Saturday, January 08, 2005
The Cardinals own the last ball from the World Series
Needless to say, sports and law bloggers are debating whether the Red Sox own the ball, or Mientkiewicz does. The other question, of course, is where the ball should rest, however the legal question might resolve itself. Sox supporters say that the value of the ball lies in the efforts of the entire team, so the team should own it. Mientkiewicz says that other players are allowed to keep special baseballs, and that he is in any case more than willing to lend it to the Red Sox for ceremonial or display purposes.
I have no dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that as between the Red Sox and Mientkiewicz, the Red Sox have to own the ball. Mientkiewicz is an employee, and the baseball is but a tool of his trade supplied by his employer. How is it different from a fork lift or a laptop computer? Surely not because a baseball is inherently inexpensive. One baseball does not substitute for another, as is obvious if you think about the same facts in another context. If I work for a coin dealer and take a nickel out of the cash register to round out my $0.65 for a can of soda, does the employer care if I replace it with another nickel before the end of the day? No. If I remove a 1913 Liberty Head nickel from the vault, is that a difference? Of course.
In the absence of a contract or written policy that says otherwise, as between the Red Sox and Mientkiewicz, the Red Sox own that ball. How could it be otherwise?
There is a more interesting question is whether the Cardinals own the ball. They were the other team on the field, and since the game was won in St. Louis it is a fair bet that the Cardinals actually paid for the ball.
Of course, it is a little hard to imagine the Cardinals wanting to insert themselves into Boston's ugly civil war.
UPDATE: As Rob A. very politely pointed out in a comment, one of Eugene Volokh's readers made this point first. Indeed, Volokh's post has much more on the subject.
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jan 08, 09:18:00 AM:
Volokh used the analogy of a company car.
And how annoying was it to type "Mientkiewicz" half a dozen times for this post?
Rob A.
(F?WF?)
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Sat Jan 08, 01:01:00 PM:
Well, a baseball is not a forklift or a company car. It is a baseball. When they leave the park, they become property of whoever can grab them, whether they are foul balls or Barry Bonds 74th home run. In special cases, usually milestones having to do with an individual player, baseball teams have sent staff into the stands to bribe the fan to return the significant home run ball, usually with autographed balls and tickets.
Now its true that this particular baseball did not leave the park, but it did end up in someone's glove, and in baseball, that means it is his. If they want it back so badly, the Sox should offer Mientkiewicz an appropriate bribe, just as they would a fan.
By , at
Mon Jan 10, 08:40:00 AM:
That ball belongs to the guy who got it, whether it is a fan or somebody else. Chances are MLB paid for it. The umps show up with balls to play with. The league , the teams, even individual players long ago gave up the right to claim they continue to possess the ball after the game. Too many fans walk away with balls that nobody has tried to get...isn't there some sort of concept of estoppel applicable here?
The player would be a boob to give up the ball for no compensation. He is right -- if they want to display it, he can certainly loan it to them.
Had a fan walked off the field with that ball, no chance anybody would have claimed it belonged to the league or team.
So congratulations Mr. M., its yours. Tell'em to sue you.
