Does the antitrust law not allow for a salary cap and revenue sharing?
Question:I read part of the 1997 yankees lawsuit were it stated this:
While the Major League Clubs cooperate in
order to produce games, they have historically
competed aggressively among themselves in all
other respects, including (but not limited to) in
the acquisition of players, coaches, and staff; the
development and marketing of trademarks and
associated retail and wholesale merchandise; and
the marketing of sponsorships.
92. Each Major League Club is independently
owned and operated and no shareholder of one
Major League Club has shareholder interests in
another Major League Club.
So if team compete off the field it implies they are seperate businesses. I for one don't want revenue sharing or a salary cap.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs...
Answers:
Will the tigers make it back to the fall classic this year?
First, MLB's anti-trust exemption comes from a 1922 Supreme Court decision, and it was an anomalous and rather inexplicable decision, that baseball was NOT interstate commerce and therefore not subject to anti-trust laws. This exemption, for which others businesses would kill, does mean that in certain ways MLB can act anti-competitively or even illegally (rather, ways which would be illegal absent the ATE). Every time the ATE has been challenged in court -- and it has reached the SCOTUS again -- the courts have ultimately refused to overturn the original decision and passed the legal buck (rightly) to Congress, which could pass clarifying legislation that MLB is, in fact, subject to anti-trust laws. (Some limited exemption reductions have been passed, with the assent of both MLB and the MLBPA, in order to better faciliate labor disputes in legal ways. The biggest reason to support the ATE is the affiliated farm system.)However, MLB negotiates Collective Bargaining Agreements -- "the CBA" or "the Basic Agreement" -- with the MLBPA, and that agreement must be honored. There are some areas in which MLB cannot act unilaterally, but must gain the consent of the player's union. A league-wide salary cap is one of those areas.
Currently there IS revenue sharing, partly straightforward, partly derived from the payroll tax.
There is NOT a league-wide salary cap, and likely never will be, certainly not while Fehr is in charge, or any other leader who understands what Miller and Fehr have built. Each team can independently set its own budget, and other than the allowing for the major league minimum salary, can spend however much it likes.
Whats up with the nats owning the braves this year?
Baseball has a standing anti trust exemption from the US Government. MLB could have a salary cap if the owners and MLBPA (players' union) agreed on one (and that is not likely to happen any time soon).I believe since then baseball started sharing revenue, as for a salary cap, MLB has one of the strongest union in the US and they won't agree to a cap. that is why they have a year in the late '90's that they didn't finish.
More Questions & Answers...