II. Analysis

Sports journalists and commentators point to the Adonis-like attitudes of athletes, inflated salaries and endorsements, and general misconduct as reasons for decreased fan interest.  Some sight that the games have lost their purity in this age of free agency, where players bounce around, mercenaries for hire to whichever team pays the most.  These are all examples of the larger public relations problem that baseball faces, the overdue realization that baseball is a business.  The players understand that owners are out to make money, and so many players have opted for free agency, leaving behind a team that drafted them and a fan base, instead to pursue financial gain. 

The public has finally realized that it is a business as well.  That baseball was not big business (and in part stare decisis) is what saved it from antitrust regulation in the trilogy of Federal Baseball, Toolson, and Flood.[4]  Antitrust regulation, in those cases the Sherman act, was only applicable to businesses participating in interstate commerce.  Initially, baseball was seen as a national sport yet related to business local to each state and city with which the team was associated.[5]  Relying on the principle of stare decisis and exphasising the special treatment baseball had been granted, Justice Blackmun was able to justify the favorable ruling for his beloved baseball in Flood.[6]  But Justice Douglas noted in his dissent, “baseball today is big business that is packaged with beer, with broadcasting, and with other industries.”[7]   Further, Justice Douglas was helpful in pointing out that baseball team owners have “records many say reveal a proclivity for predatory practices.”[8]  This realization, that owners have a tendency to do whatever it takes to increase profit also helped the American sports fan understand the nature of organized professional sports.  The courts, being composed of Americans, have reflected this realization.   

Furthermore, it is counterproductive for baseball to restrict the use of player names and statistics in fantasy leagues.  The court in Gionfriddo v. MLB found that the use of player names with statistics would likely enhance baseball players’ marketability; [9] an increase in baseball’s popularity would follow.  Similarly, restricting fantasy league participation would hurt baseball’s popularity and thus, the bottom line: profits.  MLB may believe that the revenues from licensing to fantasy leagues will outweigh any potential positive effect on revenues generally from the increased fan involvement that fantasy sports play engenders.  Such a belief is risky, and unsound.  However, MLB intends to appeal the CBC decision.  With the way copyright law sits today, it is unlikely that MLB’s appeal will succeed.

[1] Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 287 (1972).

[2] Id. at 285. 

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 282-85.

[5] Id. at 269.

[6] Id. at 285.

[7] Id. at 287.

[8] Id. 

[9] Gionfriddo v. MLB, 94 Cal.App. 4th 400, 415 (2001).