Curt Flood and the Master-Slave Dialectic in U.S. Sports

In this newsletter, I wanted to take a deep dive into how American sports, especially compared to European soccer leagues, uphold the master-slave dialectic. 

The master-slave dialectic refers to a concept created by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the 1800s that describes the relationship, or dialectic, between a master and a slave. This idea can be especially important for understanding relationships in the United States because our history of chattel slavery has entrenched this dialectic into our society.

In the master-slave dialectic, the master has all of the power and the slave has none. Therefore, the master will use his power to only claim responsibility for the things that benefit himself and enrich his power. Similarly, anything that could weaken him will become the fault of the slave. For example, if the slave’s labor generates a lot of money, the master will claim that he is brilliant at business, but if the slave’s labor does not make much money then the slave is lazy.

The master-slave dialectic still shows up in American society, including in professional and amateur sports. For example: antitrust protections for players weren't passed federally until the late 20th century which means that until recently players had very few protections against being exploited by team owners. The lack of antitrust protections meant that players were effectively “owned” by their franchises, and were forced to be traded and take low salaries at the owners’ wishes. 

In European soccer, player development and desires are much more at the forefront of sports organizations. Let’s say that a large club like Real Madrid has a promising young player that will turn into a superstar – however, the player is too young and his skills are too raw to get him playing time on the starting squad. Madrid could then loan that player out to a smaller team anywhere in the world. The player would get increased playing time, the smaller team would gain fans and perform better in the standings, and Madrid would save money on the player’s wages. Also, the player must approve of the loan and cannot get sent to a team against his will. Seems like a win for everyone all around, right?

However, American sports don't operate this way. Teams and fans are much more hostile towards other teams, and treat players as property that cost a salary and who could be traded or cut should they not live up to lofty expectations. We see this in contract negotiations, free agency, and the trade market. The American process is much more focused on the will of the owners, while the European process looks more to the interests of the players.

Prior to the 1969 Major League Baseball season, St. Louis Cardinals star Curt Flood, who is African American, decided to challenge the norm and hold out in search of a $90,000 contract, which is equivalent to $740,000 today. Flood was a superstar in the MLB – at the time of his trade request, he was a multi-time all-star, World Series winner, and gold glove recipient, which goes to the best defensive player at his position.

During the 1969 season, Flood’s decision to hold out for more money angered management and they looked for justifications to label him as a troublemaker to reduce his market value. As the season came to an end, Flood was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies for All-Star infielder Dick Allen and other players. Flood declined to play for the Phillies, citing the racist fanbase and his wishes to be autonomous in his career decisions, calling Philadelphia the “northernmost Southern city.” 

The Phillies offered to increase Flood’s pay to $100,000, but Flood declined: “I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes.”

During Flood’s trade request, the MLB still had a rule called the reserve clause, which stated that “the rights to players were retained by the team upon [a] contract's expiration.” This was put into place because players would jump from team to team, oftentimes during the season, and the league wanted to give teams the ability to retain their star players. The clause was originally meant to only be used on five players at a time per team, but owners bent the rules so that they could decide the contracts for all of their players, regardless of player performance. 

MLB was able to do this because of an exemption from the 1922 Sherman Antitrust Act – in which Flood, in consultation with MLB Players Association head Marvin Miller, sued the league over their exemption. The MLB was declared a unique exception to the act, making it exempt from laws that advocated for everyday workers and not professional athletes. Flood, with the support and financing of the Players Association, sued the league over their use of the reserve clause. 

In 1972, his case Flood v. Kuhn made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but Flood lost the case 5-3. In their decision, the court argued that Major League Baseball was not subject to federal antitrust laws because of the “uniqueness” of baseball’s status, citing previous cases that upheld the reserve clause that Flood was challenging.

Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the only African American on the court, dissented against the decision and equated the reserve clause to “involuntary servitude.”  

Four years later, Major League Baseball got rid of the reserve clause in 1976, after a lockout took place because the MLB Players Association went on strike to fight the reserve clause and other rules that denied rights to players – shortly after, other major American sports leagues eventually followed suit. However, it wasn't until the Curt Flood Act of 1998, signed by President Clinton, that MLB players were explicitly protected under federal antitrust laws.

After refusing the trade to the Phillies in 1969, Flood sat out the entirety of the 1970 season. Throughout that year he received constant hate mail and death threats. Before the 1971 season, Flood was traded to the Washington Senators, but left the team after only 13 games. He had a rocky start with the Senators, which was largely due to the rustiness of not having played the previous season while being constantly inundated with hate mail.

After leaving the Senators, Flood never again played in the MLB and retired at the age of 32. Prior to standing up for his rights, Flood was on the way to a Hall of Fame career, but despite positively impacting the lives of all MLB players, he is yet to make it to Cooperstown. 

Flood’s life is an example of the master-slave dialectic in American sports because players have to fight, and oftentimes go on strike, to see themselves get fairly compensated for the work that they do. Despite being the best in the world, American professional athletes are still seen as a product that is to be bought and sold by team owners and subject to ridicule by the fans instead of as human beings who should be valued and protected. 

As Flood said in response to his case, Flood v. Kuhn, “a well-paid slave is still nonetheless a slave.”