From The Executive Editor: Columbia fun Cartoon: It's good to be the king Can more sponsors seize the day? L.A. bid a testament to relationships Sutton Impact: Membership perks Cartoon: Always room for more Changing the Game: Connections count From The Executive Editor: Women’s roles Cartoon: All aboard Women as decision-makers in sports
SBJ/June 12 - 18, 2000/Opinion
Miller swings, misses
Published June 12, 2000
While I admire Marvin Miller, I respectfully disagree with his column on the Steve Garvey case ["Latest rulings love sports more than law," June 5].
To equate the "folly" of the Supreme Court's trilogy of mistakes in granting and perpetuating an antitrust exemption for baseball with the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Garvey case is an unfair comparison. Even the dissenting judge in the Garvey case wrote that he understood why the two-judge majority believed that the arbitrator's decision denying Garvey's collusion damages claim was wrong and should be vacated. The dissenting judge also acknowledged that the evidence presented by Garvey at the arbitration supporting his claim that a contract extension was offered to him and then withdrawn due to baseball owners' collusion was "persuasive."
The fact that two federal appellate judges ruled against the Major League Baseball Players Association does not make their decision "foolish" as Miller tells readers, who should read the 9th Circuit's opinion and draw their own conclusions.