Robinson, who was active in the civil rights movement, called the reserve clause one sided in favor of the owners, and argued that it “should be modified to give the player some control over his destiny. The owners should have some control over players, but it should be limited,” and suggested a five-year contract would be fair to both sides - close to the six years that teams currently have control of players before they can seek free agency. Under cross-examination, he discussed the issue as a prospective owner: “I’d be happy to invest in a club tomorrow if there were no reserve clause.
We must recognize that times have changed and must go forward harmoniously and the first step, the last step, is to abolish the existing reserve clause and work out a substitute.” “The reserve clause has been in the news since 1923, and has brought objections from players, and confused the public. “We need more harmonious relations between players and owners, and we need to repair baseball’s image with the public,” Greenberg said. His fellow investor with those teams, Bill Veeck, who had been the first owner to sign a Black player in the American League, also testified on Flood’s side.
#Jason cardinal one man band trial
At Flood’s trial that May, Greenberg testified that “the reserve clause is obsolete, antiquated and definitely needs change.” His appearance against baseball owners was striking because he had been a part owner and general manager of two MLB teams himself after his playing days were over. He sat out the 1970 season and pursued his case against MLB. “I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.” “After 12 years in the Major Leagues, I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes,” Flood wrote.
0 kommentar(er)
