The problems in MLB are never-ending. We have players getting suspended for doping and gambling, the MLBPA president getting fired, and it even came to Rob Manfred and the MLB. But it looks like the courts have decided to rule in favor of MLB instead of against.

The complaint by many scouts was that Rob Manfred and the MLB were discriminating based on age. But the case didn’t stand. As reported by Sportico, “A federal judge in New York on Thursday dismissed an age discrimination lawsuit.”

Benedict v Manfred was filed by 35 former scouts aged 54 to 86 against Major League Baseball. They claimed that teams shifted towards analytical hiring and pushed out older scouts across the board. The complaint pointed to 2020, when 51 out of the 83 scouts over the age of 40 lost their jobs.

They tied this shift to after Rob Manfred started his leadership in 2015 and reduced the reliance on scouting. They argued that during COVID, due to financial constraints, some were fired. But they never got rehired by teams after the revenues were back to normal.

But this argument did not stand, as Judge Margaret Garnett dismissed the case because the court had control over the Yankees and the Mets only. The scouts claimed that all the teams acted together, but the court found no substantial proof of this.

MLB did not pay scouts or control their daily work, which weakened the joint employment claim. Even standard contracts and arbitration rules did not prove that the league handled hiring decisions.

This argument also did not hold because there was no proof tying this to the New York teams. One Yankees official cited budget limits in August 2020, but that was seen as financial. The judge stated that even big teams like the Yankees are making budget moves when it is necessary, and it’s not new.

The argument actually fell apart when the scouts failed to prove that all this was related to age. There was no proof shown that younger hires replaced them, which is a crucial point to prove under the age discrimination law.

But the counterpoint that the scouts kept in front was that analytical hiring favoured the younger workers. They also claimed that MLB had a blacklist of whom the teams should not hire, but gave no proof to back the claim. The case can still be refiled, but after five attempts, stronger proof is now required.

The takeaway is clear: you can’t cite changes teams are making as foul play and not provide proof for them.

MLB faces another court decision

MLB and Rob Manfred are facing many off-field challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the latest challenge to baseball’s antitrust exemption on 2nd March.

We all know that this century‑old rule has protected Major League Baseball from federal antitrust claims since 1922. But the Court’s silence leaves the exemption fully intact, and nothing changes for leagues or owners today.

Baseball’s antitrust exemption started with the 1922 Federal Baseball Club case, when the Court said games were not interstate commerce. We all know that this makes professional baseball unique among U.S. sports, giving it protections no other league enjoys.

But critics argue the rule is outdated and doesn’t reflect the modern business of the game anymore.4

Thomas Axon filed the Puerto Rico lawsuit after his Cangrejeros de Santurce franchise was blocked from revival and investor rights were seized. We all know that lower courts, including the 1st Circuit, dismissed the antitrust claims while letting other parts of the suit move forward.

But the case will continue under civil rights and local law, keeping the fight alive even without federal antitrust relief.