Why Curt Flood Lost in Court

Flood was right, but his lawyer (former Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg) probably used the wrong argument. Their argument was that Flood was a victim of involuntary servitude (slavery) which was outlawed by the Constitution's 13th Amendment. The problem with that approach is that Flood was no slave, he could seek work in other fields. Instead, Flood was a worker who was unfairly deprived of the right to negotiate with competing employers (other teams) due to baseball's dubious reserve clause. Why didn't they sue on those grounds?

Of course, they still might have lost. Courts have not always sided with the workers, particularly minorities who get paid good salaries.