Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Minor league players ask Supreme Court to revisit baseball exemption, (Aug 25, 2025)

By Susan L. Smith, JD, MA

Minor league baseball players argue they are underpaid compared to major leaguers due to the business of baseball exemption.

Minor league baseball players have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in their case against the Commissioner of Baseball and the constituent Major League Baseball Clubs (MLB) for their admitted conspiracy to uniformly pay salaries, at below market levels, to minor league baseball players, allegedly in violation of the Sherman Act prior to 2023. The resulting salaries were at level far below what they would have received in a competitive market, according to the plaintiffs. The MLB owners conceded to their anticompetitive wage fixing conspiracy, however, they claim that they are exempt from the reach of the federal antitrust laws as a result of the non-statutory, judicially created “business of baseball exemption.” The minor league baseball players contend that there was and is no valid statutory business of baseball exemption and there should not be any judicially created business of baseball exemption. They argue that the purported judicially created exemption in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs (259 U.S. 200 (1922)) and its progeny no longer have any basis in reality and should be eliminated by the Supreme Court that created it. Further, the legal underpinning of that decision, that professional baseball did not involve interstate commerce, has since been rejected (Concepcion v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, No. 25-199 (U.S. Aug. 21, 2025)).

The decisions below. The minor league players alleged that the MLB defendants colluded to restrict wages and contract mobility of minor league players. They alleged that they had received egregiously low compensation from their teams because of practices carried out under the antitrust exemption afforded to the Major League Baseball (MLB). The defendants include the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (an unincorporated association doing business as Major League Baseball), and a past and present Commissioner. In addition to alleging Sherman Act violations, the players alleged Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Puerto Rican wage law violations, asserted equal protection claims, and sought declaratory relief.

The federal district court in Puerto Rico accepted and adopted a magistrate judge’s Report & Recommendation (R&R) in full, and granted the MLB defendants’ motion to dismiss, with prejudice, the minor league baseball players’ Sherman Act, FLSA, and Puerto Rico wage and hour claims against the Kansas City Royals, San Francisco Giants, and San Diego Padres. The court also dismissed, with prejudice, the minor baseball players’ claims for declaratory relief from the Curt Flood Act (CFA) and baseball’s antitrust exemption. The court dismissed the balance of the minor baseball players claims against all of the other defendants without prejudice.

The players appealed to the First Circuit, which affirmed.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The players contend that the MLB’s conspiracy to fix, at non-competitive, below market levels of compensation they pay minor league baseball players violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In support of their argument, they give three reasons why the Supreme Court should grant certiorari. First, to resolve the circuit courts split regarding a §636(C) waiver of a right to appeal the merits of an unobjected-to magistrate decision in such a situation. Failure to raise a futile objection to a magistrate’s R & R, which R & R, is based purely on undisputed facts and binding Supreme Court precedent, is a waiver of the party’s right to appeal to seek certiorari to have this Court abrogate and correct its erroneous precedent.

Second, certiorari should be granted so the Supreme Court can correct the erroneous decision it made 103 years ago in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). The decision has harmed and will continue to harm tens of thousands of minor league baseball players by depriving them of billions of dollars of competitive wages. Minor league players are forced to sign a uniform standardized contract that sets a non-negotiable, below market salary for minor leaguers. If the minor leaguer does not sign, he cannot pursue his profession as a professional baseball player with no rights to bargain, arbitrate or on an antitrust basis, sue the baseball clubs (prior to 2023).

Third, the Court should grant certiorari to determine the subsidiary included issue of first impression, the unconstitutionality of Curt Flood Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26b, because it deprives minor leaguers of the equal protection of the antitrust laws.

News: LitigationNewsTrends WageHour TortClaims IndividualRights