An Overlooked Legal Ruling Could Bring the A’s Back to Oakland

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TouchbackThe
Follow on X: https://twitter.com/TouchbackThe

John Zasloff on the A’s and Eminent Domain: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4049840-the-cure-for-sports-blackmail-have-your-city-take-over-the-team/

Believe it or not, Oakland isn’t out of the fight when it comes to the A’s or Major League Baseball. A card remains to be played, and it is actually quite interesting. Eminent domain. In California, the government has the right to assume control of private property for public use, as long as the owner is provided fair compensation.

There is even some rather notable historical precedent here.
In the 1980s, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s eminent domain statute authorized the taking of intangible property, such as a professional sports franchise, as well as physical property.

We know this because the lawsuit in question involved a pro sports team and an East Bay municipality…I’m referring to City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders. Now, you’re probably saying to yourself, ” But the NFL didn’t return to Oakland in the 1980s, so that means there is no legal precedent. Both things can be true.

After the California Supreme Court ruling, the case was referred back to a lower court, which then found that using eminent domain to take possession of a National Football League franchise would violate the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

That is important in relation to the Oakland Athletics. You see, Major League Baseball has an anti-trust exemption, an anti-trust exemption that exists solely on the fact that it does not practice interstate commerce.

The ruling, which prevented the city of Oakland from winning its eminent domain lawsuit against the Raiders in the 1980s, is not applicable in the case of the A’s. MLB isn’t involved in interstate commerce. They are, in theory, subject to seizure through eminent domain.

About The Touchback
#takeitouttothe25

The Touchback is the world’s best sports and culture website…or something like that. You’ll either really like it or really hate it. But it’s worth reading either way.

40 comments

  1. If I am not mistaken, the whole point of Kelo (which may eventually be overruled) was that for the government entity to take the property (subject to fair payment) from one private entity and give it to another private entity, the recipient entity's use of the property must be a net positive tax-wise, i.e. it produces more in tax than the previous use did. Since many of these redevelopment deals give the developers a sweetheart deal on the real estate taxes, other taxes like sales tax, and in some States the income tax on the pay of newly-employed workers must offset what the recipient entity is not paying in real estate tax. It's THESE considerations you're going to need to deal with, with such a cockamamie idea as eminent domain on the A's.

  2. The optics with government taking property never looks good, I can see this not going through simply because Gavin wants to be president 😂

  6. If this happens, combined with the Sacramento/ Vegas A's trademark dispute (basically the federal government has denied both trademarks), we might get a Cleveland Browns situation where the Oakland A's come back as an effective expansion team but Fisher gets to keep pretending he can make Vegas happen.

  9. I’m fine with the actual franchise moving to Las Vegas, like the front office, players, coaches, scouts etc. just as long as the branding and the franchise history is in Oakland.

  10. Look dude, I know you know you are already engaging in some wishful thinking, but you are interpreting everything in the most generous way possible and most importantly… are completely skewing things in two ways

    1. MLB is absolutely interstate commerce in reality – Yes they have an anti trust exception, but MLB teams travel across state lines, has national and international TV contracts, and the revenue itself moves between states. No court is going to operate on the logic that they aren't interstate commerce because some technical fine print

    2. your definition and usage of "Public Use" at 4:03 is straight up wrong. MLB teams are marketed and positioned as being pillars of the city they play in, but at the end of the day MLB and its teams are private for-profit businesses. "Public Use" refers to things like parks, roads, and plazas.

    3. There's never been a widely reported case of eminent domain of an entire business before. Land yes, businesses themselves… no. Eminent domain is already controversial as is because of how much power upside it gives the government. But there is some reasonable explanation for it existing in the case of land because land cannot be moved. If the road needs to be there, usually there isn't any other spot to put it, a business itself can always move somewhere else… That's just another reason why it's unlikely to be a reality.

    The cold hard truth has been there for a while and I know you being a homer don't want to admit, but it's the truth. The City of Oakland has far bigger, more relevant, and more pressing issues than losing the A's. To do what you're proposing they do is such a longshot at this point and potentially impossible if some rulings are interpreted the way they did in the past, it's realistically just a further waste of time, effort, and taxpayer money. Public Safety, homelessness, public transit, and education need this time effort and money, not The A's. It sucks that the A's are gone, but it's not practical to spend resources jumping through hoops to dream about getting them back

  18. Nothing would then stop MLB from contracting the Athletics in retaliation. Contract the team and then add an expansion team to Las Vegas. They can then award that new franchise to John Fisher.

  22. Oh, puh-LEEZE! Newsom is going to run for President, just a teeeeeeeeny bit more important than a sports team. He may have even heard this already and laughed it off.

  26. What a reach. Not going to happen. The team is headed to Vegas and there's NOTHING that can be done. The Oakland City Council is to blame and there's nothing anyone can say to change my mind. This is a pure garbage take and reach. It's not going to happen. No team wants to play at the Coliseum and the city council won't renovate it. Oakland city politics is what drove away a hockey team, a football team twice, a basketball team AND a major league baseball team. Blame the City Council for their mistakes and wanton overreach.

  27. Gavin Newsome doesn’t give a shit about the A’s he cares only about his political career. As Mayor of San Francisco he let the 49ers leave San Francisco. He won’t do shit

  31. Suppose California acquires “possession” of the As. Would it not be subject to the same franchise rules of conduct and sanctions as any other MLB team?
    Is there a clause in the MLB rules about approval of some majority of owners before transfer of ownership? (Gets real interesting how the LA Dodgers, Padres & Angels (Angels still exist?) ownership vote.) If so could MLB simply disenfranchise the As? What’s CA going to do – sue for antitrust violations? There’s a legal concept against arguing that eminent domain of As doesn’t implicate interstate commerce clause due to the ruling that MLB isn’t interstate commerce and then saying MLB (exempt) is using a monopoly to exclude CA ownership.

    At the very least CA might gain ownership of the As trademarks but if MLB isn’t engaged in interstate commerce how does the As trademark gain federal protection?

    Who’s going to bid on the As under these conditions? A hope is the As can be acquired via eminent domain and then sold to a private entity. Wouldn’t it be ironic if to entice a private bid California had to give out tax breaks.

    California probably can’t afford to pay fair market value for the Dodgers (and the stadium which at one time I understand the Dodgers owned).

  34. Not going to Happen. IF the City of Oakland or the State of California even tries then ALL the Sports teams would leave the State of California. Do you REALLY wanna lose the Padres, Dodgers, Angels, Niners, Rams, Chargers, Lakers, Clippers, Kings (both of them), Warriors, Ducks and Sharks for a 30 win last place Baseball team? Just STFU and take the L on this one.

  35. I would love for the state of California to go after the MLB. It's egregious that the MLB let the circus got out of control. The A's name and history should stay in Oakland and if MLB wants a team in Vegas, they should have it own identity. Fisher dug the hole and put the team in it then the gall to blame failure on the city/fanbase when it starts with him.

Leave a Reply