In honor of yesterday’s Major League Baseball All Star Game in St. Louis, Missouri, home of the St. Louis Cardinals, I thought I’d tell the tale of one of the most famous contracts of all time, Jackie Robinson’s signing by the Brooklyn Dodgers to break the baseball color barrier, and the Cardinal players’ planned strike that never happened, a phantom from another era.  This post relies on James Giglio’s excellent coverage in Musial: From Stash to Stan the Man.

Over the broad expanse of a crimson hood, the two hallowed outfielders smiled for photographers on Opening Day of the 2009 season.  Smiles on their faces, they rode a red car through the bowels of Busch Stadium and out into the light of the field’s open air, waving to fans and chatting with each other as they basked in applause and each other’s reflected glory.

Who knew this day would be possible many decades ago?  It may have been hard to envision for Stan Musial, the greatest Cardinal hitter of all time, who played for the mighty Cardinals of the early 1940s, a team made up of white players, in a league full of whites, without a single black or brown skinned player to sully the supremacist ideals of the time.  But today, on this Opening Day, Musial, the white skinned Pennsylvanian, rides in the car next to Albert Pujols, a brown Dominican, and the greatest Cardinal hitter since Musial.  Pujols is so great that he may actually be better than Musial, as Cardinals aficionados will no doubt debate endlessly in the years to come when Pujols amasses more hits and honors in our grand expected future imaginings.  But, for now, forget about the unknown future, for this day, today, provides a future we already know, a future we can surprisingly see from the strained past of 1947.

What do we see?  We see Musial and Pujols smiling at each other, mugging for the cameras, praising each other’s hitting prowess, Pujols querying Musial for tips on batting, Musial cracking jokes in response, as beloved as ever to the Cardinals patrons, forever their Stan “The Man.”  Pujols maintains such respect for Musial that he rejects the nickname, “El Hombre” (Spanish for “the man”), which the St. Louis scribes bestowed on him, saying that there is only one man, Stan Musial, and the press should not refer to any other with that appellation.

Jackie Robinson

Seeing this respect, this torch, handed down from the 1947 generation to the 2009 one, must be an inspiring sight to behold from 1947 eyes.  Branch Rickey, general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, had signed Jackie Robinson, who in that year took over second base and, more importantly, became the first black player in Major League Baseball.  Many writers have detailed the numerous death threats, curses, slights and horrific indignities faced by Robinson, and James Giglio offers an account of the Cardinal reaction in the biography, “Musial: From Stash to Stan the Man.”

Giglio called 1947 “A Troubling Year.”  And the troubles were many.  Dixie Walker, Robinson’s Dodger teammate, led the vitriol among his fellow southern players within the Dodger clubhouse.  When the Dodger’s star shortstop, Kentuckian Pee Wee Reese, defied this confederation by befriending Robinson, Walker’s support whittled away.  However, Walker knew players on other teams who felt the same.  Chicago Cub starting pitchers were directed to knock Robinson down.  Alabaman Ben Chapman, manager of the Phillies, encouraged his players to bean Robinson with pitches and spike him on the basepaths.  It’s important to note that not all southerners were unfair to Robinson, though, who recalled that Cardinals second baseman and South Carolinian Marty Marion “was always nice to me.”

Many teams even considered voting as to whether or not they would be willing to play the Dodgers.  Several key factors set the stage for the Cardinals’ strike talk.  St. Louis boasted one of the largest contingents of southern players in the National League.  St. Louis was the home of Sporting News, the self-styled bible of baseball, which had previously been against integration.  The Cardinals and Dodgers were two of the preeminent teams of the ’40s, with a strong rivalry that generated great enmity.  And the Dodger manager, Leo Durocher, previously played for the Cardinals, starring on their great 1930s “Gashouse Gang” teams.  Even worse, the Dodger general manager, Branch Rickey, used to be the general manager of the Cardinals.

Back in 1917, the Cardinals were a second class team in their own town, trailing the St. Louis Browns in revenue and popularity.  Branch Rickey took over as General Manager that year and built the Cardinals into the greatest team in the National League with his innovative minor league farm system.  But in 1942, after a falling out with Cardinal President Sam Breadon over his contract renewal (apparently the two had a cool relationship over the years, though with mutual respect), Rickey jumped to Brooklyn, leaving St. Louis behind (Rickey apparently was particularly upset that his contract had not been renewed even though his Cardinals had beat the Yankees and won the World Series that season).  The chasm between the Dodgers and Cardinals was deep and wide.  Jackie Robinson was not just Dodger black, he was also Dodger blue, in the face of Cardinal anger, a Cardinal red ember.

On May 9, New York Herald Tribune writer Stanley Woodward let the baseball world know about a threatened Cardinals player strike against the Dodgers.  According to Woodward, Sam Breadon was having none of it.  He flew to Manhattan for an audience with National League President Ford Frick.  When the meeting ended, Frick told Breadon that the would-be strikers should remember this:

“If you [strike], you will be suspended from the league.  You will find that the friends you think you have in the press box will not support you.  You will be outcasts.  I do not care if half the league strikes.  Those who do it will encounter quick retribution.  All will be suspended and I don’t care if it wrecks the National League for five years.  This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. . . . You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness.”

Woodward’s story may have encouraged other team owners to pressure their players to not strike as well.

The Cardinals and the legendary St. Louis sportswriter were aghast at these accusations, arguing that while there was grumbling among a few Cardinals players, nothing had approached the level of angst described by Woodward.

What was Musial’s take on the affair?  He apparently confided to another Tribune writer, Roger Kahn, that the Robinson talk amongst the Cardinals was “rough and racial,” but nothing worse occurred.  Musial also denied the existence of any strike vote.  Decades later, at a mid-90s St. Louis event promoting one of Kahn’s books, Musial bizarrely found himself seated between Kahn and Broeg, who argued vehemently over the degree of anti-Robinson Cardinal fervor.  Musial tried to stay above it all, but in 1997, at an event honoring the 50th anniversary of Robinson breaking the baseball color barrier, Musial argued that the Cardinals never even discussed a strike.  Giglio was not so sure, and openly wonders if Musial made that statement so as not to embarrass many of his southern teammates who ended up on the wrong side of history.  Regardless, Musial did tell Kahn that “he had no trouble with integration,” and took the time to honor Robinson.

Stan "The Man" Musial

Despite Musial’s respect for Robinson, Musial paid the price for Robinson’s detractors.  If a Cardinal pitcher deliberately threw at Robinson, then Durocher ordered the Dodger pitcher to retaliate by throwing at Musial.  When Musial complained, Durocher apparently said, “You’re the best man I know on the Cardinals.  For every time [Robinson] gets one, it looks to me like you’re gonna get two.”  Durocher felt that this kind of retaliation stopped the Cardinals cold from hurting Robinson.  Cardinal manager Eddie Dyer at the time may have helped to eventually convince his players to treat Robinson fairly, as Robinson remembered his first visit to the Cardinals’ stadium, Sportsman’s Park, where Dyer stopped Robinson in full view of the Cardinals and said, “he was glad to see me and that he wished me luck.”

Robinson said that “Musial always treated me with courtesy.”  In one game, enraged after being spiked by the Cardinal outfielder Enos Slaughter, Musial heard Robinson say how badly he wanted revenge.  Musial allegedly told him, “I don’t blame you.  You have every right to do so.”

Thinking about our rights is perhaps the most fitting way to end this story.  The underpinning of our entire economy and way of life is embodied by the concept of a contract, a deal struck between two parties, one desiring nothing more than the meritorious services of the other, and that other desiring nothing more than a chance to ply a trade, whether to work in a coal mine, wait tables, run a major corporation, or even play baseball.  When you strike a deal with someone, you generally expect it to be met, your expectations realized, and your rights fulfilled.  Robinson’s breakthrough season represents the true attainment of this contract right, as he fulfilled his dream to play Major League Baseball, no matter who tried to preclude his Dodger dealings.

Albert Pujols

In this vein, 1947 dissolves into 2009, leaving us with just Musial and Pujols, sitting in a car, gliding through a stadium, embraced by the Cardinal faithful, happy but perhaps unaware of the racial tensions that would make such a noble gathering inconceivable many years ago.

If you enjoy this content, add me at twitter.com/JasonAnderman, thank you.

Many teams are complaining, and want the NFL players’ union to agree to limit compensation to draft picks.  The new union director, DeMaurice Smith, has brushed this idea aside, noting that no one is requiring the teams to pay this much, and that limiting compensation is not the job of the union (check out the fees section of our procurement contract to see how you can limit compensation to vendors here).

I am sympathetic to Smith’s inclinations.  Why should employees have to be responsible for stopping employers from paying more?  When I used to work at a top New York law firm, starting salaries were $125,000 per year.  Extra signing bonus money was paid to former U.S. Supreme Court law clerks, usually around $25,000.   What if a bunch of major law firms banded together to demand that all associates sign a collective agreement to stop these same firms from paying bonus money to these clerks?  Setting aside the antitrust, employment, and collective bargaining law issues here, I can’t imagine law firm associates like myself showing any interest to help the firms (check out our sales contracts that control fees here).

But let’s change the hypothetical!  What if the signing bonus money, instead of being just $25,000, was substantially more?  How about $100,000?  $250,000?  $400,000?  At some point, the amount would be so great that firms would be forced to cut salaries for everyone else just to afford to pay these huge bonuses.  Suddenly, staring at a lower salary, I might be quite open to helping the firms out and signing a deal to cut law clerk bonuses down to size (see how to strategically source and cut vendor service fees here).

A similar situation appears on the football front.  Teams pay so much money to top NFL draft picks that they don’t have as much money left to pay everyone else, including their veteran, proven players who are much more important to the team.  For that reason, I think Mr. Smith needs to give this some more thought.  Who knows?  Maybe he already agrees with me and is simply playing possum to maximize negotiating leverage with the NFL.  After all, there are many other issues he wants the owners to concede on, so holding out on the draft bonus issue does nothing but help his negotiating stance.

Regardless, I think there’s one last thing to focus on here, and that one thing is . . . Go Rams!

If you enjoy this content, add me at twitter.com/JasonAnderman, thank you.

So we were excited when Matt Savare, an expert on sports endorsement contracts, kindly made himself available for an interview with WhichDraft.com.

Matt, tell us a bit about yourself. Where do you work and what are your practice areas?

I practice at Lowenstein Sandler, which is a nationally recognized full-service law firm with approximately 270 attorneys in Boston, New York, Palo Alto and Roseland.

At Lowenstein, my passion lies in entertainment and sports law, with a particular emphasis on endorsement deals. On the sports front, I have assisted clients in negotiating and executing over 50 endorsement and personal appearance deals for famous athletes and celebrities. I have also helped litigate several high-profile entertainment cases, do quite a bit of work on copyrights and trademarks, provide general licensing advice to the firm’s media and entertainment clients (such as special effects software companies and companies in the social networking space), and counsel clients on information privacy.

I am also the Secretary of the NJ State Bar’s Entertainment Sports Law Section and an active member of the ABA’s Entertainment and Sports Law Forum. I frequently write and speak on various entertainment issues, including film law, product placements, and the right of publicity. My Lowenstein bio has links to most of these articles. On a personal level, I am married with three great (but loud) children, who take up most of my free time.

Tell us about one of your favorite sports experiences.

I have four that immediately come to mind. My first, by far, is my second year playing soccer when I was probably about six years old. Our team, the Kings, went undefeated, untied, and unscored upon. We were awesome! My second favorite is the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals, when the Rangers broke the 54-year curse. I do bleed red and blue. The next two are a tie: the 1986 and 1990 Super Bowl championships for the Giants. I loved those teams, and both playoff runs were special, because I watched them both with my father, who is literally insane over the Giants.

How did you become interested in sports contracts and negotiations?

I became interested as an outgrowth of my general interest in entertainment law. I draft and negotiate endorsement and appearance deals, which collectively are often more lucrative than a player’s contract to play his or her particular sport.

What are some of the typical issues negotiated when a young player starts excelling and is seeking his first huge deal?

For player contracts, most of these issues are already handled by the league’s collective bargaining agreements, such as minimum and maximum salary. It also varies across the various sports. For example, in a football contract, one of the main issues is how much of a player’s contract is going to be guaranteed in the event he gets injured. The duration of the contract is also heavily negotiated in some sports. For endorsement deals, the typical issues for the players are: what are they endorsing, for how long, how much are they going to be paid, what type of exclusivity arrangement is the marketer requesting, and what are the provisions of the morals clause. Given what we’ve recently seen with Kellogg’s dropping Michael Phelps, the specific language in a morals clause is very important, and it’s often one of the more heavily negotiated elements in an endorsement deal.

According to ESPN, Anquan Boldin “accused the Cardinals’ management of lying to him by promising a new deal and not following through. He said at the time, and repeated later, that he would never re-sign with the Cardinals.” We see these kinds of headlines all the time. Can you give us a behind the scenes idea of what may have gone wrong for this star young wide receiver and what are the possible outcomes?

Boldin is an amazing receiver, and I wish the Giants had him. I don’t have inside knowledge about his situation, but more generally, I don’t think it serves anyone’s interest when the player openly criticizes his or her team. In my opinion, the player should not inject him or herself into the negotiation and certainly not publicly, because doing so risks alienating the front office, but more importantly, the other players. That’s the last thing that a player should want to do. The agent is being paid to handle these types of situations, and the player should let the agent do his or her job. When the rhetoric gets as heated as it has in Boldin’s case, a possible outcome is for each side to tone it down a bit, reconcile their differences, and sign a deal that each side can live with. Or, while it’s less likely in football, the parties can part ways via a trade. Trades are obviously more common in baseball, hockey, and basketball, but as we’ve seen with the Stephon Marbury situation, those don’t always end in trades either, especially when the player has such a lucrative deal, which no team seemingly wants to assume. It also gets very complicated with leagues’ specific salary cap rules and the collective bargaining agreements.

Last but not least, who is your favorite player of all time and why?

On February 3, the Rangers retired number 9 in honor of Adam Graves. Watching the ceremony and reading all about Graves proved to me that he is probably the most deserving of being anyone’s favorite player. I always admired him on and off the ice. He was the consummate team player. He would go out on the ice one shift and score an important goal, and then fight the other team’s goon on his very next shift to stick up for Messier (who really needed no protection) or Gretzky. If you ask anyone familiar with the Rangers, he was certainly not the most skilled player, but there was no one that worked harder or cared more than him. Graves was an honorable, humble, and selfless man, who volunteered more of his time than anyone I know. The other day, I spoke with a friend of Graves, and asked him: “Is Graves really as nice a guy as he’s portrayed?” The answer was quick and unequivocal: “He’s even nicer.”

His friend went on to explain that after many games, Graves would go unannounced to children’s hospitals to surprise the sick kids. It also doesn’t hurt that he still holds the Rangers’ record for most goals in a season!

In many ways, I like to think I share some of Graves’ positive traits. When I played soccer, I was not the most skilled player. I was not blessed with speed and, for anyone who has ever seen me, you know I’m not blessed with size. Whatever I achieved on the field was through learning about the game, thinking faster than other players, and working my butt off. The same is true in my legal career. I give 100% every day and work hard for the firm and my clients. Graves did the same, night in and night out.

Thanks, Matt.  Best of luck on your practice.

If you enjoy this content, add me at twitter.com/JasonAnderman, thank you.