Curt Flood lost the Supreme Court Case, so why is there free agency in baseball?

Question

They say that this case set the precedent for free agency, but he lost. so why is that?

Answer 1

Rome wasn't built in a day.

The Flood case was exactly what MLBPA director Marvin Miller wanted -- someone willing to challenge the reserve clause. Flood ultimately lost, but raised awareness of the matter, particularly among the players, and changed the labor environment in the direction Miller wanted to go.

A note about the reserve clause: this was a short bit of text in the standard player's contract, which had been around since the 19th century, which claimed a player's rights could be renewed for one year. The owners held that this meant a player's rights could then be renewed EVERY year, and this had never much been challenged, and upheld when it was challenged. A player under contract was, by this interpretation, little more than a well-paid, indentured servant. Miller wanted it clarified that "one year" meant "one time". The owners wouldn't even consider negotiating this point; they didn't want to risk losing their star players, but more deeply they didn't want to cede any of their power as team owners. Players could sign with their team or hold out; they could not put their services up for open bid unless released.

Catfish Hunter won free agency from his Oakland contract after an arbitrator found that A's owner Finley had violated the terms of Hunter's deal, after the 1974 season. Hunter scored a huge signing with the Yankees. This established that, yes, there was much bigger money out there if the reserve clause could be dumped.

Messersmith and McNally played the 1975 season without signing contracts; their teams simply renewed their 1974 salaries. Miller at last had his test case -- two players who played without signed contracts, which could be used to challenge the validity of the reserve clause, as their teams had no basis on which to renew their rights -- no signed contract, no enforcement of the reserve clause. Arbitrator Peter Seitz really, really did not want to decide this case, and practically begged the owners' rep (Manfred, I think) to take it back to them and get them to negotiate limited free agency. The owners refused to consider it. Seitz rendered his decision on Dec. 23, 1975 -- Messersmith and McNally were free agents, and the reserve clause could not be enforced more than one time. Miller signed "assent" on the document, Manfred signed "dissent", and then handed Seitz his termination papers as MLB's arbitrator.

Flood was, if you like this sort of imagery, a martyr to the cause. Helped lead the way but never gained the full benefits of the final battle.

Answer 2

Much more involved and not enough space here to answer your question. You are correct, he lost the trial case and the appeal in 1971. However, in 1975 there was so much controversy and negative press on this issue that others took up the fight. Free agency actually became reality from the Messersmith McNally case (remember Andy Messersmith the Dodger pitcher) and free agency was incorporated as a result of an agreement between MLB and the player's union. There are many books written on this that go into much greater detail.

Answer 3

Flood had already retired from MLB when the court made that rutling.

When Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally challenged the reserve clause, an arbitrator ruled against the owners, and thus began free agency in MLB.

BTW, just about every time that the owners have taken a labour issue to the courts, they have been dolt that they were wrong by the courts.

Answer 4

Basically, the owners saw it coming eventually and wanted to create free-agency in their own form rather than have something thrust upon them at some point.

Answer 5

Right to work