The players didn’t oppose the magistrate judge’s recommendation before the district judge adopted it. They highlight Kavanaugh criticizing the NCAA for its “decision to build a massive money raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated” as a reason to believe that wage fixing violates equal protection. Alston to compare the treatment of minor league players with those of NCAA athletes. To bolster this point, the motion cites cases standing for the proposition that providing economic protection for an industry is not a “legitimate governmental purpose.” The attorneys also draw from Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in NCAA v.

The attorneys maintain there is “no rational basis” for the federal government to “apply antitrust protections against wage fixing to MLB players, but no antitrust wage fixing to MiLB players.” This arrangement, the attorneys argue, enables owners to “make bigger profits.” Under the Fifth Amendment, which the motion repeatedly invokes, a federal law can’t discriminate against individuals unless the law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose (the federal government must meet a higher bar when race, gender or religion are at issue). The “unconstitutionality (on equal protection grounds) of the Sherman and Curt Flood Acts is a case of first impression which has never previously been decided by any court,” the attorneys write. The motion contends the players’ argument is nonetheless different and unprecedented. The Curt Flood Act eliminated MLB’s antitrust exemption as it pertains to MLB players but affirmed it for MiLB players. The Supreme Court created a far-reaching “business of baseball” exemption in 1922 through Federal Baseball Club v. The core hurdle for the players’ lawsuit is that baseball is exempt from antitrust laws with respect to minor league baseball. Teams instead allegedly engaged in wage fixing.

The players, who say they were paid less than $15,000 a season, surmise they would have earned more if teams could have competed in trying to sign them earlier in their careers. The ex-players contend the MiLB uniform player contract unlawfully lets teams renew contracts on a year-to-year basis for up to six years. The recommendation was adopted by a district court judge. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston last week seeking a reversal of a district court ruling.Įarlier this summer, a federal magistrate judge in Puerto Rico recommended the dismissal of Concepcion et al. Samuel Kornhauser and Brian David, attorneys for three former minor league players (Daniel Concepcion, Aldemar Burgos and Sidney Duprey-Conde), filed a motion with the U.S.

A new court filing tells a federal appeals court the Curt Flood Act of 1998, as well as Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as applied to minor league baseball, violate Constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

Curt flood case