Baseball’s exemption is “unreasonable, illogical and inconsistent”

U.S. Supreme Court

The conclusion of Ken Burns’ recent, nostalgic documentary, “Baseball” has left devotees hanging, without their annual World Series fixes.  Accordingly, they must content themselves with reading about seasons long gone, tuning-in the growing network of inane sports radio talk shows or simply moping around waiting for the 1995 (or perhaps 1996)  season.

While most Americans are indifferent whether baseball ever resumes, millions of irate, but loyal fans condemn both owners and players for their perceived greed.  Much of their grumbling emanates from a misplaced notion their local franchise belongs to them.  Nothing could be further from the truth, even if their communities have been blackmailed into constructing lavish new ballparks or extending lucrative incentives, all at taxpayer’s expense.

Not surprisingly, the average “bleacher bum” finds little sympathy for either the cartel of wealthy owners or millionaire ballplayers who earn more in a single season than most fans see during a lifetime of work.

The present strike centers around player demands for greater participation in team revenues and owner threats to invoke a salary cap.  Never a union apologist, the system is clearly rigged in favor of the owners, emboldened by baseball’s antitrust exemption.  And, while most professional athletes are grossly overpaid for their societal contribution, there is no justification for disenfranchising them from an ability to choose their place of employment and maximize their incomes, subject only to the restraints imposed by free market dynamics.

Throughout this century, both the government and the public have campaigned vigorously against business activities unfairly restraining trade or serving to create industry monopolies.  Yet, on the random occasions when Congress has questioned baseball’s exemption from the laws all other business must observe, the owners and their minions of lawyers and publicists have brought enormous political pressures on recalcitrant Senators and Congressmen.

Yet, neither football, basketball nor hockey enjoy similar antitrust exemptions and all are thriving!  Were baseball’s exemption lifted tomorrow, while it might hasten the end of the strike, once play is  resumed, its on-the-field impact would be imperceptible.  However, the owners would finally be required to restrain from engaging in activities which undermining free market competition.

Still, despite the current focus on baseball’s antitrust exemption, all professional sports continue to engage in an insidious activity which disenfranchises their employees from an inalienable right to make their own employment decisions.  This archaic device is the draft.  It permits owners to effectively determine which team will “own” the exclusive right to employ each athlete, thereby denying players with the freedom to associate with an employer (team) of their choice.

While inroads in dismantling this undemocratic system have been made through free agency clauses and limited drafts, aspiring athletes, once drafted, become little more than indentured, albeit extremely well paid, servants of their teams.

If, as Ken Burns has alluded to, baseball is a reflection of American society, clearly the draft symbolizes one of its worst aspects; the type of “loophole” Congress and the courts have made available to special interest groups, particularly those with money and perceived political clout.  Of course, what can one expect from an organization (Congress) which historically enacted legislation from which it routinely exempted itself.

 The elimination of baseball’s antitrust exemption and such unfair labor practices as the draft are long overdue!  In a nation whose political, social and economic systems are grounded in the concepts of free markets and equal protection under its laws, neither professional sports, nor any other industry has any justification to exemptions from the laws all other business must follow.

Defensive owners contend without the ability to regulate their industry, the minor leagues on which they depend would collapse, the transfer of franchises from one city to another would become rampant, and “parity” would be lost …  chaos for society and economic ruin for the sport.  Fans, meantime, have been convinced without “parity” the wealthiest, big city teams would quickly snap up all the best players.  Small city markets, absent many lucrative endorsement opportunities, would become less able to attract and sign the superstars … all of which might occur.

Reigning in professional sports will create certain economic changes, in much the same way the Soviet Union is undergoing an economic dislocations as it moves from a regulated to a free market environment.  Some teams will fail, others may move, and still others may quickly recruit the best talent money can buy … just as in all other industries!

But, it is not the job of the government to ensure certain businesses succeed, particularly in such nonessential fields as entertainment.  Nor should state or local governments provide publicly-built temples to showcase, or tax breaks to finance wealthy, professional athletic teams.  Rather, professional sports must be dethroned from its pedestal and treated like any other industry.  America must remain a nation of laws, not one dependent on privileged exceptions.