Read the article MILB PLAYERS ARGUE CURT FLOOD ACT, ANTITRUST LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL and answer the following questionms. Historically, the MLB antitrust exemption has made it almost impossible for MiLB players to unionize and advocate for better working conditions.

Article: MILB PLAYERS ARGUE CURT FLOOD ACT, ANTITRUST LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/milb-players-curt-flood-act-antitrust-laws-unconstitutional-1234734824/

• Do you believe that applying the Curt Flood Act of 1988 and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to Minor League Baseball is unconstitutional in terms of violating equal protection? Explain
• Do you think baseball's exemption should apply to minor league baseball as well and the minor league players have a case for it being unconstitutional under the basis of violating equal protection under the Curt Flood Act of 1988 and Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act? Explain
• Do you think a key point in this case would be that the MLB is not considered interstate commerce? Explain
• Do you believe that Major League Baseball's antitrust exemption should also be applied to Minor League Baseball because Minor League Baseball players have violated their Constitution right of equal protection? Explain
• Do you think that the Minor League players have a case for this to be unconstitutional since the Minor League players should be able to unionize and advocate for better working conditions for themselves? Explain
• Do you think it would make more sense to have similar laws regarding antitrust for both the major and minor leagues? Explain
• Do you believe that the MLB exemption should apply to Minor League Baseball as well whether or not this action towards MiLB players is for a "legitimate government practice"? Explain
• Would you agree or not agree the exemption should apply to Minor League Baseball because the courts are trying to slowly eliminate the antitrust exemption in Major League Baseball. Explain
• Do think that there is a case for the exemption being unconstitutional, however, the article does mention that there are a few hurdles that the players must deal with? Explain
• Do you think reevaluating the application of the antitrust exemption to MiLB could promote a more equitable and just system for these athletes? Explain
• Do you think that baseball's exemption should apply to the MiLB as well mainly because so many MiLB players transition into the MLB and they are at a high level and are working professionals; this is their job?
• Do you think it is understandable that they want to unionize and advocate for better working conditions; after all, this is their occupation, and they bring in crowds and money to their respective organizations?
• Do you think the players have a case for it being unconstitutional if the MLB players are being treated differently and have different rules?
• Would you agree or not agree the baseball exemption should apply to the minor league to advocate for better working condition, for statically minor league baseball players are paid very little and it's not enough for them to make a living and support their families? Explain
• Would you agree or not agree minor league players have a case for it being unconstitutional because there is not real static argument that they can provide for better working conditions? Explain

MILE PLAYERS ARGUE CU RT FLOOD AC1]. ANTITRUST LAWS ARE U NCONSTITUTIGNAL A new court filing tells a federal appeals court the Curt Flood Act of 1998, as well as Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as applied to minor league baseball(https://www.sportico.com/t/minor-league-baseball/), violate Constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Samuel Kornhauser and Brian David, attorneys for three former minor league players (Daniel Concepcion, Aldemar Burgos and Sidney Duprey-Conde), filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston last week seeking a reversal of a district court ruling. Earlier this summer, a federal magistrate judge in Puerto Rico recommended(https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/baseball-antitrust-exemption-case- scotus-2-1234724659/)the dismissal of Concepcion et al. v. MLB. The recommendation was adopted by a district court judge. The ex-players contend the MiLB uniform player contract unlawfully lets teams renew contracts on a year-to-year basis for up to six years. The players, who say they were paid less than $15,000 a season, surmise they would have earned more if teams could have competed in trying to sign them earlier in their careers. Teams instead allegedly engaged in wage fixing. The core hurdle for the players' lawsuit is that baseball is exempt from antitrust(https://www.sportico.com/t/antitrust/) laws with respect to minor league baseball. The Supreme Court created a far-reaching "business of baseball" exemption in 1922 through Federal Baseball Club v. National League. The Curt Flood Act eliminated MLB's antitrust exemption as it pertains to MLB players but affirmed it for MiLB players. The motion contends the players' argument is nonetheless different and unprecedented. The "unconstitutionality (on equal protection grounds) of the Sherman and Curt Flood Acts is a case of first impression which has never previously been decided by any court," the attorneys write.Under the Fifth Amendment, which the motion repeatedly invokes, a federal law can't(https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/136-Harv.-L.-Rev.-360.pdf) discriminate against individuals unless the law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose (the federal government must meet a higher bar when race, gender or religion are at issue). The attorneys maintain there is "no rational basis" for the federal government to "apply antitrust protections against wage fixing to MLB players, but no antitrust wage fixing to MiLB players." This arrangement, the attorneys argue, enables owners to "make bigger profits." To bolster this point, the motion cites cases standing for the proposition that providing economic protection for an industry is not a "legitimate governmental purpose." The attorneys also draw from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurring opinion in NCAA v. Alston to compare the treatment of minor league players with those of NCAA athletes. They highlight Kavanaugh criticizing the NCAA for its "decision to build a massive money raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated" as a reason to believe that wage fixing violates equal protection.The attorneys write that the players' failure to object should not count as a waiver, in part because it would have been "futile and an unnecessary burden on the District Court." They add that even if the failure technically counts as a waiver, "it should be excused in the interests of justice so that this important legal issue of first impression as to theunconstitutionality of the Sherman Act and Curt Flood Act (which adversely affects tens of thousands of Minor League players) can be decided on the merits." Another hurdle: The motion asks the First Circuit to endorse a novel interpretation of law. The Sherman Act, which President Benjamin Harrison signed into law in 1890, has been applied in thousands of cases brought by the government and private parties. The idea that it violates the U.S. Constitution is a bold one, especially when the applicable standard of review-a rational basis-is a low bar to meet. MLB will have an opportunity to rebut the players' motion