MONOPOLIES I – Yankees … Dodgers …Giants
New York MEGOPOLIS … inter-city RIVALS … “boroughs” … Bronx vs Manhattan vs Brooklyn
DYNASTY – YANKEE “MONOPOLY” (vs Boston Red Sox)
CURSE of “BAMBINO” – Red Sox owner sells Babe Ruth to Yankees to finance Broadway show “investment” …
YANKEES DYNASTY “SET-OFF” … 27 CHAMPIONSHIPS … since 1920s … (competition monopoly)
HOUSE (“Yankee Stadium”) that RUTH BUILT … (commercial monopoly)
YANKEES vs DODGERS ...
DODGER “COMPETITION” vs YANKEES …
DODGERS SEEK to “BREAK MONOPOLY” of YANKEES …
“ALTERNATIVE” TALENT POOL … RACE (black- white)… REGION (Latin America)
JACKIE ROBINSON (UCLA athlete) … BRANCH RICKEY (Cardinals General Manger-executive) … labor and management
EXODUS WEST … GIANTS (San Francisco” … DODGERS (Los Angeles)
WEST COAST “EXPANSION” … GEOGRAPHICAL and COMMERCE …
EXPANSION (grow MORE PIES …) Dodger O’Malleys vs Giant Horace Stoneham)
eventually “METS” (Queens) replace departed Dodgers and Giants)
a “RISING TIDE” (raises all boats) vs “ZERO SUM” (I win, ou lose)
MONOPLY II – FREE AGENCY
PLAYERS VS MANAGEMENT
CURT FLOOD (Cardinal Player) – CONTRACT reserve CLAUSE
Flood became one of the pivotal figures in the sport’s labor history when he refused to accept a trade following the 1969 season, ultimately appealing his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although his legal challenge was unsuccessful, it brought about additional solidarity among players as they fought against baseball’s reserve clause and sought free agency.
stated the rights to players were retained by the team upon the contract’s expiration. Players under these contracts were not free to enter into another contract with another team. Once signed to a contract, players could, at the team’s whim, be reassigned, traded, sold, or released.
The only negotiating leverage of most players was to hold out at contract time and to refuse to play unless their conditions were met. Players were bound to negotiate a new contract to play another year for the same team or to ask to be released or traded.
They had no freedom to change teams unless they were given an unconditional release. In the days of the reserve clause, that was the only way a player could be a free agent.
DECIDED by COURT CASE (1972)
MONOPOLY III – 1994 STRIKE-“LOCK OUT” – “COLLLUSION”
owners “lock out” players to disrupt season
The 1994–95 Major League Baseball strike was the eighth work stoppage in baseball history, as well as the fourth in-season work stoppage in 22 years. The strike began on August 12, 1994, and resulted in the remainder of that seasonbeing cancelled, including the postseason and, for the first time since 1904, the World Series
n response to a worsening financial situation in baseball, the owners of Major League Baseball teams collectively proposed a salary cap to their players. Ownership claimed that small-market clubs would fall by the wayside unless teams agreed to share local broadcasting revenues (to increase equity among the teams) and enact a salary cap, a proposal that the players adamantly opposed.
On January 18, 1994, the owners approved a new revenue-sharing plan keyed to a salary cap, which required the players’ approval. The following day, the owners amended the Major League agreement by giving complete power to the commissioner on labor negotiations.
The dispute was played out with a backdrop of years of hostility and mistrust between the two sides.
On March 28, 1995, the players voted to return to work if a U.S. District Court judge supported the National Labor Relations Board‘s unfair labor practices complaint against the owners (which was filed on March 27). By a vote of 27–3, owners supported the use of replacement players. The strike ended when Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction against the owners on March 31.
On April 2, 1995, the day before the season was scheduled to start with the replacement players, the strike came to an official end at 232 days. Judge Sotomayor’s decision received support from a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the owners’ request to stay the ruling.
As part of the terms of the injunction, the players and owners were to be bound to the terms of the expired collective bargaining agreement until a new one could be reached and the start of the season would be postponed three weeks, with teams playing an abbreviated 144-game season instead of a 162-game season.