A century of commissioners who answer to no one, and the League that never wrote it down
Landis got a court-waiver clause. Goodell got Article 46. The Commissioner has cited an Article I that nobody has produced, and the appellant has cured the defect by creating a court.
The dispute in Goldich v. Dylus begins with a constitutional provision that has not been produced. Article I of the League Constitution is said to read “The Commissioner decides.” The cited authority is The Commissioner Says So, 1 F.F. 1 (perpetual), a decision in the Commissioner’s own reporter. Goldich has challenged it as tyrannical. Amicus Samir Patel described a system in which one person holds the admin key.
Commissioners in professional sports have claimed broad powers for more than a century. The reported decisions generally begin with the agreement that created the office, then ask whether the disputed action fits within the authority the parties gave it.
Landis and the first agreement
Baseball hired federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis in 1920, after the 1919 World Series. According to the Seventh Circuit’s later account, owners first attempted to place limits on the proposed commissioner’s authority; Landis refused to take the position under those terms. The owners removed the proposed limitation, signed the Major League Agreement in January 1921, and authorized the commissioner to investigate conduct deemed contrary to baseball’s best interests and determine the appropriate response. The agreement also included a waiver of recourse to the courts. After a jury acquitted the eight players charged in connection with the Series, Landis banned all eight from professional baseball for life.
The arrangement supplied both an office and a jurisdictional argument. When a club later objected to a commissioner’s ruling, the club first had to confront the language its owners had adopted to keep such disputes out of court.
The Commissioner’s order states, “This Court’s jurisdiction over the Draft, the League, and the contentment of the Commissioner is plenary and unreviewable. See generally The Commissioner Says So, 1 F.F. 1 (perpetual).”
Goldich’s notice of appeal states, “the Commissioner’s assertion that his jurisdiction is ‘plenary and unreviewable’ rests on the apparent premise that no appellate court exists. Appellant has cured that defect by creating one.”
Kuhn and the Oakland sales
That issue reached the Seventh Circuit after Oakland owner Charles Finley agreed in 1976 to sell the contracts of Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers to Boston and Vida Blue to New York. Commissioner Bowie Kuhn voided the sales. He found that they threatened Oakland’s ability to compete, could allow wealthier clubs to buy success, and came during uncertainty over baseball’s reserve system. Oakland argued that Kuhn had exceeded his authority because the transactions violated no Major League Rule and involved no moral turpitude. It also raised procedural, constitutional, and antitrust objections.
The court affirmed in Finley v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1978). Its opinion relied on the text and history of the Major League Agreement, including the owners’ 1964 decision to restore the court-waiver provision and remove language that had constrained the commissioner’s power. The best-interests clause, the court held, permitted Kuhn to disapprove player assignments even when the transactions complied with the rules. The court also upheld the waiver of judicial recourse. Quoting the district court, it concluded that “whether he was right or wrong is beyond the competence and the jurisdiction of this court to decide.”
Finley had attacked the source and reach of Kuhn’s authority. The Seventh Circuit answered from the signed agreement and more than 50 years of practice under it.
Patel wrote, “In Amicus’s field, a source that reports a value without owing anyone an explanation is called an oracle. The oracle was queried. The oracle returned a value. Appellant dislikes the value. Nobody sues Chainlink because ETH went down.”
Article 46 and Brady
The Second Circuit took a similarly contract-centered approach in National Football League Management Council v. NFLPA, 820 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2016). Commissioner Roger Goodell had imposed a four-game suspension on Tom Brady and then presided over Brady’s appeal under Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement. A federal district court vacated the arbitration award on grounds that included inadequate notice and fundamental unfairness. By a 2-1 vote, the court of appeals reversed and reinstated the suspension in 2016.
The majority described judicial review of labor arbitration as narrow. Article 46 authorized the commissioner to impose discipline for conduct detrimental to professional football and permitted him to serve as the arbitrator, so the majority asked whether his award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. It held that it did. “Had the parties wished to restrict the Commissioner’s authority,” the opinion said, “they could have fashioned a different agreement.” Chief Judge Robert Katzmann dissented, arguing that Goodell had changed the factual basis for the discipline after the hearing and thereby denied Brady the notice and opportunity to respond that Article 46 required.
Goldich’s notice of appeal states, “Appellate jurisdiction is therefore established under the ancient and controlling principle of ‘too late.’”
The missing League constitution
The record in Goldich presents a different threshold question because the document said to confer the Commissioner’s power remains absent. Goldich’s filings ask a reviewing court to assess the Commissioner’s reasoning. Patel answers that the League selected an administrator whose decisions are valid outputs of the system. Neither side has supplied a signed constitution comparable to the Major League Agreement in Finley or the collective bargaining agreement in Brady.
The proceedings have developed through instruments created by the participants themselves. The Commissioner denied Goldich’s scheduling motion under The Commissioner Says So and gave his reason as “I don’t want to.” Goldich filed an appeal in a court he established that afternoon. After this Court granted certiorari, the Commissioner moved the draft to 10:00 p.m. by what he called “authoritarian decree,” cited his daughter’s bedtime, and stated, “I grant nothing.” The Court’s mootness order treated that disclaimer as evidence that the requested accommodation could still be withdrawn.
The League has since begun discussing the text that the litigation could not locate. Jacob Robinson proposed a constitution in the group chat. The Commissioner replied, “Constitutional Dictatorship.” No constitution had been entered on the docket as of Wednesday night.