Major League Baseball Players Association v. Garvey

After arbitrators found MLB clubs had colluded to suppress free-agent contract prices, the players' association (defendant) and the clubs created a fund for affected players, limited to players whose clubs offered a contract extension before the collusion but withdrew it once the scheme began, with the association tasked with evaluating claims. Retired player Steve Garvey (plaintiff) claimed his Padres contract wasn't extended due to collusion, but the association rejected his claim for lack of evidence any extension offer existed, and a subsequent arbitrator denied his claim too, questioning the credibility of Garvey's evidence and finding substantial doubt about whether an extension offer was ever made. Garvey moved to vacate the arbitrator's award in federal court; the trial court denied the motion, but the appeals court reversed and remanded with instructions to award Garvey the full claimed amount, and the case reached the Supreme Court.