September 15 slides

September 15 slides - THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE LAW Chapter 1 The Commissioner O Who should the commissioner be? O What kind of power should the commissioner have? O What should the commissioner’s role be? O What is the purpose of a commissioner? O What background should the commissioner have? O How should the commissioner be chosen? PETE ROSE v. BART GIAMATTI PETE ROSE v. BART GIAMATTI (1989): FACTS O Early winter 1989, rumors began spreading around Commissioner’s office that Rose, then manager of the Cincinnati Reds, had been betting on games, even those involving own team O February 23, newly-elected commissioner Giamatti hired Washington lawyer John Dowd to investigate O Dowd delivered a report with copious evidence and testimony that Rose had regularly bet on Reds’ games ROSE v. GIAMATTI: RULES O Article I, § 2 of the “Major League Amendment” lists functions of Commissioner as including investigating any act to be not in best interests of baseball and having authority to summon persons and order production of documents and to determine what action is appropriate to take against a club, league or individual after investigation ROSE v. GIAMATTI: PROCEDURE O Giamatti wanted case tried infederal district court on diversity of citizenship grounds O Diversity of citizenship: federal and state courts have overlapping jurisdiction on suits with diversity of citizenship (two parties from different states) O Giamatti wanted case tried in federal court because of local bias ROSE v. GIAMATTI: PROCEDURE O So question became: is case a dispute between citizens Rose and Giamatti or were the Reds a party? O Answer: between individuals because according to the Major League Agreement the contracts between clubs and their officers must contain a clause by which parties agree to submit themselves to discipline of the Commissioner ROSE v. GIAMATTI: OUTCOME O Rose, amidst problems with the IRS, agreed on August 23 to settle the case on terms that Rose would withdraw his suit, accept Commissioner’s jurisdiction and penalty, but not respond to gambling claim O Giamatti banned Pete Rose from baseball for life MILWAUKEE AM. ASS’N. v. LANDIS (1931): FACTS O Player Fred Bennett had been transferred several times between St. Louis Browns and several minor league teams O All these clubs secretly controlled by Browns’ owner Phil Ball O Commissioner Kenesaw Landis refused to approve latest transaction and declared Bennett a free agent MILWAUKEE AM. ASS’N. v. LANDIS: RULES O Under the Major League Agreement, Commissioner was given jurisdiction to hear and determine any disputes between leagues and clubs or to which a player might be a party and in case of “conduct detrimental to baseball,” to impose punishment and pursue appropriate legal remedies … and “to take such other steps as he might deem necessary and proper in the interest and morale of the players and the game.” MILWAUKEE AM. ASS’N. v. LANDIS: ARGUMENTS O Plaintiffs: commissioner has no power to declare a player a free agent O Defendants: by reason of their denial of Bennett’s rights, the plaintiffs have made it commissioner’s duty to declare Bennett a free agent because the commissioner is taking “such other steps as he might deem necessary and proper in the interest and morale of the players and the game.” MILWAUKEE AM. ASS’N. v. LANDIS: OUTCOME O Commissioner’s decision was made within his BROAD, UNDEFINED jurisdiction and thus CASE DISMISSED. CHARLES O. FINLEY v. BOWIE KUHN (1978): O Finley: owner of the Oakland Athletics FACTS O Kuhn: MLB Commissioner O Finley sold contract rights to services of 3 payers to Red Sox and Yankees for total of $3.5 million in effort to invest in young stars who could not command high salaries through free agency O Kuhn disapproved assignments O Finley brought suit challenging Kuhn’s authority to do so CHARLES O. FINLEY v. BOWIE KUHN: RULES O 1944 Major League Agreement amended to specify that no action taken in compliance with Major League Rule can be seen as “detrimental to baseball,” but this amendment removed in 1964 O 1964 restored a provision removed in 1944 in which Major Leagues agreed to “waive such right of recourse to courts as would have otherwise existed in their favor”—this means Commissioner has final say CHARLES O. FINLEY v. BOWIE KUHN: O Court found that Kuhn acted within his power “in OUTCOME a manner in which he determined to be in the best interests of baseball” O Court added that it is not court’s jurisdiction to decide whether Kuhn’s decision was right O District court ruled in favor of Commissioner but US Courts of Appeals (case in book) dismissed case because of waiver of recourse provision CHICAGO v. VINCENT CHICAGO v. FRANCIS VINCENT, JR. (1992) O NL was expanding with addition of Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins O Assumed Rockies would go to West, Marlins to East, but majority of owners favored league realignment: assigning Cubs and Cardinals to West and Reds and Braves to East O Cubs were strongly opposed for various reasons (TV ratings, rivalries, etc.) CHICAGO v. VINCENT O Cubs exercised right under NL constitution to veto transfer O Commissioner Vincent ordered realignment through his authority under Major League Agreement O Cubs went to federal district court in Chicago to secure an injunction blocking order to realign CHICAGO v. VINCENT: OUTCOME O NL Constitution: “no member club maybe transferred to a different division without its consent.” O Judge found that this specific language preempts general language of Major League Agreement O Judge limited Commissioner’s authority to specifics in Article I of Agreement: “acts,” “transactions” and “practices” and said this does not include restructuring divisions ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 19

September 15 slides - THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online