MovieChat Forums > Baseball (1994) Discussion > Curt Flood

Curt Flood

posted 17 years ago by darryl65
12 replies | jump to latest

I have long admired Curt Flood for his integrity and the kind, articulate man that he was which was documented so well by Ken Burn's "Baseball."

He risked his career not for money but for principle;seeking to overturn the "reserve clause" which effectually made the player a chattel of the team owner--to be bought, sold and traded as a commodity.Imagine what it would be like if you should up to work one day and were told by your boss that you were being traded to another employer.If you refused,no other employer in your trade or profession would ever hire you.That is exactly what happened to Curt Flood and he was the first to have the courage to challenge the indentured servitude which was the basis of the "reserve clause."

We have heard much of how Muhammed Ali risked his career for resisting the Draft; but he was able to return to the ring and later become champion.Curt Flood sadly had a different fate.Losing his fight in the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the reserve clause, he never returned to Major League Baseball except for a very brief, unhappy time with the Washington Senators in 1971.He would have faded from our collective memory had it not been for Ken Burns giving Curt the opportunity to address the issue as well as recollect his experience with bigotry in baseball-- and his admiration for Bob Gibson("He could throw a baseball through a brick wall as a matter of fact").

Thank you, Mr. Flood and thank you Mr. Burns.

[–] johnbensonwillkickyouras 17 years ago

The players owe Flood so much. Since so many are now so rich because of him, the PA ought to establish some kind of charity in his name --- the least they could do.

[–] yudds 17 years ago

"indentured servitude" ??? Gross amounts of money to play a game?

Make no mistake; Curt Flood was not in it for the principle.

Baseball is indeed a business, but unlike any other business, it relies on competition. That's why there were rules in place to keep the competitive balance. Every MLBPA victory has meant more money for the players and less balance.

It's unrealistic to use the analogy that you could show up one day and be traded to another employer. Possibly to another department, you still have a choice.

As for Ali, His reasons were religious. Flood was one of many good players. Ali was the Champ. Americans have a celebrity fetish and will forgive almost anything.

[–] darryl65 17 years ago

I do not know where you obtained your information from but the record needs to be set straight on a couple of your points.

Curt Flood's dispute had NOTHING to do with his salary.He challenged the reserve clause after he was told to report to Philadelphia (a team he would not go to because of many player's reputations for negative attitudes to black players).Curt had no choice--it was go to Philadelphia or don't play ball at all.(i.e. indentured servitude). The proof of this was that Curt wrote Commissioner Kuhn letting it be known he refused to be traded to a team he would not be comfortable with; but was open to playing for other teams.Curt would never play ball again since the owners had a "gentleman's agreement" not to offer Curt a place on their own teams.(That is called collusion,not competition).My analogy with being told to report to another employer (not another "department")stands.

You should also realize that the MLBPA had a lot LESS power back then than they do today (such as no free agency back then and a lack of arbitration process).The end of the reserve clause has resulted in the spawning of free agency;which has resulted in the exhorbitant salaries many players(like Clemens and A-Rod) get today.But that was not the case in Curt Flood's day.

I'm left to wonder if you have confused Curt Flood with somebody else(?).Curt primarily wanted free agency so a player had more freedom to play where he wanted to.The fact that free agency has resulted in obscene salaries should not be confused with what motivated Curt.Again,his fight had nothing to do with money.Perhaps you should watch the segment on this subject at the end of the eighth episode, and in the final episode, of Burn's "Baseball."

[–] yudds 17 years ago

I get my information from books, documentaries, magazines, newspapers and other sources. I responded to your post because I thought you were being over dramatic with your worship for Flood. You likening his trade as indentured sevitude. It reminded me of Sapps statement about slavery.

Flood knew how the system worked and what could happen when he signed with Cincinnati. He willingly went when traded to St. Louis. The Philly fans never had a chance to see if the all-star could lift their team out of the basement. Philadelphia still had the rights to his contract and did give him another chance when they traded him. He did play again.

[–] darryl65 17 years ago

That's right: I stand corrected;I forgot he played briefly for the Senators upon the Phillies trading him in 1971.(I have corrected my tribute accordingly.)

The heart of Flood's lawyer Arthur Goldberg's plea to the Supreme Court was to overturn the reserve clause in Flood v. Kuhn.Aside from violating anti-trust laws,the reserve clause,he argued, was a violation of the 13th amendement (which banned involuntary servitude).As Flood wrote Kuhn in 1969-- after learning from a reporter that he was being traded to the Phillies--"(A)fter twelve years in the Major Leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes."

An interesting footnote that it was not "about the money," Flood was traded by the Phillies and given a contract to play with the Senators for $110,000/year--$10,000 more than what the Phillies were going to pay him in 1970.After 13 unlucky games with the Senators (batting only .200)and having some wise guy lay a funeral wreath at his locker,Flood felt his days as a contributor were over (in spite of manager Ted William's plea to stay)and retired;forfeiting most of the $110,000 in the process.

But thank you for reminding me of that epilogue,Yudds.

[–] MidnightWriter 16 years ago

The reserve clause had absolutely nothing to do with balance, it had to do with establishing baseball as monopoly and then artificially keeping wages low.

That's what monopolies do - they keep employee salaries down, gouge consumers on the other end and reap ridiculous profits for stockholders (owners) while positioning themeselves to drive all competitors out of businesses.

The reason there is imbalance in baseball has nothing to do with free agency, it has to do with MLB not being willing to engage in revenue sharing or institute salary caps, as other professional sports have successfully done.

The greed of the owners has been at the heart of almost every monumentally tragic moment in baseball history, from the 1919 White Sox scandal, to the 1994 strike, right up to the steroids issue we now face. MLB owners love to do things like blackmail cities into building them stadiums with corporate suites and then set ticket prices so high that a family of average income can't even afford to see the game.

The purity and beauty of baseball come from the incredible grace, style and skill of its players. The players are entitled to every dime they EARN. Owners reap huge profits on the backs of these players and yet spend every waking minute figuring out ways to screw the players and, at the same time, squeeze one more nickle out of the fans.

Every time the owners get together decide they need more money, baseball's image pays the price.

The reserve clause was an evil, unfair and un-American practice that should never have been legal in the first place. How it lasted until the 1970s is simply mind-boggling.

[–] JohnDeming3 16 years ago

His was one of my favorite stories in the whole documentary.

[–] mscottschilling 16 years ago

If you admire Flood, look for his autobiography _The Way It Is_.

[–] kag2-1 12 years ago

Flood was correct to challenge the reserve clause - which seems patently unconstitutional. Ironically, Flood did so not for money but for principal, not wanting to play in Philadelphia, due to their fans. And he was merely asking for the same rights enjoyed by all American adults outside the U.S. military - the right to negotiate employment with all available employers in their given field.

Baseball's reserve clause was put in by greedy owners in the late 1800's to artificially hold down player salaries and power. Probably every baseball labor problem throughout the game's history has been caused by the sordid attempts of greedy owners to rob players of their economic rights.

Yes, you should read Flood's book THE WAY IT IS. A very interesting, thoughtful, readable effort - despite his refusal to criticize anti-white rants by black Muslims after he spends many pages criticizing white racism. But overall a pretty good read.

[–] joehrobertsjr 11 years ago

Sadly, more time was spent talking about Flood in this documentary than his teammate, the great Stan Musial who was only mentioned in one all too short segment. Not to take anything away from Flood who came across as an intelligent and dignified man but the bottom line in his case was that he just didn't want to go to Philadelphia. Not that I could blame him for that.

[–] Rockhound6165 11 years ago

It can't be considered indentured servitude if you're being paid. Also, to make it a 13th amendment issue, you have to prove that you are tied to where you are and quite frankly, to compare this to slavery is not only borderline stupid, it's blatantly ridiculous. And to make the comparison to being traded from one employer to another is absurd. If you work for Ford, you would be free to leave Ford and go work for GM or Chrysler. Flood could have gone to Japan or Mexico and played baseball. Or he could have gotten a job selling tires. Whatever. Slaves, on the other hand, had nowhere to go. Only an uneducated dolt would compare the 2. He did not hold any kind of right to play baseball no more than I had a right to sell bread when I did that. And Flood wasn't standing on any principle. Do you think that if he were traded to the Dodgers or Yankees he would have pissed and moaned? Hardly.

As for the Phillies, by the time of Flood's trade, Ruly Carpenter had taken over the team from his father and was building toward a new future. Already there were Larry Bowa, Greg Luzinski, Rick Wise among other players who were up and comers. The racist Ruly sr. days were over and by 1971 the Phils were in a new ballpark and waiting in the wings with Bowa and Bull were Boone, Schmidt, they traded for Steve Carlton and other players. Flood could have been a part of that but he didnt' want to go to a crappy club. He's a hypocrite like the rest of them. Also, thanks to people like Flood, baseball is dying a slow death in this country as real fans are being priced out of the ballpark.

[–] kag2-1 11 years ago

Rockhound6165 you make some excellent points about indentured servitute and the change in Phillies ownership. Still:

1) Ticket prices are not tied to player salaries (as owners pretend) but to market demand. Yes, today's ticket prices are very annoying, but today's crowds of 30,000 dwarf those of Flood's era (14,000), so prices are higher.

2) Flood was free to play in Japan or Mexico? Sure, and he could also drive a truck or work as a salesman, plumber, etc. But how about giving him the same right as all U.S. workers to negotiate at will with competing employers in the same industry? To allow sports leagues to deny this basic right to its athletes (be they jerks, crybabies, or admirable) is astounding.