Does Baseball’s Antitrust Immunity Extend to Baseball Card Contracts?


The baseball antitrust exemption has turned out to be one of the great anomalies of American law.  First recognized in the Supreme Court’s Federal Baseball decision in 1922 at a time when “commerce” was understood much more narrowly than it would be in the post-New Deal world, the exemption took on a life of its own in the 1953 Toolson decision when the Supreme Court acknowledged that professional baseball was commerce after all but that it was leaving the matter of invalidating the exemption to Congress.  In 1972, the Court reasserted the exemption in Flood v. Kuhn, and Congress reaffirmed it in 1999 in the Curt Flood Act in regard to all matters covered by the exemption except major league labor relations.

While there is no question that the Major League Baseball antitrust exemption still exists, it is not at all clear what aspects of the baseball business are protected by the exemption.  Does it apply to any undertaking by Major League Baseball, or is it limited to certain baseball-specific activities? Comments made by my colleague Matt Mitten in an interview presented elsewhere suggest that Matt believes that the exemption applies to all aspects of the professional baseball business.

I am not sure that this is true.  A quarter of a century ago the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the baseball antitrust exemption did not extend to restrictions on broadcasting.  (Henderson Broadcasting Corp. v. Houston Sports Ass’n, Inc, 541 F. Supp. 263, 265-72 (S.D. Tex. 1982))  So far as I can tell this decision has never been overruled or even directly contradicted by a decision of a different court. Although the Supreme Court has provided no definitive answer, the conventional wisdom appears to be that the exemption applies only to matters central to the “business of baseball.”  This was the standard adopted in the relatively recent case, Major League Baseball v. Crist, 331 F.3d 1177, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003).

Of course this interpretation just replaces one question with another.  We still have to ask what aspects of the baseball business are “central” to its operation, and as of yet, we have no definitive answer.  Clearly territorial monopolies, minor league salary caps; and restrictions of minor league player mobility are central to the operation of baseball, but what else falls into this category?

Now Major League Baseball has gone and entered into a contract with Topps, Inc., giving that company the exclusive right to use Major League team names and logos with in the production of baseball cards. Topps’ primary competitor in the baseball card market, Upper Deck, can still issue baseball cards of players under its non-exclusive license with the Major League Baseball Players Association, but it will not be permitted to use team names or symbols on its cards.  As a practical matter, this will probably force the company out of the baseball card business, at least until Topps’ exclusive license expires.

It is hard for me to see how the production of baseball cards by an independent company could constitute an activity “central to the business of baseball.”  There was a time when baseball cards were a primary way that fans, particularly young fans, learned about the teams and players of Major League Baseball, but in the age of the Internet, it is hard to believe that baseball cards are in anyway a necessary component of marketing Major League Baseball to the public (if they ever were).  Consequently, the new Topps monopoly will likely to be found to be subject to antitrust challenge.  Whether or not the challenge will succeed is a topic for a different post.

On an entirely personal note, I have extremely fond memories of the old Topps baseball card monopoly that existed from 1956 to 1980.  In that period, only Topps produced baseball cards, and the cards were printed on cheap cardboard, packed to the gills with information about the pictured player not otherwise readily available, and packaged with super sweet sticks of bubble gum.  Even with the gum, they were incredibly inexpensive—a penny a card until the late 1960’s, and less than two-cents a card until the late 1970’s.

There were almost no baseball card shops in that era, so cards had to be purchased by the pack in regular stores that sold candy.  If you were missing a player’s card that you felt you needed, you had to buy more packs or else figure out a way to trade with a friend who had a card of the player you wanted. Many kids learned the rudiments of negotiation from such exchanges.

In fact, the only problem with the old Topps monopoly was that it wasn’t a true monopoly.  Fleer, which competed with Topps in the larger bubble gum market managed to sign a few well-known players including a handful of stars—Ted Williams, Maury Wills, and Wilmer “Vinegar Bend” Mizell (who was later a congressman from North Carolina) for example—but the company never had enough players under contract to produce its own bubblegum based player set.  In 1962, the year he was the National League’s Most Valuable Player, the only way to get a Maury Wills baseball card was to find one on the back of a Post Cereal box.

Because the Topps monopoly only applied to cards packaged with bubblegum or its equivalents cards could be marketed with other products, although that rarely happened.  (The Post experiment of putting baseball cards on cereal boxes only lasted for three years.).  In that era, no one thought of simply marketing the cards alone.

If the new Topps monopoly can somehow bring back the magic to baseball card collecting, then it will be a restraint of trade that we should gladly accept.

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. J. Gordon Hylton

    If anyone is interested, the particularly unattractive card of Joe Torre (Topps 1966 #130) that the blog editors selected to accompany this post can be explained as a consequence of the Braves move to Atlanta from Milwaukee during the winter of 1965-66.

    In that era, Topps issued baseball cards in seven series of 80-90 cards made available at different times before and during the baseball season. The cards themselves were not all printed at once. The production of the later series cards was delayed so that the cards could to the extent possible reflect team to team movement during the season. If Player X started the season with the Cubs but was traded to the Cardinals in May, his card, if it appeared in one of the later series, would not only identify him as a Cardinal but might even show him in a Cardinal uniform.

    Of course, there was not always time to get a photo of the player in his new uniform, so Topps kept on file a copy of a “generic” photo of each player containing no team marks. That way if player X was traded to the Cardinals but there was no opportunity to obtain a new photo or it was too expensive to do so–remember the cards were selling for a penny apiece with gum–the player could be identified as a Cardinal without his photo contradicting that statement.

    The first several series were typically printed over the winter, too early to obtain new photos, even during spring training. Consequently, the photos for these series were those taken during the previous season.

    When the Braves moved to Atlanta, no one knew what the new Atlanta Brave uniforms would look like. Even if the same uniform colors were retained (as turned out to be the case) the file photos would all have M’s on the caps rather than A’s, and would say Milwaukee on the uniform and not Atlanta. To avoid the impression that Topps did not know that the Braves had moved to Atlanta, the company relied on the “generic” photos for Braves players in the first four series in 1966.

    Torre himself was not exactly a matinee idol in his youth. Although he slimmed down during the latter part of his near-Hall of Fame career, he was thought of as a “fat guy” (though not of Prince Fielder proportions) during the early and mid-1960’s when he first broke into the big leagues.

  2. Sports Broadcasting

    “It is hard for me to see how the production of baseball cards by an independent company could constitute an activity “central to the business of baseball.”

    Agree wholeheartedly with you. Until the arrangement is challenged, there’s obviously no reason for the status quo to change.

    BTW, appreciated you taking me down memory lane regarding the Topps baseball cards and that sweet stick of gum we’d get in each packet back in the ’60’s:>))

    I bought wayyyyy too many packs of cards in search of that one elusive card that always seemed to be in my friends purchases, instead of mine.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.