Skip to Main Content

Sports and the Law

Sports law library books and databases, current news sources.

Library Resources

Landmark Cases

North American Soccer League v. N.L.R.B., 613 F.2d 1379 (1980).

  • Court held that the NLRB must select an appropriate bargaining unit under the circumstances but is not required to select the most appropriate and the board’s decision won’t be set aside unless the Board's discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Wood v. National Basketball Association, 809 F.2d 954 (1987).

  • Balancing labor law and anti-trust the court held that the union had a duty of fair representation of all the players, including the rookies, but stated that Wood could bring an action against his union for not adequately representing his interests when negotiating. 

Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (2001).

  • Court held that courts should only reverse binding arbitration decisions when the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction, there was fraud by the arbitrator, or when the award was not within the confines of what could have been awarded. 

Northwestern University, 362 NLRB No. 167 (2015).

  • National Labor Relations Board declined to assert jurisdiction over scholarship receiving student-athletes at Northwestern University because the National Labor Act is for the private sector and an overwhelming majority of the schools in the league were public institutions.  

National Collegiate Athletic Association, 594 U.S. __ (2021). 

  • In 2021, the Supreme Court held that the NCAA violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the education-related benefits schools could offer student-athletes. As a result of the ruling, the NCAA suspended their rule prohibiting players from profiting from their name, image, and likeness in order to avoid further antitrust lawsuits. 

Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922).

  • In 1922 the Supreme Court gave major league baseball an exemption from anti-trust law, stating that baseball doesn’t affect interstate commerce. This exemption still exists today. 

Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953)

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972).

  • Toolson and Flood upheld baseball’s anti-trust exemption, both courts stated that the exemption is within congress’ purview, and they wouldn’t reverse the earlier courts decision. 
  • This eventually lead to the Curt Flood Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C § 27. 
  • This act officially removed baseball’s “reserve clause” from the standard player contract, however it was largely superficial as the union had already negotiated its removal. Baseball retains its anti-trust exemption for other aspects of the business.

Philadelphia Ball Club v. Lajoie, 51 A. 973 (1902).

  • The court here held that negative injunctions can be issued when the defendant's services are unique, extraordinary, and of such a character as to render it impossible to replace him; so that his breach of contract would result in irreparable loss to the plaintiff. 

Kleinknect v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (1993).

  • The court held that institutions owe a duty of care to student athletes who may suffer a serious life-threatening emergency while participating in practice for the school sponsored sport. 

Reference Librarian

Profile Photo
Deborah Turkewitz
Contact:
Deborah Turkewitz
Sol Blatt Jr Law Library
Charleston School of Law
385 Meeting St, Rm 121
Charleston, SC 29403
(843) 377-2148