketball, particularly within the (NBA), functioned as a perpetual renewal provision in the league's uniform player contract, granting teams exclusive rights to players indefinitely unless traded or released. This mechanism originated in the NBA's early years, mirroring baseball's model to maintain competitive balance and suppress player salaries by preventing free agency. Enforced through the NBA's framework, it allowed teams to renew contracts unilaterally for one-year terms without player consent, effectively binding athletes to a single franchise for their careers. Implementation began with the Basketball Association of America (BAA), the NBA's predecessor, in 1946, where initial salary caps and reserve provisions limited player mobility from inception. By the 1950s and 1960s, amid league expansion and the rival American Basketball Association's (ABA) emergence in 1967, the clause ensured roster stability but drew criticism for stifling competition and inflating owner leverage. Enforcement relied on antitrust exemptions not fully applicable to basketball as in baseball, leading to player union efforts via the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), formed in 1954, to negotiate incremental reforms like minimum salaries and pension benefits. Key challenges peaked in the early 1970s, triggered by the proposed NBA-ABA merger, which threatened to consolidate markets and entrench the reserve system. In 1970, NBPA president and 13 other players filed an antitrust () to block the merger and invalidate the reserve clause, arguing it constituted an illegal by perpetually renewing one-year contracts without mutual agreement. The suit, litigated for six years, highlighted how the clause prevented players from negotiating with other teams, even after contract expiration, akin to . The reserve clause was effectively abolished in the 1976 settlement of the Robertson case, dubbed the "Oscar Robertson Rule," which replaced it with a option clause permitting players with four years of service to become restricted free agents, allowing negotiation rights after their initial contract. This shift, coinciding with the NBA-ABA merger on June 26, , introduced free agency mechanisms, though restricted, and paved the way for salary escalation; average NBA salaries rose from $110,000 in 1975-76 to over $200,000 by 1980. Subsequent agreements further eroded remnants, establishing unrestricted free agency after seven years by 1988. The abolition enhanced player bargaining power but initially strained league finances, contributing to perceptions of economic instability in the late .

Ice Hockey

In , the reserve clause was a standard provision in player contracts that granted National Hockey League (NHL) teams indefinite renewal rights over players, effectively binding them to a single franchise for their careers regardless of contract expiration. This mechanism, embedded in the league's Standard Players' Contract since its inception in , prevented free agency and allowed teams to , , or demote players without their , mirroring practices in other North American sports leagues. Enforcement relied on league-wide agreements among owners to honor each other's reserve lists, which cataloged hundreds of players annually, including juniors and amateurs, to block competition from rival leagues. The clause's dominance eroded in the early 1970s amid growing player discontent and external pressures, culminating in the formation of the (WHA) in 1972. The WHA aggressively signed over 60 NHL-reserved players, including star center , whom it lured from the Chicago Black Hawks with a $1 million and $250,000 annual salary—figures unprecedented at the time—directly undermining the reserve system's monopoly control. NHL lawsuits to enforce the clause against WHA signings largely failed in courts, as judges questioned its perpetual nature without explicit player consent for multi-year extensions, prompting owners to seek negotiated reforms rather than risk further legal defeats. By 1973, the NHL Players' Association (NHLPA), certified in 1967, leveraged this leverage to demand changes, rejecting an initial league proposal for a one-year option with rare compensation triggers. On December 3, 1973, NHL president announced the reserve clause's replacement with a limited one-year option system for new contracts starting in the 1974–75 season, allowing teams to retain players via unilateral renewal but introducing modest compensation—such as draft picks or cash—if a player departed, though such moves remained rare due to high thresholds. This interim measure persisted until the 1979 NHL-WHA merger, which formalized restricted free agency for players with eight years of service, requiring compensation to original teams but marking the clause's effective end as competitive and empowered player mobility. Unlike baseball's arbitrator-driven abolition, hockey's transition emphasized market disruption over judicial intervention, stabilizing leagues while gradually elevating average salaries from under $30,000 in 1970 to over $100,000 by 1980.

Soccer and Miscellaneous Leagues

In , particularly within the , the retain and transfer system functioned as an analogue to the reserve clause, enabling clubs to indefinitely retain a player's registration even after contract expiration, thereby limiting free agency unless a transfer fee was negotiated or the player was released. This mechanism originated in 1893 when the Football League formalized rules allowing teams to hold registrations post-contract to prevent unilateral player departures, a practice that stabilized leagues by curbing talent poaching but restricted player mobility. The system's legality was affirmed in 1912 by the English courts in Kingaby v. Aston Villa Football Club, which upheld clubs' rights to retain players without immediate compensation obligations. The retain and transfer system faced significant legal scrutiny in 1963 through Eastham v. Newcastle United Football Club, where player challenged Newcastle's refusal to transfer him despite his contract's end, claiming the provisions imposed an unreasonable . Justice Wilberforce ruled that while limited retention for one year post-contract could be justified to protect club investments, the broader retention clauses and mandatory transfer fees lacked sufficient rationale and violated principles against undue trade restrictions, as they exceeded what was necessary for league stability. This decision prompted and League to reform the system in 1963, introducing maximum contract lengths (initially two years, later extended) and abolishing indefinite retention, which gradually enhanced player leverage in negotiations without fully eliminating transfer fees. Similar retention mechanisms appeared in other soccer leagues influenced by English models, such as early 20th-century Scottish and continental European competitions, where clubs retained registration rights to maintain competitive balance amid limited revenue streams, though enforcement varied by national federation rules. In miscellaneous leagues, analogous systems existed sporadically; for instance, pre-1970s professional and employed informal retention clauses tying players to clubs via registration holds, justified by amateur-era transitions but lacking the codified perpetuity of baseball's reserve clause. These were often dismantled through player advocacy or by the , prioritizing empirical evidence of monopsonistic wage suppression over unsubstantiated claims of necessity for parity.

Early Judicial Precedents

In the late , courts initially scrutinized the reserve clause for its vagueness and potential to impose indefinite servitude on players. In Metropolitan Exhibition Co. v. Ward (1890), a New York court denied an injunction sought by the to prevent star player from joining the rival , ruling that the clause's lack of specified duration rendered it too indefinite to enforce as a binding contract beyond the one-year term. Similar early state and federal decisions, such as those involving players defecting during league wars, often invalidated the clause when teams attempted to block switches, prompting baseball owners to refine its language for annual renewal tied to the National Agreement among leagues. The pivotal shift came with federal antitrust jurisprudence. In Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (1922), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Major League Baseball's operations, including the reserve system, did not constitute interstate commerce subject to the , as games were deemed local exhibitions despite travel across state lines. This decision, authored by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, provided an exemption that shielded the reserve clause from antitrust challenges, allowing owners to maintain player control without fear of federal monopoly prosecution. This exemption faced reexamination in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. (1953), where minor league players George Toolson, William Webb, and John Quinn sued MLB teams, alleging that the reserve clause violated antitrust laws by restricting their ability to negotiate with other clubs after contract expiration. The , in a brief per curiam opinion, declined to overrule Federal Baseball, citing stare decisis and 's failure to legislate against the exemption, thereby perpetuating the reserve system's legality despite evolving commercial realities like radio broadcasts. Justice Harold Burton's concurrence emphasized that any change should come from , not the , underscoring the clause's entrenched role in stabilizing league competition. These precedents collectively insulated the reserve clause from successful legal attacks until the , prioritizing judicial deference over player mobility.

Curt Flood v. Kuhn (1970-1972)

, an center fielder for the Cardinals, was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies on October 7, 1969, along with , Byron Browne, and Joe Hoerner in exchange for , , and Jerry Johnson, without his consent or prior consultation. Flood, unwilling to relocate to a city with known racial tensions and perceiving the trade as treating players as commodities, petitioned on December 30, 1969, for permission to make his own team choice, effectively seeking free agency; Kuhn denied the request, citing the reserve clause that perpetually bound players to their teams. On January 16, 1970, Flood filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Kuhn, National League President Charles S. Feeney, American League President Joseph E. Cronin, and the 24 major league clubs, alleging that the reserve clause violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by restraining trade and constituted involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. The trial, presided over by Judge Irving R. Kaufman, ran from May 19 to June 10, 1970, featuring testimony from players, executives, and economists on the clause's effects on salaries and competition. On August 12, 1970, the district court dismissed Flood's claims, ruling that Major League Baseball enjoyed an antitrust exemption established by prior precedents like Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922) and Toolson v. New York Yankees (1953), which treated the sport as outside interstate commerce regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on April 7, 1971, in a 2-1 ruling, emphasizing judicial deference to congressional inaction on baseball's exemption despite evolving views of the sport's commercial nature. Flood appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on October 19, 1971, and heard oral arguments on March 20, 1972. In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun on June 19, 1972, the Court upheld the lower courts, invoking stare decisis to preserve baseball's antitrust immunity for the reserve system, acknowledging the ruling's "anomalous" status but deferring to Congress for any change; Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr., and Thurgood Marshall dissented, arguing the exemption lacked foundation in modern commerce realities. Although Flood lost and subsequently played briefly for the Washington Senators in 1971 before retiring, the case spotlighted the reserve clause's restrictive nature, galvanizing player union efforts and setting the stage for subsequent challenges that eroded the system's enforceability without overturning the antitrust exemption itself. The ruling reinforced owners' control over player mobility temporarily but highlighted growing tensions, as evidenced by Flood's sacrifice of over $100,000 in potential earnings by sitting out the 1970 season.

Messersmith-McNally Arbitration (1975)

In 1975, pitchers of the and Dave McNally, formerly of the , challenged Major League Baseball's reserve clause by playing the entire season without signing new contracts, relying solely on the one-year renewal option embedded in the clause. Messersmith, who had posted a 20-6 record with a 2.59 in 1974 and earned honors, rejected the Dodgers' contract offers after prolonged negotiations, citing insufficient compensation relative to his performance and the system's restrictions on player mobility. McNally, a veteran left-hander with four 20-win seasons earlier in his career, had been released by the Expos in October 1974 and chose not to sign with the Baltimore Orioles despite their interest; his 1975 season ended prematurely due to arm injuries after just two appearances, but he persisted in the challenge to test the clause's limits. This strategy, orchestrated by MLB Players Association executive director , exploited the reserve clause's language in standard player contracts, which permitted a unilateral one-year renewal but had been interpreted by owners as enabling perpetual control through repeated renewals. The Major League Baseball Players Association filed grievances on behalf of Messersmith and McNally in late 1975, asserting that the reserve clause expired after the option year, entitling the players to unrestricted free agency rather than continued reservation by their prior teams. Under the collective bargaining agreement, the disputes proceeded to binding arbitration before a three-member panel: neutral arbitrator Peter Seitz, an owner-appointed representative (John Morrissey), and a player-appointed representative (Lewis Telser). Hearings commenced in October 1975 in New York City, spanning several days and featuring extensive testimony on the clause's historical application, contractual intent, and antitrust implications, though the panel's jurisdiction was limited to interpreting the uniform player contract rather than broader legality. Players' counsel, including Miller and attorney Dick Moss, argued that the clause's text—"The Club shall have the right to renew this contract for the period of one year"—constrained ownership to a single extension, absent explicit perpetual authority, drawing on prior failed trades and the clause's evolution from 19th-century origins. Owners countered that decades of uniform practice and judicial deference, including the 1972 Supreme Court affirmance in Flood v. Kuhn, upheld indefinite reservation as essential to competitive balance and talent distribution. The arbitration highlighted tensions in baseball's labor dynamics, with Messersmith and McNally positioned as test cases following the unsuccessful antitrust suit by , yet leveraging arbitration's procedural advantages over federal courts. Messersmith continued pitching effectively for the Dodgers during the dispute, logging 221 innings with a 19-14 record and 2.97 , while avoiding any formal agreement to preserve the challenge's purity. McNally's participation underscored the risks, as his non-signing left him without guaranteed pay or benefits beyond prorated portions, reflecting broader player frustrations with salary stagnation—average MLB salaries hovered around $45,000 in 1975 amid rising league revenues from television and attendance. The proceedings tested the framework established in 1968, which had introduced salary but preserved the reserve system, forcing owners to defend a mechanism rooted in preventing player holdouts and bidding wars rather than explicit contractual .

Abolition and Aftermath

Arbitrator Peter Seitz's Ruling

In the Messersmith-McNally arbitration, pitchers Andy Messersmith of the Los Angeles Dodgers and Dave McNally, who had previously played for the Baltimore Orioles and appeared for the Montreal Expos in 1975, challenged the perpetuity of Major League Baseball's reserve clause by playing the entire 1975 season without signing new contracts, relying instead on the one-year option inherent in the clause. The dispute proceeded to a three-member arbitration panel under the collective bargaining agreement, consisting of a Major League Baseball representative, a Major League Baseball Players Association representative, and neutral arbitrator Peter Seitz, a labor lawyer appointed in 1974. Seitz issued his ruling on December 23, 1975, siding with the players in a 2-1 decision after breaking a deadlock between the union and owners' representatives. He held that the reserve clause, as incorporated into standard player contracts and the agreement, permitted teams only a single one-year renewal option following contract expiration, rather than indefinite renewals binding players perpetually to their clubs absent , , or retirement. This interpretation nullified the clause's longstanding mechanism for restricting player mobility, declaring Messersmith and McNally unrestricted free agents eligible to negotiate with any team. The decision hinged on a strict textual reading of the Uniform Player's Contract and provisions, rejecting the owners' argument for perpetual rights derived from historical practice and prior precedents like the Federal Baseball Club v. National League antitrust exemption. Seitz emphasized that ambiguities in the language favored the players' position, as the explicitly referenced only "reserved" status for the succeeding without authorizing endless extensions. MLB and team owners decried the outcome as a threat to competitive balance, promptly terminating Seitz's appointment and seeking , though federal courts ultimately upheld the award in 1976.

Shift to Free Agency Systems

In response to Arbitrator Peter Seitz's December 23, 1975, decision invalidating the perpetual nature of the reserve clause, owners dismissed Seitz and pursued legal challenges, but the ruling's implications forced negotiations with the (MLBPA). A lockout ensued from March 1 to March 17, 1976, as owners sought to restrict player mobility while the MLBPA demanded broader free agency rights. The impasse resolved with the signing of a new Basic Agreement on July 12, 1976, which formalized free agency for players accumulating six years of major league service time, replacing indefinite team control with a structured re-entry system. Under this framework, eligible players could declare free agency at season's end, entering a pool from which clubs selected via a compensation draft, allowing losing teams to receive player or draft-pick reimbursement to mitigate talent loss. The agreement's immediate application saw pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally, the arbitrants central to Seitz's ruling, test the market; McNally retired, while Messersmith signed the era's first free-agent contract on April 10, 1976, a three-year, $1 million deal with the after leaving the Dodgers. Following the 1976 season, 24 players with six or more years of service entered the re-entry draft, marking the first major class of unrestricted negotiators; standout signings included Reggie Jackson's five-year, $3.5 million pact with the New York Yankees on November 29, 1976, and Wayne Garland's ill-fated 10-year, $10 million commitment to the Cleveland Indians. These deals exemplified the shift, with average player salaries rising from $44,676 in 1975 to $51,501 in 1976, accelerating further to $76,066 by 1977 amid competitive bidding. The re-entry mechanism initially tempered unfettered movement—teams could select up to 12 players from the pool but faced limits on negotiations—but it dismantled the reserve clause's core restraint, enabling players to pit offers against one another and fostering an . By design, the six-year eligibility threshold preserved and mid-career stability for clubs while granting veterans agency, though owners retained unilateral renewal options for one year post-contract expiration as a vestige of prior controls. This hybrid system, refined in subsequent agreements, propelled baseball's transition from perpetual servitude to contractual freedom, influencing labor dynamics across professional sports by demonstrating arbitration's efficacy in eroding monopsonistic team power.

Economic Analyses and Perspectives

Impacts on Salaries and Revenue

The reserve clause suppressed player salaries by granting teams perpetual renewal rights, eliminating competitive bidding and enabling owners to unilaterally set compensation levels. This monopsonistic structure resulted in players earning below their product, with empirical analyses indicating salary reductions of 6-10% for affected players in the late and persistent underpayment persisting into the . In (MLB), the average player salary stood at $29,303 in 1970, rising modestly to $44,676 by 1975 amid limited union gains but still constrained by the clause's binding effect. Following the 1975 arbitration ruling that invalidated perpetual renewals, ushering in free agency, salaries escalated rapidly as players gained leverage to negotiate market rates. The average MLB salary surged to $143,756 by 1980 and $289,000 by 1983, reflecting bidding wars that captured previously owner-retained economic rents. This shift redistributed income from owners to players, with aggregate payrolls increasing as a proportion of league revenues from approximately 20% pre-free agency to over 25% by and approaching 50% in subsequent decades. On league revenues, the reserve clause enabled owners to maximize profits by minimizing labor costs, as low salaries preserved a larger share of , broadcast, and ancillary for operations and distributions. Owners contended that the clause fostered competitive balance by preventing talent concentration in high-revenue markets, thereby sustaining fan interest and overall attendance-driven revenues across franchises. However, post-abolition revenue growth—fueled by expanded television contracts and innovations—outpaced salary inflation, suggesting the clause did not inherently limit total but rather concentrated gains among owners; free agency compelled teams to enhance revenue generation to offset rising payrolls. MLB revenues expanded dramatically in the ensuing decades, from modest baselines in the mid-1970s to billions industry-wide by the 1980s, with owners adapting through revenue-sharing mechanisms to mitigate disparities.

Arguments for Competitive Balance

Team owners and league officials defended the reserve clause as a mechanism to preserve competitive balance by preventing the concentration of elite talent in wealthier, larger-market franchises. They argued that unrestricted free agency would enable big-city teams, with greater from and media deals, to outbid smaller-market clubs for star players, resulting in dynasties for a few organizations and chronic underperformance elsewhere, which could erode overall league and viability. This rationale traced back to the clause's origins in the 1880s, when National League executives implemented it to counter player bidding wars that threatened parity; by reserving players' rights indefinitely after their initial contract, teams could retain talent without constant financial competition, fostering a more even distribution of skills across rosters developed through and systems rather than auctions. Proponents cited historical precedents, such as pre-reserve instability in the 1870s-1880s, where player jumps to higher-paying teams disrupted rosters and league equilibrium, asserting that the clause stabilized lineups and ensured that success depended more on management and development than on payroll disparities. In antitrust litigation, such as Federal Baseball Club v. National League (1922), maintained that the reserve system was integral to the sport's unique structure, arguing that its absence would lead to "ruin" via talent hoarding by dominant clubs, thereby justifying exemption from standard labor market competition to sustain fan engagement through unpredictable outcomes. Economists aligned with owners, like those testifying in later challenges, echoed that without renewal rights, monopsonistic advantages for low-revenue teams would vanish, concentrating caliber players—estimated at 10-15% of rosters—in high-draw markets, as evidenced by early free agency predictions of payroll-driven imbalances post-1975. Critics of abolition, including in the 1970s, contended that the clause's draft-and-reserve model had historically yielded league-wide parity metrics, such as varied pennant winners; for instance, from 1901-1969 under the full reserve system, 14 different teams won titles, compared to fears of post-1976 monopolies that, while not fully realized, underscored the perceived risk of market-driven talent flows undermining the collective product. This defense framed the clause not as but as a pragmatic rule essential for territorial franchises' survival, where gate receipts—averaging 60-70% of revenue pre-television—relied on local rivalries sustained by balanced contention rather than predictable blowouts.

Player Criticisms and Owner Defenses

Players, particularly through the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), criticized the reserve clause for binding athletes to their teams indefinitely after contract expiration, thereby suppressing salaries and restricting mobility to negotiate better terms elsewhere. This system, originating in the 1880s, limited players' ability to bid up their value in a free market, with average salaries remaining stagnant relative to league revenues; for instance, in the early 1970s, top players earned around $100,000 annually while owners reported profits exceeding $50 million collectively in 1972. Curt Flood exemplified these grievances when, after being traded from the St. Louis Cardinals to the Philadelphia Phillies on October 7, 1969, he refused to report and filed Flood v. Kuhn on December 30, 1970, contending the clause violated antitrust laws by functioning as an unreasonable restraint of trade and resembling peonage. Flood argued the perpetual renewal option created a lifetime servitude, depriving players of autonomy despite their contributions to the sport's popularity. Similarly, pitchers Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally challenged the clause in 1975 by playing the 1975 season without signing contracts, highlighting how it prevented even one-year free agency trials and perpetuated owner control over talent allocation. Team owners defended the reserve clause as vital for maintaining competitive balance across franchises, asserting that its absence would allow wealthier clubs in large markets to hoard elite players, leading to dynastic imbalances and reduced fan interest. They contended that the system ensured smaller-market teams could retain or acquire talent without constant bidding wars, preserving league-wide parity; for example, Commissioner testified in that free agency would exacerbate disparities between high-revenue teams like the New York Yankees and low-revenue ones like the . Owners further argued it stabilized rosters, allowing long-term and preventing the chaos of annual player auctions, which they claimed had destabilized earlier leagues like the National League in the before the clause's formal adoption.

References

  1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/baseballs-reserve-clause
  2. https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/baseball-and-the-antitrust-laws-part-i-the-origins-of-the-reserve-clause/
  3. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/71-32
  4. https://www.mlb.com/news/curt-flood-changed-mlb-with-his-stand-c216380610
  5. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Reserve_clause
  6. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/13551/55_58YaleLJ691_1948_1949_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  7. https://www.michbar.org/programs/milestone/milestones_BaseballsReserveClause
  8. https://sabr.org/journal/article/the-demise-of-the-reserve-clause-the-players-path-to-freedom/
  9. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/152700250100200202
  10. http://www.19cbaseball.com/players-first-players-reserve-list.html
  11. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/390/
  12. https://pages.charlotte.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/866/2014/11/rc18.pdf
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227356876_The_Origin_of_the_Reserve_Clause_Owner_Collusion_Versus_Public_Interest
  14. https://pursuitofpennants.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/the-reserve-clause-1879/
  15. https://sabr.org/journal/article/the-players-fraternity-they-fought-the-good-fight/
  16. https://sabr.org/journal/article/1890-winter-meetings-introduction-and-context-of-the-players-league-formation/
  17. https://www.profootballnetwork.com/history-of-nfl-free-agency/
  18. https://operations.nfl.com/inside-football-ops/nfl-operations/2025-nfl-free-agency/the-history-of-nfl-free-agency/
  19. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/18183-nfl-history-the-road-to-free-agency
  20. https://www.cantonrep.com/story/sports/pro/pro-football-hof/2020/03/22/from-r-c-owens-to/1480573007/
  21. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/389/867/1591788/
  22. https://www.apbr.org/labor.html
  23. https://slamonline.com/the-magazine/oscar-robertson-essay/
  24. https://ussporthistory.com/2017/06/08/how-the-nba-changed-in-the-1970s/
  25. https://time.com/6262690/black-basketball-players-70s-impact/
  26. https://oscarrobertson.com/pages/oscar-robertson-rule
  27. https://thehockeywriters.com/free-agency-the-whas-greatest-legacy/
  28. https://www.notjustanothersharkinasuit.com/sports-law-blog/from-asset-to-agency-the-death-of-the-reserve-clause
  29. https://nathangabay.com/free-agency-before-1995-on-equalization/
  30. https://archive.thehockeynews.com/issue/596170/3?t=NHL%2520Players%2520Reject%2520League%2520Plan%2520To%2520Drop%2520Reserve%2520Clause%2520In%2520%25E2%2580%259874
  31. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/04/archives/reserve-clause-replaced-by-1year-nhl-option-compensation-rare.html
  32. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4212638
  33. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100416487
  34. https://www.sportlawmusings.com/post/the-history-of-the-football-transfer-system
  35. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/eastham-v-newcastle-united-football-club.php
  36. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1374254/2019/11/16/george-eastham-england-world-cup-bosman/
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/09/28/archives/the-reserve-clause-key-in-all-sports-is-control-of-players-not.html
  38. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3713&context=mulr
  39. https://sabr.org/research/article/the-exemption-of-baseball-from-federal-antitrust-laws-a-legal-history/
  40. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/346/356/
  41. https://www.22zin.com/the-courts/curt-flood-the-supreme-court-and-baseballs-antitrust-exemption
  42. https://sabr.org/research/article/curt-floods-1969-trade-to-the-philadelphia-phillies/
  43. https://sabr.org/supreme-court/1972
  44. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sports-and-leisure/flood-tests-baseballs-reserve-clause
  45. https://www.mlb.com/news/may-19-1970-flood-v-kuhn-begins-in-federal-court-c179058988
  46. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/316/271/1951551/
  47. https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/flood-v-kuhn-no-891055271
  48. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/258/
  49. https://www.mlbplayers.com/flood-v-kuhn
  50. https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/andy-messersmith/
  51. https://thisdayinbaseball.com/arbitrator-peter-seitz-declares-andy-messersmith-and-dave-mcnally-free-agents/
  52. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/sugarman/Sports_Stories_Messersmith_McNally_Arbitration.pdf
  53. https://www.mlbplayers.com/history
  54. https://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/article/23868-from-flood-to-free-agency-the-messersmith-mcnally-arbitration-reconsidered/attachment/60644.pdf
  55. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/mlb-history-andy-messersmith-dave-mcnally-become-free-agents
  56. https://sabr.org/journal/article/arbitrator-seitz-sets-the-players-free/
  57. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-a-brief-history-of-strikes-and-lockouts-as-baseball-comes-to-a-halt-for-first-time-in-26-years/
  58. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/13/archives/new-jersey-pages-new-baseball-contract-limits-reserve-system-new.html
  59. https://baseballhall.org/discover/short-stops/free-agency-still-fuels-baseball
  60. https://www.mlb.com/news/april-10-1976-andy-messersmith-signs-the-first-contract-of-baseball-s-free-agenc
  61. https://baseballhall.org/discover/inside-pitch/jackson-signs-free-agent-contract
  62. https://sabr.org/journal/article/1976-winter-meetings-changing-demographics-and-broadcast-challenges/
  63. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=baseball_salaries
  64. https://thisgreatgame.com/1976-baseball-history/
  65. https://www.sabr.org/journal/article/1976-winter-meetings-changing-demographics-and-broadcast-challenges/
  66. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11698-019-00183-0
  67. https://thescore.com/mlb/news/2586228
  68. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Minimum_salary
  69. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-history-of-major-league-baseball/
  70. https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/2648/marginal-payrollmarginal-wins-1977-1979/
  71. http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/891711.html
  72. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34399/chapter/291720452
  73. https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/context/economics_theses/article/1003/type/native/viewcontent
  74. https://sites.duke.edu/djepapers/files/2016/08/fishman.pdf
  75. https://sabr.org/journal/article/competitive-balance-in-the-free-agent-era-the-dog-that-didnt-bark/
  76. https://academic.oup.com/book/11629/chapter/160521434
  77. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2308&context=sdlr
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.