What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Sports Legal Question

J

jericho

mascot extraordinaire
I was reading this story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/09/florida.baseball.lawsuit/index.html and began wondering, there are many stories like this. In this case, because there may be money involved if the girl decides to sell the ball, who gets possession? Should it be the girl, Ryan Howard, or even the league? (In extreme cases, like McGwire and Bonds' record breaking ball the league has a legit claim as well.)


My opinion is to let the girl keep it, as any fan would love a souvenir like this. The mom though, even after reading her quote, was definitely seeing dollar signs in front of her eyes.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

jericho said:
I was reading this story: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/09/florida.baseball.lawsuit/index.html and began wondering, there are many stories like this. In this case, because there may be money involved if the girl decides to sell the ball, who gets possession? Should it be the girl, Ryan Howard, or even the league? (In extreme cases, like McGwire and Bonds' record breaking ball the league has a legit claim as well.)


My opinion is to let the girl keep it, as any fan would love a souvenir like this. The mom though, even after reading her quote, was definitely seeing dollar signs in front of her eyes.
Click to expand...

The Phillies tried to pull a fast one. They knew the ball was worth something and tried to rip off a kid. The girl wasn't 18, her brother wasn't 18, no one was at the age of majority to make it a legitimate contract.

Bad PR move on the Phillies part. And here's the thing, even if the ball was worth something what's preventing Howard and/or the Phillies from giving her the true value of the ball. Trying to give her an autographed baseball, and not even really telling her what was happening? So so wrong.

The ball belongs to the girl. She caught it and established firm possession of the ball. Then the Phillies tried to steal it. Wait they didn't try, they succeeded. Then they enlisted their lawyer to try and stonewall them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sports Legal Question

In this, or any similar cases, my opinion is it belongs to the lucky fan.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

(this post does not represent legal advice. If seeking actual legal advice, contact an attorney in your area. blah blah blah; I am not a lawyer (yet))

Generally speaking, it belongs to the fan. Ownership belongs to the person who catches said ball in the stands.

The League (or the team) never has a claim to it, even in the McGwire/Bonds scenarios. Once a ball enters the stands, by tradition it's treated as if it were abandoned property and whoever "finds it" (catches it) becomes the new owner. While not a raffle or lottery, part of the enjoyment of attending a baseball game is the chance to catch a ball.

But, for tax purposes, the value of the ball is not realized until/unless it is sold. Thus, fans who give the ball back, (or throw it back onto the field in some instances) should not be taxed either for making a gift or earning income. Likewise, a fan who keeps it for him or herself as a memento should not be taxed as the value cannot be ascertained. But if they get anything of value in exchange for giving the ball back, such as free merchandise, tickets, etc., those would count as taxable income.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sports Legal Question

Even if the home team later claims that they own the ball after it is hit into the stands, the fact that the Phillies offered the girl something of value in exchange for the ball shows that they had conceded that the girl was the proper owner of the baseball, I would think.

Now it's just a question of the team entering into a negotiation with a 12-year-old without her parents being present, which is why her parents filed suit. Obviously the Phillies realized that there was little chance of winning the case.

An interesting article on the topic, with a slightly different perspective:
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblo...”-issue-just-will-not-go-away/comment-page-1/
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

The Phillies tried everything they could to keep the ball. They waited three months and stonewalled this girl at every turn. Until the attorney actually filed charges they refused to give the ball up.

Not only that, then they wrote on the ball and we all have to wonder if we can trust that the Phillies gave the actual ball back.

Howard and his agent come off badly as well because really, they stole the ball to give it to him from the girl and it all started when Howard was supposed to come out to the girl after the game and never did thinking he was above the fan to come out and meet her.

She thought she was getting the actual ball back at first and that he was going to sign it.

And if this happened to the Mets, Yankees, or Red Sox ESPN would have destroyed them for this.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

Terrierbyassociation said:
Howard and his agent come off badly as well because really, they stole the ball to give it to him from the girl and it all started when Howard was supposed to come out to the girl after the game and never did thinking he was above the fan to come out and meet her.
Click to expand...

Where'd you read that? You can just as easily argue that no one told Howard how the ball was retrieved, and he had no clue the girl was waiting to see him. My guess is that the team did its best to shield him from having any contact with her, especially once they realized they were in deep ****.

My understanding is also that she did (eventually) get the ball back, and had her attorney's fees paid.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

At every home game for the Phillies (and I expect many other MLB teams), they announce that any home run ball can be given to the team and they will return an autographed ball (I forget if they state whether or not it will be the same ball).

So, the Phillies may have just been following their team (league?) policy. But, the fact that an adult was not present at the time of the exchange is a pretty d***ing offense for the Phillies / Marlins. I seriously doubt that the girl would've given up the ball if she knew that Howard wasn't going to give it back.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

burgie12 said:
At every home game for the Phillies (and I expect many other MLB teams), they announce that any home run ball can be given to the team and they will return an autographed ball (I forget if they state whether or not it will be the same ball).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they won't say it must be given to the team. I think it always can be. Frankly though, I'm keeping it absent extremely extenuating circumstances.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

unofan said:
Where'd you read that? You can just as easily argue that no one told Howard how the ball was retrieved, and he had no clue the girl was waiting to see him. My guess is that the team did its best to shield him from having any contact with her, especially once they realized they were in deep ****.

My understanding is also that she did (eventually) get the ball back, and had her attorney's fees paid.
Click to expand...

I doubt the team realized they were in deep **** until later.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

brianvf said:
Why can't today's athletes be more like Maris?
Click to expand...
It was just a different time and mindset back then. At that time athletes embraced being a role model and knew better than to pee in an elevator or to throw lawnmowers into city streets.:p ;)
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

bigblue_dl said:
It was just a different time and mindset back then. At that time athletes embraced being a role model and knew better than to pee in an elevator or to throw lawnmowers into city streets.:p ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, today's athletes would take the tainted elevator and broken lawnmower back from the fans instead of letting them keep (or sell) them.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

Alton said:
Even if the home team later claims that they own the ball after it is hit into the stands, the fact that the Phillies offered the girl something of value in exchange for the ball shows that they had conceded that the girl was the proper owner of the baseball, I would think.

Now it's just a question of the team entering into a negotiation with a 12-year-old without her parents being present, which is why her parents filed suit.
Click to expand...
This logic makes sense to me.
 
Re: Sports Legal Question

I always dreamed of catching one of these balls and then holding it for a kings ransom of memorabilia. Every once in awhile I'd sketch the list in my mind. I doubt I'll get the chance but if I do I'm going to revel in that moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top