New York Yankees, 1953; Picher, 1997; as cited by Scremin, 2005). It is interesting to note that: "with the exception of baseball, to some extent, all other major professional sports have had to adapt their rules and policies to comply with antitrust law." (Scremin, 2005) The principle was again tried in the case Flood v. Kuhn in 1972 but the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the exemption. ANALYSIS

According to the U.S. Supreme Court due to exemption from antitrust laws claimants making claims based on federal antitrust laws in the major league did not have sufficient basis for suit because the U.S. Supreme Court did not assume jurisdiction over the baseball teams even though clubs did travel across state lines and even though players could be transferred across a state line to another club. The reasoning for this is the fact that during the development of the existing antitrust legislation as well as the development of the national major league of baseball that no consideration existed for the federal antitrust laws as they did not have jurisdiction of the league historically and that none was assumed by the baseball league to exist.

CONCLUSION

Because baseball was exempted in the early years (1922) from the jurisdiction of federal...

8 No. 1 Winter 2005 online available at http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No1/SCJ_04_antitrust.asp.
The Application of Federal Antitrust Laws to Major League Baseball (2002) Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress - Second Session, 13 February, 2002. Serious No. J-107-50. Online available at http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/SenateAntiTrustHearing.pdf.

Ross, Michael E. And Sashe D. Dimitroff (1997) Whose Field of Dreams? - Antitrust Relief Against Restrictions on the Sale or Relocation of Major League Fall 1997 Antitrust Bulletin. Online available at http://www.kslaw.com/library/articles.asp?18