The main issue I'll be focusing on today is this: how does Player get out of his contract with Team A in order to go play for Team B? What can Team A do to stop Player?
Hypothetical: Player, a star in both basketball and baseball, signs a contract with Baseball Team. Unfortunately, a few months in to this contract, Player realizes that he can't hit a major league curveball. He wants to go back to the hardwood, but he's under contract with Baseball Team. What happens now?
Well, Player could simply refuse to perform. He could leave Baseball Team and go sign a contract with Basketball Team. That would leave it up to Baseball Team to go to the courts. Baseball Team could simply sue for a breach of contract, a lawsuit it would almost certainly win. The remedy for a breach of contract is typically monetary damages (I use "typically" because I don't want to sound too authoritative--it's been a while since I took contract law). So, Player would have to pay Baseball Team a sum of money that the judge believes would make Baseball Team whole. Easy enough, right?
Well, sure, but imagine you're Baseball Team. You believe that Player, despite his troubles, has great potential. You don't want monetary compensation--you want Player to stick to his contract. Thus, you ask the court not for damages but for an injunction. You want the court to enjoin Player from playing anywhere but for your team. In essence, you want the court to step in and hold Player to his contract.
An injunction is a tougher remedy to obtain. Courts are happy to award damages, but they're reluctant to force a party to adhere to his contract. Understandably so: breaching a contract occasionally leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. If Player is a mediocre slugger but a star cager,* it makes more sense for him to go play basketball.
Here's a non-sports example of efficient breach that you could totally skip over and not miss a beat (I even changed the font to show you how unessential it is!):
"Suppose I sign a contract to deliver 100,000 custom-ground widgets at $.10 apiece to A, for use in his boiler factory. After I have delivered 10,000, B comes to me, explains that he desperately needs 25,000 custom-ground widgets at once since otherwise he will be forced to close his pianola factory at great cost, and offers me $.15 apiece for 25,000 widgets. I sell him the widgets and as a result do not complete timely delivery to A, who sustains $1000 in damages from my breach. Having obtained an additional profit of $1250 on the sale to B, I am better off even after reimbursing A for his loss. Society is also better off. Since B was willing to pay me $.15 per widget, it must mean that each widget was worth at least $.15 to him. But it was worth only $.14 to A – $.10, what he paid, plus $.04 ($1000 divided by 25,000), his expected profit. Thus the breach resulted in a transfer of the 25,000 widgets from a lower valued to a higher valued use." Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of the Law (got it from here).
Thus, Player would argue to the judge, "look, I know I'm breaching my contract. I'm not denying that; in fact, tell me how much to pay and I'll pay. But don't hold me to this contract--it would result in an inefficient allocation of resources." Baseball Team would respond, "Judge, contracts should be seen as something more than an economic instrument. They should be seen as moral obligations worthy of as much 'legal teeth' as the law can reasonably provide."
In addition to this broad principle, Baseball Team could make the following arguments (I'll leave it to you to evaluate their merits):
- Money isn't enough of a remedy. Player is so uniquely skilled that losing him would cause our team irreparable injury that you can't put a price on.
- Player is of such unique talents that we wouldn't be able to replace him. (Imagine if Derrick Rose went to go play hockey. The Bulls would have a helluva time finding a new Derrick Rose.)
So, now you've gotten a taste of both sides of the issue. Player doesn't have tons to say, but keep in mind that many courts look favorably on the concept of efficient breach and similarly are quite reluctant to grant a remedy as extraordinary as an injunction. This issue of players jumping from one team/league to another is uncommon these days, as two-sport athletes are rare and the big four sports leagues have no real competition. (These cases were more common back when the AFL and the NFL were on approximately equal footing and you'd see someone want to leave one of these football leagues for the other.) Even though we don't see this type of case much in sports law, it still is an important aspect of contract law. I just framed the concept in a sports law context to make it more interesting and readable.
*cager is a great crossword clue, btw.
I have never heard the term "cager" before, so thanks for that! And thank you for elucidating a topic, on which I probably would not have done research myself. I am glad I have you to teach me about sports law! :)
ReplyDelete