Is Baseball's Anti-trust exemption obsolete?

Question

In 1922 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that baseball did not engage in Interstate Commerce. Therefore, Anti-trust did not apply to them.
However, since baseball started to engage in national braodcast rights, Revenue sharing (for which the Pirates get money for games between the Red Sox and the Yankees for games not played in PA), and most recently sole rights for broadcast to DirectTV for the whole nation.
This suggests that the 1922 decision is now stale since MLB has engaged in interstate commerce not covered by the decision, and that anyone who had MLB extra innings but not DirectTV has standing due to being forced to buy a new service that they wouldn't be required to otherwise.
Is there a viable class-action lawsuit to force baseball to pay the costs for all people required to switch providers, or forfeit their anti-trust status?

Answer 1

Very valid and fair question. My guess is that because they have been granted a special exemption that a class action wouldnt get very far. Your assessment is correct and TV has changed the original Anti Trust agreement but they have the most powerful entity protecting them. Because money talks and these are billionaire owners that have collectively given hundreds of millions if not billions to politicans the "Good Ole' Boy" network is a tall order for any lawyer to overcome. Even if the courts side with the class action the government would step into the fray very quickly to protect their own political interests if not potential financial gains. Many of these career politicians retire to "jobs" serving on boards of these wealthy mens company boards. Even the superficial threats made in recent years to take away Anti Trust status if teams dont cooperate in the steroid investigations are pretty much met with mockery and no answers. Even the President of the United States employed at least 2 know steroid users during his ownership of the Rangers (and the people who say he didnt know are only kidding themselves, teams gave physicals back then and investigated their potential investments the same way they do today....these are smart businessmen and they knew exactly what they were buying with their money). Unfortunately the combination of big money owners and politics would prove to be too big an obstacle for the general citizenery (or even an honest court system) to overcome.

Answer 2

This is an interesting question only because I don't believe it's ever been challenged. The NFL was challenged back in the mid-80's by the USFL and they lost. However the USFL won a whopping $3 for their trouble.

As for their wanting to use DirectTV exclusively, since they are really a private business, it's their right to do so. And does anyone really care? MLB is a provate business and can pretty much do what they want, IMO. If you're only worry is broadcasting baseball games then I want your troubles.

Sheesh! Everything in this country is SUE,SUE,SUE!!!

Answer 3

Recent news stories report MLB has opened the bidding back up to all satellite providers.

Also it is important to note MLB.com offers a streaming video service available to everyone on a per month basis... provided you have a computer and broadband connection.

Lastly, dont forget MLB offers audio exclusively on XM NOT Sirius. You question could be valid if for audio if similar senario should happen (again all that could be a wash if indeed the merger between Sirius and XM is approved).

Answer 4

I am not sure