#2: The Commissioner (II): Rules and Business Decisions

1. #2: The Commissioner (II):Rules and Business Decisions SPORTS LAW FALL 2010

2. Milwaukee v Landis • Background facts: - signed by Browns and optioned to Tulsa (A) - then cancel option (to retain 2 option rights) and waive/ assign to Milwaukee (AA), who then waived and assigned to Wichita Falls (A) - Pirates seek to purchase from Wichita Falls for $10K, but WF instead sells Bennet back to Browns for $5K - in ‘30, Browns waive, but Pirates and Yankees claim, so Browns then invoke 1st alleged option - Landis vetoes after learning that Milwaukee and Wichita Falls were owned by Browns’ owner SPORTS LAW FALL 2010

3. The Waiver Rule • Each club has a roster limit • Players released from roster ordinarily must be “waived” – their contract can be claimed for a low-fixed price by another team • If multiple claimants, lousier team wins What is the purpose of this rule? Why exempt options in the first 2 years? SPORTS LAW FALL 2010

4. Challenge to Landis’ decision What is the source of Landis’ authority? Does the Commissioner’s authority cover these type of cases where Browns violated the “spirit” of a rule? Why not limit the Commissioner’s power to conduct similar to that enumerated (doctrine of ejusdem generis)? SPORTS LAW FALL 2010

5. Finley v. Kuhn Was Kuhn’s decision arbitrary & capricious and discriminatory? Should the Commissioner be able to block acts “not in the best interests of baseball” if they were not barred by prior precedents and Commissioner’s rulings? Should his authority be limited to acts contrar to rules, morality, or honesty? SPORTS LAW FALL 2010

6. Other cash sales • Should the NHL Commissioner have barred the Gretzky or Lindros cash sales? • Are these deals distinguishable from the ones that Kuhn vetoed? SPORTS LAW FALL 2010