Recent baseball lawsuits span every level of the sport: a $185 million class action settlement for minor league players who were paid less than minimum wage, a three-way courtroom brawl over Shohei Ohtani’s 50th home run ball, a Supreme Court decision that left baseball’s century-old antitrust exemption intact, and a premises liability suit filed by the mother of a 12-year-old struck in the head at an Alabama batting cage. Each shows a different way the law reaches into the game.
The $185 Million Minor League Wage Settlement
In February 2014, former minor leaguer Aaron Senne and other plaintiffs sued Major League Baseball and 22 clubs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that MLB violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws in California, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Oregon by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime. Many minor leaguers earned less than $10,000 a year and worked weeks that ran 50 to 60 hours through spring training, extended spring training, and instructional leagues.
The case is Senne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., No. 3:14-cv-00608. It took eight years to resolve. The parties announced a $185 million settlement in July 2022, and Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted final approval on March 29, 2023, calling the deal “fair, reasonable and adequate” in a 36-page order that overruled objections from a group known as the Marti plaintiffs.
About $121 million of the fund went to class members and $55.5 million to attorneys’ fees. JND Legal Administration distributed payments to roughly 24,000 eligible players, averaging $5,000 to $5,500 each. No claim form was needed; players who had not opted out were paid automatically. Eligibility turned on where and when a player worked. Anyone who played in a California league for at least seven consecutive days between February 7, 2010, and August 26, 2022, qualified, along with players in Florida spring training or extended programs going back to February 7, 2009, and Arizona programs going back to February 7, 2011.
The Save America’s Pastime Act
While the case was pending, MLB lobbied for a legislative fix. In March 2018, a half-page provision called the Save America’s Pastime Act was inserted into a 2,232-page federal omnibus spending bill. It created a statutory exemption from FLSA minimum-wage and overtime protections for most professional baseball players, so long as their contracts guaranteed a weekly salary during the championship season equal to at least 40 hours at minimum wage, regardless of actual hours worked. Spring training and the off-season were not covered. Because the act was not retroactive, the Senne class action survived, but the law sharply narrowed the odds of future minimum-wage suits reaching a similar result.
Minor league players have since unionized under the Major League Baseball Players Association, which now negotiates a Minor League Collective Bargaining Agreement covering compensation, housing, travel, and workplace protections.
The Ohtani 50/50 Home Run Ball Lawsuits
When Shohei Ohtani hit his 50th home run of the 2024 season on September 19 at LoanDepot Park in Miami, the ball became an instant collector’s item and the subject of three competing claims. The lawsuits are still unresolved and headed for trial in July 2026.
Who Is Claiming the Ball
Christian Zacek left the stadium with the ball and consigned it to Goldin Auctions. Max Matus, 18, filed suit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court alleging that Zacek trapped his arm between his legs and wrenched the ball from his hand. Joseph Davidov, 32, filed a separate suit claiming he was the first to grab the ball on the ground with his left hand before an unknown fan attacked him and knocked it loose, letting it roll to Zacek (identified in Davidov’s filings as Chris Belanski). Davidov’s attorney compared the case to Popov v. Hayashi, the 2002 California ruling on Barry Bonds’ 73rd home run ball.
Where the Money Is
All three claimants agreed to let Goldin proceed with the sale. Taiwan-based investment firm UC Capital bought the ball for $4.39 million. Goldin took a $792,000 commission. The remaining $3.6 million sits under the court’s jurisdiction until ownership is decided.
What Happens Next
A mediation session ended without agreement, according to a report filed December 17, 2025. In March 2026, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Spencer Eig denied a motion by Matus to strike photo evidence submitted by Zacek in support of summary judgment. Matus had argued the photos were fraudulently edited; Judge Eig found that “improving a photo for color or clarity is not fraud.” A jury trial is scheduled to begin July 20, 2026.
Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption Survives Another Challenge
Professional baseball has operated under a unique antitrust exemption since the Supreme Court’s 1922 decision in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League. Congress narrowed the exemption in the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which lets major league players bring antitrust claims tied to their employment. The Act left the exemption in place for minor league employment, the amateur draft, the reserve clause as applied to minor leaguers, franchise relocation, ownership transfers, broadcasting rights, and intellectual property licensing. It directed courts not to read the list of excluded areas “strictly or narrowly.”
The Puerto Rico League Case
A former owner-operator of the Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club sued Puerto Rico’s professional baseball league, alleging that the league and other owners conspired to exclude him in violation of antitrust laws. A federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals both held that baseball’s antitrust exemption applies broadly to the “business of baseball,” including professional leagues beyond MLB itself. In a July 21, 2025 opinion for a unanimous panel, Chief Judge Barron reasoned that Supreme Court precedent defines the exemption by activity rather than by specific organizations, and that franchise ownership decisions are “central” to the business of providing public baseball games.
On March 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case (Docket No. 25-416), leaving the First Circuit’s ruling intact without explanation. The century-old exemption continues to shield not just MLB but other professional baseball operations from federal antitrust scrutiny.
The Albertville Batting Cage Injury Case
On March 21, 2026, a 12-year-old youth baseball player from Hazel Green, Alabama, identified in court filings as G.W., was warming up during a tournament at Sand Mountain Park and Amphitheater in Albertville. A baseball flew through a hole in the protective netting of a batting cage and struck him on the right side of the head. He lost consciousness and was rushed to a pediatric intensive care unit. Doctors diagnosed a temporal bone skull fracture, intracranial bleeding, and a right-sided temporoparietal hematoma. He spent two days in intensive care. Since then he has experienced headaches, anxiety, emotional distress, and restrictions on physical activity and screen time.
His mother, Ashleigh Worthington, filed a 20-page complaint on May 27, 2026 in Marshall County Circuit Court, naming seven defendants: the City of Albertville, which owns the park; Sports Facilities Management, LLC and Sports Facilities Companies, LLC, which were involved in managing the facility; Net Connection, LLC and Grand Slam Safety, LLC, which allegedly supplied the netting and safety equipment; and RA-LIN & Associates, Inc. and Chambless King Architects, LLC, which were involved in the park’s design.
The complaint alleges the batting cages had been shortened from a standard 70 feet to roughly 35 feet, cutting reaction time and putting bystanders in the path of batted balls. It further claims defendants knew the netting had holes large enough for a baseball to pass through, that a similar incident had occurred previously at the facility, and that workers patched the net with zip ties on the same day the child was hurt. The family is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has requested a jury trial. Albertville’s city attorney declined to comment, and counsel for Sports Facilities Management did not respond to media requests.
Two Shorter 2026 Disputes
Grapevine High School Eligibility
Grapevine High School in Texas saw its 28-3 baseball season erased in April 2026 after Grapevine-Colleyville ISD determined that a player was ineligible under Section 442 of the UIL Constitution, which governs student-athlete residency. The district self-reported the violation after a UIL complaint revealed the player’s family had not transferred the deed to a previous home, still held a homestead exemption on that property, and had not updated a driver’s license to the new address. All games in which the player participated were forfeited, and the team was removed from the postseason. Lale Esquivel, a parent of a senior on the team, filed for a temporary injunction in Tarrant County, reportedly spending around $40,000 in personal savings on legal fees to challenge the UIL ruling.
Humphreys v. NCAA
In January 2026, Pepperdine University pitcher Ryan Humphreys sued the NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that eligibility rules barring him from competing after transferring from a non-NCAA school violated antitrust law. Judge Wesley L. Hsu denied Humphreys’ request for an injunction that would have let him play while the case proceeded. Humphreys dropped the lawsuit on February 18, 2026.