IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Major League Baseball Anti-Trust Immunity: Examining the Legal and Financial Implications of Relocation Rules


  • Mark, Nagel
  • Matt, Brown
  • Daniel, Rascher
  • Chad, McEvoy


Major League Baseball (MLB) rules restrict the movement of any franchise into another’s territory. These territorial rules are designed to protect each team’s potential local revenue sources as well as to provide stability throughout the league. Recently, Major League Baseball approved financial compensation for the Washington Nationals move into the Baltimore Orioles’ territory – primarily because it was in the best interest of MLB even though it hurt the Orioles. However, the Oakland Athletics were unable to even negotiate a potential compensation plan for a move into the San Francisco Giants territory, despite the apparent financial benefit the move could have provided for every other league franchise. The Athletics are already located within 15 miles of the Giants, and their potential 40 mile move to San Jose, California would not add a new team to the San Francisco Bay Area; rather, it would simply be a move of a current team to a different location within the metropolitan area. The refusal of the Giants or MLB to negotiate a potential compromise has kept the Oakland Athletics in a substandard facility and has led to their potential move to Fremont, CA – a less desirable location than San Jose. This paper investigates the legal, policy, and financial considerations concerning Major League Baseball’s territorial rules. Specifically, it addresses antitrust law as it pertains to American professional sport, relative sport franchise relocation cases, financial arguments why leagues desire to control relocation, financial components of MLB’s current Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the legal and financial impact of a challenge to MLB’s territorial rules – an option the Oakland Athletic initially investigated prior to their decision to pursue a potential move to Fremont.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark, Nagel & Matt, Brown & Daniel, Rascher & Chad, McEvoy, 2006. "Major League Baseball Anti-Trust Immunity: Examining the Legal and Financial Implications of Relocation Rules," MPRA Paper 25799, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:25799

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Reint Gropp & Jukka Vesala, 2004. "Deposit Insurance, Moral Hazard and Market Monitoring," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 8(4), pages 571-602.
    2. Boyd, John H. & Chang, Chun & Smith, Bruce D., 2002. "Deposit insurance: a reconsideration," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1235-1260, September.
    3. Giammarino, Ronald M & Lewis, Tracy R & Sappington, David E M, 1993. " An Incentive Approach to Banking Regulation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1523-1542, September.
    4. Russell Cooper & Thomas W. Ross, 2002. "Bank Runs: Deposit Insurance and Capital Requirements," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(1), pages 55-72, February.
    5. Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Detragiache, Enrica, 2002. "Does deposit insurance increase banking system stability? An empirical investigation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 1373-1406, October.
    6. Huberto M. Ennis & Todd Keister, 2009. "Bank Runs and Institutions: The Perils of Intervention," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1588-1607, September.
    7. Roberto Steiner & Adolfo Barajas, 2000. "Depositor Behavior and Market Discipline in Colombia," IMF Working Papers 00/214, International Monetary Fund.
    8. Asli Demirguc-Kunt & Edward J. Kane, 2002. "Deposit Insurance Around the Globe: Where Does It Work?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 175-195, Spring.
    9. Maechler, Andrea M. & McDill, Kathleen M., 2006. "Dynamic depositor discipline in US banks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1871-1898, July.
    10. Bhattacharya, Sudipto & Boot, Arnoud W A & Thakor, Anjan V, 1998. "The Economics of Bank Regulation," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 30(4), pages 745-770, November.
    11. Chan, Yuk-Shee & Mak, King-Tim, 1985. " Depositors' Welfare, Deposit Insurance, and Deregulation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 959-974, July.
    12. Asl? Demirgüç-Kunt & Edward J. Kane & Luc Laeven (ed.), 2008. "Deposit Insurance around the World: Issues of Design and Implementation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262042541, January.
    13. Ennis, Huberto M. & Keister, Todd, 2010. "Banking panics and policy responses," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 404-419, May.
    14. G. G. Garcia, 1999. "Deposit Insurance; A Survey of Actual and Best Practices," IMF Working Papers 99/54, International Monetary Fund.
    15. Michael Manz, 2009. "The optimal level of deposit insurance coverage," Working Papers 09-6, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    16. Chan, Yuk-Shee & Greenbaum, Stuart I & Thakor, Anjan V, 1992. " Is Fairly Priced Deposit Insurance Possible?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(1), pages 227-245, March.
    17. Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Huizinga, Harry, 2004. "Market discipline and deposit insurance," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 375-399, March.
    18. Viral V. Acharya & João A. C. Santos & Tanju Yorulmazer, 2010. "Systemic risk and deposit insurance premiums," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Aug, pages 89-99.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Antitrust law; Collective Bargaining Agreement; Franchise Relocation; Major League Baseball; Revenue Sharing; Territorial Rights;

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:25799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.