Atlanta National League Baseball Club v. Kuhn
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
432 F. Supp. 1213 (1977)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between Major League Baseball (MLB) and the players’ union, certain players could become free agents at the end of the 1976 season. MLB’s commissioner, Bowie Kuhn (defendant), issued six directives warning clubs and players against tampering with free agents. For example, Kuhn warned the clubs against indirect communications with free agents via media statements about how much a free agent might be paid. One directive further warned that violators could be suspended or lose picks in MLB’s player drafts. On October 5, Kuhn ruled that an employee of the Atlanta Braves (Braves) (plaintiff), tampered with a free agent, Gary Matthews of the San Francisco Giants (Giants), for which Kuhn fined the Braves $10,000 and stripped the club of a pick in the amateur draft. On October 20, Ted Turner (plaintiff), the Braves’ chief executive officer, told the Giants’ owner—with the media present—that he would pay whatever was necessary to sign Matthews, leading Kuhn to suspend Turner for one year. Turner and the Braves sued Kuhn, arguing, among other things, that Kuhn was not authorized to issue the directives because Kuhn had rulemaking authority regarding only procedural issues and that Turner’s suspension and the draft-pick deprivation were improper. Kuhn responded that, among other things, (1) the Major League Agreement (MLA), to which Turner and the Braves were bound, waived their right to judicially challenge MLB-imposed discipline; (2) the MLA authorized him to issue the directives in pursuit of the best interests of baseball; (3) Turner’s suspension was proper given the two instances of misconduct regarding Matthews despite Kuhn’s six directives; and (4) the MLA authorized the draft-pick sanction despite not including that penalty on a list of possible punishments because the MLA list was not exhaustive.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edenfield, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.