Black Sox Scandal

U. S. Supreme Court reversed that very decision . . . one of the many, many times the old lush was told, "Uh, uh, pally . . . wrong, again."

 

Back to the question, would players be vulnerable to this today? Oh yes, they would. The make-too-much-money-argument doesn't wash. Not with the myriad examples of athletes stuck way in the hole -- in part because of gambling debts -- despite earning tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Not saying it's probable, but it's not impossible.

 

College athletes are definitely vulnerable. They don't get any money at all.

One reason, that I think, the Black Sox players were so vulnerable was that they had just won the Series two years earlier. I would think most athletes would rather win a championship than get some extra money. But once they've won one, the novelty has worn off, and they already can say that they've won one.

 

But what is the most a gambler could possibly promise an athlete?

In the 1919 example, the players were promised 2-3 times their salary.

For a top-level baseball player to see the same risk-reward, a gambler would have to offer tens of millions. Ain't happening. And it has to be a top-level player for it to have any chance of succeeding.

 

That's what I was thinking, too. The guys involved in the fix were among the best players in the league at the time. In order to do that today, you'd have to get All-Star starter type players to be equal to that. Those guys make so much, the risk-reward isn't even close.

 

Being a relative of Eddie Cicotte, I have been engrossed in this since the day I was found out from my family. Actually, it got me interested in working in the sports media as a kid.
EMO is a great book, same with the new book out, "Original Curse"...and it's a shame that I haven't seen a damn dime of that money that Eddie got for throwing Game 1! LOL