[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Porter

This is an interesting question - not because of the real issue at play (the legal rights of ownership) but instead because it is an example of developing facts exposing an area that has been murky for years.

Ownership of a baseball hit or thrown into the stands clearly belongs to the fan who catches it (and I will ignore, for this purpose, the niceties of how much pushing, shoving and mutilation is permitted among fans to achieve this objective).

Baseballs used in play have always been the property of the home team. I cannot recall the exact details, but I do remember many years ago a player from the visiting team getting into trouble with the home team for throwing a ball into the stands - that's right, it used to be VERY clear that balls were property of the team and players were not allowed to toss them into the stands. BUT, times change, and now the practice of throwing balls into the stands is commonplace.

That said, it was never specifically thought that players had a possessory right to balls or other team-supplied paraphernalia. Normally, the rule is that employees do not have the right to take employer-supplied equipment or inventory, even if that equipment/inventory is damaged, obsolete, etc. Thus, we have all accepted that an office paper clip thief is, indeed, a paper clip thief if he takes a box of clips home (even if damaged, partly-used, or every-one-else-does-it). Only if the employer expressly permits such practice (either by general policy or specific act), is it appropriate for the employee to do so. And assets which are acquired by an employee in the course of his/her employment belong to the employer absent specific agreements or policies to the contrary.

And that is the problem. It has clearly become the practice for umpires, players, coaches and other "employees" to take used balls, bases, uniforms, etc. as momentos - with the team's knowledge and seeming assent - very much akin to an employer allowing employees to take home obsolete equipment or inventory. The practice has become so widespread that, I suspect, none of us can remember a single instance where an auctioned item has been withdrawn based upon a team's claim of theft.

Therefore, the questions are threefold:

(i) If the ball is not the property of the player, does it belong to the team for which he was acting as employee or the team that originally owned the ball? Hard to say - practice will probably outweigh the clear progression of title.

(ii) Is the practice of allowing a player to keep momentos so definitive that a team has no rights, or is the practice merely one conditional upon the consent (implied or otherwise) of the team (in which case is there a deadline by when the team must assert its position)? I suspect that the answer to this one is very unclear.

(iii) Finally, if the players are allowed to keep the ball by virtue of established practice, is there an established rule of practice that defines ownership (i.e., team consensus, etc.) or a strict "finders keepers" rule?

The reason why these questions are so hard to answer is that, until now, there is no precedent I am aware of where it has been disputed. And because, until now, team comraderie probably was more important to the affected players than the value or the ball. But with the short-term tenure of players and teams these days, this dispute was inevitable.

As far as the tax issue is concerned - the good/bad news is that, of course, the ball is taxable income to the owner (today at fair value and tomorrow at resale value), unless the original owner (Cardinals) still owns it (in which case no taxable event until resale).

Ain't baseball fun!!!!!