Curt Flood's refusal and the birth of free agency
How one baseball player's refusal to be traded led to a Supreme Court fight that broke the reserve clause binding players to their teams, reshaping the economics of professional sports at the cost of his own career.
Listen in the Fylom app.
Curt Flood challenged the reserve clause by refusing a trade to the Philadelphia Phillies in nineteen sixty-nine.
The Supreme Court exempted baseball from antitrust laws in nineteen twenty-two by defining it as local exhibition.
Justice Blackmun’s nineteen seventy-two ruling against Flood included a written tribute to dozens of baseball players.
Flood was blacklisted from the league and lost his one hundred thousand dollar salary during the lawsuit.
Arbitrator Peter Seitz eventually ended the reserve clause by ruling it was only a one-year contract option.
The Curt Flood Act of nineteen ninety-eight finally removed Major League Baseball’s labor antitrust exemption.
- 01Intro1 min
- 02The Letter to Bowie Kuhn2 min
- 03The Legal Anomaly: Antitrust Exemption3 min
- 04Flood v. Kuhn at the Supreme Court3 min
- 05The Messersmith Decision and Legacy2 min
- 06Outro1 min
- Curt Flood and the birth of free agency : Planet Money : NPR
- Baseball's Reserve Clause | Federal Judicial Center
- Pioneer Flood changed economics of baseball
- ESPN Classic - Flood of free agency
- The Man who Sued Major League Baseball (Rather than go to Philly) | Business History
- Curt Flood - Wikipedia
- The Birth of Free Agency - Retro Report
- Free Agency and the Messersmith Decision | Baseball History
- Flood v. Kuhn – Case Brief Summary – Facts, Issue, Holding & Reasoning – Studicata
- Curt Flood - SHSMO Historic Missourians
- Curtis C. FLOOD, Petitioner, v. Bowie K. KUHN et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
- Fifty years later, Curt Flood's sacrifice should still be celebrated - Andscape
- U.S. Reports: Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972).
- Flood v. Kuhn | 407 U.S. 258 (1972) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
- FEDERAL BASE BALL CLUB OF BALTIMORE, Inc., v. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASE BALL CLUBS et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
- Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922)
- Arthur J. Goldberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Jay H. Topkis. Paul A. Porter argued the cause for respondent Kuhn. Louis F. H oynes, Jr., argued the cause for respondents Feeney, President of National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, et al. With them on the brief were Mark F. Hughes, Alexander H. Hadden, James P. Garner, Warren Daane, and Jerome I. Chapman.
- Flood v. Kuhn
Fylom generates episodes like this on any topic you're curious about.
Fylom episodes are researched, written, and voiced by AI. Automated checks help catch inaccuracies, but episodes aren't reviewed by a human and AI can still get things wrong. Treat them as a starting point, not a source of record — more in our accuracy disclaimer.