OT: The Supreme Court Might Reconsider MLB’s Antitrust Exemption
"In the first case, Wyckoff v. Office of the Commissioner, two former scouts have accused MLB teams of illegally colluding to depress the market for the services of professional and amateur scouts. Meanwhile, the second case — Right Field Rooftops v. Chicago Cubs — involves a claim that the Cubs have unlawfully attempted to monopolize the market for watching their games in-person by purchasing a number of the formerly competing rooftop businesses operating across the street from Wrigley Field and also blocking the view of some of the remaining rooftops by installing new, expanded scoreboards . . . .
Ultimately, only four of the Supreme Court’s nine justices must vote to accept an appeal in order for the Court to agree to hear the case.
And in one potentially promising development for the plaintiffs, both MLB and the Cubs initially waived their right to file opposition briefs outlining the reasons why the Court shouldn’t take the cases, only to have the Supreme Court officially request that they file opposing arguments. This stands in contrast to the recent appeal in the Miranda minor-league wage collusion case, where the Supreme Court opted to deny the appeal without even hearing from MLB, after the league similarly waived its right to file an opposition."
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-supreme-court-might-reconsider-mlbs…
hat tip How Appealing
I have a hard time understanding why monopolizing the market on watching their own event in-person should ever be considered a tort. That's what the entire ticket system is for. Must all productions of Hamilton take place in an open-air facility so that the tour operators aren't "monopolizing" the market for watching the show?
I don't know the facts, but this seems like one of those cases that should lose on the merits, rather than because MLB has an exemption. But the question stands whether the MLB should be provided an immunity that no other sports league--or business or market, for that matter--has, based on hoary notions.
Bar/restaurants that overlook an open-air venue are not the same business as the venue itself, and are also not the core business of the Cubs.
It's perfectly reasonable for the courts to decide if the Ricketts' actions to boost their non-venue bar/restaurant revenue at the expense of competitors are lawful or not.
I honestly have no idea what you mean. The very article states that the case involves "a claim that the Cubs have unlawfully attempted to monopolize the market for watching their games in-person." It says nothing about bar and restaurant revenue. How is an in-person event to which you must buy a ticket a strawman argument as a comparison to an in-person event to which you must buy a ticket?
Open-air Hamilton was the strawman to me. Sorry for being unclear
What I mean is: The Ricketts family is buying up restaurants with a view as an additional investment and blocking the pre-existing views of competing restaurants, all of which already pay the Cubs for the view.
That raises interesting legal questions to me so I see why they would hear the case.
But I don't see a reason why they can't do that. No business is ever under a legal obligation to provide its services to another, outside of a binding contract. The Cubs have been essentially licensing views of their games to other businesses. Now they don't want to do that.
If the rooftop businesses had a contract that the Cubs would let them sell tickets basically to Cubs games for a certain period of time, and the Cubs are blocking their views prior to the end of that contract, there could be a case of contract breaking. Maybe there's more to the case buried in the details somewhere, but otherwise, the idea that a business can't be allowed to monopolize its own trademarked brand (which is the essence of a Cubs game) is prima facie absurd, as is the idea that an event that sells tickets can't block out non-ticket-buying customers.
That's where the Hamilton thing comes in. They're both events that sell tickets and the purchase of a ticket gets you a very specific and unique entertainment service. There's no court in the land that would accept the argument that the providers of that service can't limit the view to people who paid them for it.
and going from memory, however, for many years, before Ricketts, the cubs have tried to expand the bleachers. plans they submitted to the city meant blocking rooftop views; all of which had a free ride at the time. no rooftop revenue was going to the cubs. my personal opinion is that rooftop owners had zero rights to free access to cub viewing.
the plans were rejected by the city on the basis that new designs were an "eyesore". i laughed at this considering that having bleachers constructed on rooftops were not deemed to be an eyesore. Then, low and behold, it was found out that the local alderman had ownership in some of the rooftops; shocking i know, here in chicago.
so the bleacher expansion plans were scrapped. the cubs and rooftop owners struck a deal, so the rooftops had to pay a % of their take to the cubs. i don't know how long the contract was.
Ricketts came in and bought the team. he then put the bleacher expansion back on the table; including the jumbo trons which blocked views. he then starting buying the buildings with the blocked views.
so there still is likely an agreement still out there with some of the rooftop owners, but i think there are only a few non-cub owned rooftops left. i have noticed in recent years, that rooftop ticket sales are tanking big time. many empty seats and many games where there is anyone on some of those rooftops. me thinks these rooftop owners are out for some new free money with this lawsuit. hope it gets tossed.
April 30th, 2018 at 10:45 PM ^
Here is a clip from the brief: "Petitioners sued under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging two alternative antitrust counts. Count I alleged that the Rooftop Businesses were part of one broad market with Wrigley Field and the Cubs, as Respondents themselves have asserted in the past, while Count II alleged that the Rooftop Market is distinct from Wrigley Field and the Cubs. Amended Count II clarified that it was directed only against Ricketts and not the Cubs, as the Cubs were not and would not be the owner of any Rooftop Businesses. Which of the two alternative market definitions is correct is a fact question."
If you have trouble sleeping, you can read the rest here.
Dibs on the new league's Los Angeles franchise.
It shouldn't really matter because by nature the MLB doesn't actually use its antitrust exemption. Currently, the independent leagues aren't really rivals so the antitrust policies don't make a difference.
The MLB being a monopsony and the abolishment of the reservce clause makes antitrust regulations obsolete.
But this case isn't really about that so who knows what will happen
The greatest moments in Senate subcommittee testimony ever.
"I had many years that I was not so successful as a ballplayer, as it is a game of skill."
is archaic and ridiculous at this date and time. Started back in early 1900s, when politicians and businessmen of influence decided MLB needed special rules to protect America's past-time. This was before football, basketball and other sports became popular. Rule was so stupid that in the 1950's, football wasnt even afforded a consistent exemption.
The antitrust exemption has been misused by baseball team owners and other MLB stakeholders who benefit on the bottom line $. The cost is to all others who have tried to get a fair shake against the owners.
Should have been fixed a long time ago. Hope it is addressed and fairly corrected.
Here is the Supreme Court's docket on the first case:
I didn't realize the reply brief was filed today until I looked. LINK
I'd think there is a good chance that they grant it and overturn it. It was a judicially-made doctrine and there should be at least four judges against the kind of thing now.
All I know about the Cubs case is that the Ricketts family has pretty much killed anything fun or organic about Wrigleyville by turning it into Cubs Disneyland. The rooftops were a cool and historic quirk, then they decided to get involved.
April 30th, 2018 at 10:32 PM ^
i found 2016 to be quite fun. the cubs finally have ownership that cares about winning. i will take winning over unabated rooftop access to viewing.