## Facts

- The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) filed a grievance under the Major League Baseball Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) alleging the twenty-six MLB clubs acted in concert during the 1985–86 free-agency period.
- The CBA contained an express anti-collusion/“acting in concert” clause prohibiting clubs from acting in concert with other clubs in dealing with players.
- After the 1984 season, many clubs signed free agents from other teams, and a substantial number of free agents changed clubs; after the 1985 season, only a small number changed teams and most returned to their prior clubs.
- In October 1985, the Player Relations Committee circulated a memorandum to all clubs warning against long-term free-agent contracts and urging “self-discipline” in resisting pressure to sign such deals.
- The Commissioner publicly reinforced the message at ownership/executive meetings by condemning long-term contracts.
- The MLBPA alleged the clubs followed a coordinated plan to (1) avoid pursuing free agents unless their prior clubs first indicated they would not retain them and (2) avoid long-term contracts, resulting in few outside offers and predominately short-term deals.
- The clubs denied any agreement, asserting each club independently acted due to economic concerns, prior poor outcomes from long-term contracts, and perceived weakness of the free-agent class.
- The grievance was arbitrated before the MLB Arbitration Panel; Arbitrator Thomas T. Roberts issued an award in 1986 finding a violation, while reserving damages for later proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the clubs, through league-wide communications and uniform conduct in the 1985–86 offseason, “acted in concert” in violation of the CBA’s anti-collusion clause.
2. Whether parallel restraint in bidding and contract terms could be treated as a prohibited agreement under the CBA despite being informal and unwritten.
3. Whether the alleged concerted conduct caused compensable injury to affected free-agent players, with damages to be determined later.

## Decision

- The grievance was sustained.
- The arbitrator found the clubs acted in concert in their treatment of 1985–86 free agents, breaching the CBA’s anti-collusion provision.
- The arbitrator concluded the coordinated restraint depressed the free-agent market and caused compensable economic harm to players.
- Liability was established; determination and allocation of damages were reserved for subsequent proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A CBA anti-collusion/“acting in concert” clause prohibits clubs from coordinating to restrain competition for player services in the free-agent market.
- An “agreement” under such a clause may be shown by informal understandings, league-wide exhortations, and consistent adherence by all clubs; a written or formally ratified pact is not required.
- Uniform market-wide restraint, combined with centralized communications and a sharp unexplained departure from prior competitive behavior, may support an inference of prohibited concerted action rather than independent business judgment.
- Even if clubs have legitimate cost concerns, the CBA requires unilateral decision-making; a joint decision to suppress competitive bidding violates the contractual prohibition.
- Where concerted conduct materially contributes to a depressed market for player services, affected players may recover damages measured by the difference between actual compensation and what a competitive market would likely have produced.

## Conclusion

The arbitrator held that MLB clubs unlawfully coordinated their approach to the 1985–86 free-agent market in violation of the CBA’s express anti-collusion clause, establishing liability and reserving damages for later proceedings.


In re Arbitration Between Major League Baseball Players Ass’n & the Twenty-Six Major League Baseball Clubs, Grievance No. 86-2 (MLB Arb. Panel 1986)