Baseball Scandal
The commissioner position in major league professional sports arose in the 1920’s in Major League Baseball. The position was created to help prevent scandals following the 1919 World Series, in which the Chicago “Black-Sox” purposefully threw games for money. Ever since the creation of the position, the power to act in the “best interests” of the sport, regarding conduct detrimental to the league, has been entrusted to the commissioner. Currently all four major professional sports leagues in the United States–the MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA–have commissioners with this broad power.(CB. 383). Under the “best interests” power the commissioner has, among other powers, the power to discipline those in the league. The casebook notes, even though the
…show more content…
NFL the Raiders set out charges against the NFL and Commissioner Tagliabue, asserting discrimination against the team. The Court once again, just as in Kuhn, declined to become involved in the dispute. The Court stated, “there is significant danger that judicial intervention will… interfer[e] with the League’s autonomy in matters where the NFL and its commissioner have much greater competence and understanding than the courts” (Oakland 400). This quote is identical to the view held by the court in Kuhn. Both Courts do not want to be involved in the dispute and think the commissioner not only rightfully has the power to resolve the dispute, but is also better equipped. The Oakland Court also cites the abstention doctrine which it says applies to the case. This doctrine requires courts to “abstain from intra-association disputes” (Oakland …show more content…
Landis, the minor league Milwaukee baseball club, along with the Major League St. Louis team, were both found by the commissioner to be engaged in conduct detrimental to baseball. The two teams were colluding to keep a player, Bennett, from being assigned to another team. Commissioner Landis then acted in the “best interests” of baseball and granted Bennet free agency, ending the detrimental conduct. The Milwaukee minor league baseball team sued Commissioner Landis, because they believed that they still had the rights to Bennett’s services.
The Milwaukee Court held, “the commissioner acted clearly within his authority” (Milwaukee 7). The Court found there was no definition of what constituted “detrimental conduct” and that this was by design, to keep out court rulings. The court states that the commissioner is granted “almost unlimited discretion in the determination of whether or not a certain state of facts creates a situation detrimental to [baseball]” (Milwaukee 6). The court does set out two limits on arbitrator (and commissioner) power; the decision cannot be arbitrary or induced by fraud (Milwaukee 6). If the Milwaukee Court were to decide the NFL Management Council case they would likely hold Commissioner Goodell acted within his authority because he has the authority to determine what conduct is detrimental to the league. Most likely the only way the Milwaukee Court would overturn Goodell’s ruling is if the ruling was fraudulent
NFL the Raiders set out charges against the NFL and Commissioner Tagliabue, asserting discrimination against the team. The Court once again, just as in Kuhn, declined to become involved in the dispute. The Court stated, “there is significant danger that judicial intervention will… interfer[e] with the League’s autonomy in matters where the NFL and its commissioner have much greater competence and understanding than the courts” (Oakland 400). This quote is identical to the view held by the court in Kuhn. Both Courts do not want to be involved in the dispute and think the commissioner not only rightfully has the power to resolve the dispute, but is also better equipped. The Oakland Court also cites the abstention doctrine which it says applies to the case. This doctrine requires courts to “abstain from intra-association disputes” (Oakland …show more content…
Landis, the minor league Milwaukee baseball club, along with the Major League St. Louis team, were both found by the commissioner to be engaged in conduct detrimental to baseball. The two teams were colluding to keep a player, Bennett, from being assigned to another team. Commissioner Landis then acted in the “best interests” of baseball and granted Bennet free agency, ending the detrimental conduct. The Milwaukee minor league baseball team sued Commissioner Landis, because they believed that they still had the rights to Bennett’s services.
The Milwaukee Court held, “the commissioner acted clearly within his authority” (Milwaukee 7). The Court found there was no definition of what constituted “detrimental conduct” and that this was by design, to keep out court rulings. The court states that the commissioner is granted “almost unlimited discretion in the determination of whether or not a certain state of facts creates a situation detrimental to [baseball]” (Milwaukee 6). The court does set out two limits on arbitrator (and commissioner) power; the decision cannot be arbitrary or induced by fraud (Milwaukee 6). If the Milwaukee Court were to decide the NFL Management Council case they would likely hold Commissioner Goodell acted within his authority because he has the authority to determine what conduct is detrimental to the league. Most likely the only way the Milwaukee Court would overturn Goodell’s ruling is if the ruling was fraudulent