The 50/50 Ball and its Potential 50/50 Split: A Modern Pierson v. Post, or a Reimagined Popov v. Hayashi?

By: Joe Putter*                                                                              Posted: 11/25/2024

It is rare in well-settled areas of law that a modern case comes along and provides an excellent refresher on that area of law.[1]  Thus, when a case comes along that may just prove to refine the boundaries of a known legal topic, legal scholars should take notice.[2]  The debate surrounding ownership of Shohei’s Ohtani’s 50/50 ball looks to be just that case, establishing a better example of the rule of capture.[3]

What Happens to a Home Run Baseball?

The MLB has an wildly popular unofficial rule that it considers any ball hit out of play abandoned: therefore, the first person that comes along can take ownership of that ball.[4]  While some teams may try to buy the ball back, they cannot legally force the person to give it up.[5]  As a result, many people take the ability to catch foul and home run baseballs very seriously, especially when they are valuable.[6]  In the rare instances where a baseball is of high value, fighting may emerge over its ownership.[7]

The Rule of Capture and Baseball

What happens when a person may drop or otherwise lose a ball, and another person ends up with it?[8]  As stated above, the MLB retains the right to buy the ball, but it usually opts not to, leaving the courts with an awkward situation where the person or entity with the best legal claim to the ball refuses to take it.[9]  In response, the courts recognize that this problem can be solved by the common law rule of capture.[10]

The rule of capture is simple: fugacious things, or things that exist with no owner, are the property of whoever possesses it first.[11]  This rule was created in the seminal case Pierson v. Post.[12]  In Post, foxhunter Lodowick Post had been hunting a fox all day, and had finally cornered it when his neighbor Jesse Pierson, who was aware the fox was being pursued by Post, killed it and took it for his own.[13]  Post sued, but ultimately, New York’s highest court recognized Pierson as the lawful owner because Pierson was the one who ultimately “captured” the fox.[14]  The rule of capture would soon be expanded to other natural things, such as oil and natural gas.[15]  Even later, this would be applied to baseball.[16]

The famous case regarding a baseball and the rule of capture, Popov v. Hayashi,[17] follows an endowed baseball, the last home run hit by Barry Bonds in the season where he broke the single season home run season record with seventy-three home runs.[18]  Ironically, the California Superior Court presiding over Hayashi found itself in the reverse of Post.[19]  Neither side disagreed on the principle of the rule of capture, rather they argued a different version of the facts. [20]  Popov claimed he had possession over the ball through his temporary control until the mob wrestled it from his hand, while Hayashi claimed that Popov never actually caught the ball, allowing him to pick it up and possess it.[21]  In the end, the judge could not establish who had possession over the ball because both Popov and Hayashi controlled the baseball within a very short time period.[22]  As a result, the judge made the equitable decision to split the ball 50/50; although the rule of capture could determine who owned the ball if possession was established, neither party could prove that here.[23]

The 50/50 Ball and its Controversy

On September 19, 2024, Shohei Ohtani of the Los Angeles Dodgers became the first MLB player in history to have fifty home runs and fifty stolen bases in a single season by crushing a curveball over the fence at LoanDepot Park in Miami, Florida.[24]  At the time of the home run, memorabilia experts correctly predicted such a ball would be worth millions.[25]  It should come as no surprise to discover there was a bitter fight over the ownership of this ball.[26]

Multiple claims regarding the facts surrounding the ownership of the September 19, 2024 home run ball have boiled down to two plausible stories: those of Max Matus and Christian Zacek.[27]  As reported, nobody managed to both catch and retain possession of the home run ball, causing a scramble when it fell to the floor: in the end, Zacek came up with the ball.[28]  A phone recording of the scramble, however, shows that Matus appeared to have a hand on the ball alongside Zacek, but Matus quickly released his hand after it was caught between Zacek’s legs.[29]  This brief period, according to Matus’ lawsuit, established his control, and therefore possession, over the ball.[30]  Thus, the parties went to court, bringing the rule of capture to the forefront again.[31]

Analysis of the Legal Case under Post and Hayashi Lenses

There are two valid arguments for each individual.[32]  Attorneys for Matus will surely compare this situation to Hayashi, where Popov would have gained possession of the ball if not for the mob he encountered, and argue Matus had possession if not for Zacek’s interference.[33]  Additionally, these attorneys could argue that the present case differs significantly from Post because Post, although being “unsporting” in his killing of Pierson’s prey, did not interfere with Pierson’s hunt of the fox, while Zacek interacted with Matus here.[34]

By contrast, attorneys for Zacek would allege this is identical to Post¸ where despite the “unsporting” tactics of Zacek, the ball was not in Matus’ possession or control: therefore, the ball would be Zacek’s for finishing the “hunt” Matus started.[35]  Similarly, the attorneys could argue that the camera never showed Matus definitely holding the ball, and argue that part of the reason the court evenly split the ball in Popov was because Popov had some control over the ball prior to any interference.[36]  As such, there are two valid claims, which combine to illustrate the difficulty that a simple rule, such as the rule of capture, might bring.[37]  That said, the court will likely side with Zacek and his attorneys because unlike Popov in Popov v. Hayashi, Matus never was an obvious owner of the ball before the struggle.[38]  Thus, an equitable split may be seen as unfairly harming Zacek, who fought just as hard to obtain the ball in the struggle.[39]

The Future Usage of Matus v. Goldin Auctions

Ironically, it is looking increasingly clear that the court will rule side with Hayashi and divide the 50/50 ball into 50/50 ownership, rather than Post.[40]  Both parties’ agreement to the auction of the ball, signaling their preference for the money rather than the ball itself, would make the court’s job easier, as two million dollars apiece is still a life-altering amount of money.[41]  Regardless of the outcome, this case will provide an excellent, relevant teaching device for professors seeking to demonstrate the rule of capture, and the difficulty in determining the timing aspects of possession of property.[42]  Due to the relevancy and high-quality footage of the event, this case will certainly eclipse Hayashi as the modern capture case, which professors could use to highlight the difficulty in ascertaining control in rule of capture cases.[43]  If not a seminal case in and of itself, the legal battle over the Shoehei Ohtani’s 50/50 ball will certainly provide an interesting supplement to Hayashi, and illustrate how parties have generally agreed to the equitable division doctrine applying to the rule of capture.[44]

* Staff Writer, Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, J.D. Candidate, May 2026, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

[1] See W. David Ball & Michelle Oberman, The Case Against Commercial Casebooks, 71 J. Legal Educ. 452, 455 (2022) (observing that new editions of textbooks often contain identical cases as previous editions, yet create different questions to force students to purchase newer edition).  

[2] See id. at 458 (noting that one benefit of open-source casebooks and electronic supplements is their ability to update important areas of law when better case comes along).  While perhaps not recommended for cases such as Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, which has become a cornerstone of many tort textbooks, cases from the modern era may better reflect reality and subsequently increase the understanding of students.  See id. at 462–63 (noting benefits of updatable casebooks includes increased supplemental material which may improve student’s retention of law).

[3] For further discussion of how this case epitomizes the rule of capture, see supra notes 33–44 and accompanying text.

[4] See generally Paul Finkelman, Fugitive Baseballs and Abandoned Property: Who Owns the Home Run Ball?, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1609, 1615 (2002) (noting that MLB abandoned all claims towards errant balls).  Another potential reason given for this claim may be marketing by the MLB, this practice of abandoning balls may help to create lifelong fans by allowing them to retain memories of what would become their favorite games.  See id. at 1616–17 (recognizing that goodwill MLB gains by giving up balls more than makes up for low cost of baseball).

[5] Cf. Sam Blum, This Fan Caught Shohei Ohtani’s First HR as a Dodger; Hard Feelings Ensued, The Athletic (Apr. 30, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5392308/2024/04/04/dodgers-shohei-ohtani-homer-fan (detailing how Dodgers staff pressured fan into returning home run ball).  This act by the Dodgers was dishonest at best, and as highlighted by the tone of this article, clearly not the norm for home run baseballs.  See generally id. (cricizing Dodgers’ staff actions towards fan who caught home run ball).

[6] See Matt Snyder, Snyder's Soapbox: Let's Establish Some Ground Rules for Catching Baseballs at a Game and How Far Fans Can Go, CBS News, (July 2, 2024, 9:00 AM), https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/snyders-soapbox-lets-establish-some-ground-rules-for-catching-baseballs-at-a-game-and-how-far-fans-can-go/ (detailing how fans should treat home run and errant baseballs).  This news article clearly shows that the fights over collectible baseballs have gotten so contentious that announcers and sports personalities alike have to remind fans that the opportunity to catch a ball, even a famous one, should not involve violence.  See id. (noting that media personalities have encouraged people to deescalate fights over catching baseballs wherever possible).

[7] See, e.g., Ryan Morik, Notorious ‘Ballhawking’ Baseball Fan Causes Another Controversy Trying to Catch More Home Runs, Fox News (Aug. 27, 2022; 11:19 AM), https://www.foxnews.com/sports/notorious-ballhawking-baseball-fan-causes-another-controversy-trying-catch-more-home-runs (describing how ballhawks go to games to try and snatch historical MLB balls from fans).

[8] See generally Finkelman, supra note 4, at 1610 (arguing what should happen to balls when there emerge legal battles surrounding them).  The rule of capture should apply to baseballs to prevent more violence than necessary from occurring in the stands.  See id. at 1631 (theorizing that rule of capture could be used in baseball, like it is for whaling, to reduce fighting and disorder in stands).  

[9] See id. at 1615 (“But, MLB has not [tried to recover a home run ball] and, for marketing reasons, if nothing else, is unlikely to do so”).  As stated above, the MLB stands to benefit far more from creating perpetual fans then they do keeping home run balls, even valuable ones.  See id. at 1616–17 (theorizing MLB’s abandonment of their claims to baseballs gives MLB more fans).

[10] For further discussion of the applicability of the rule of capture, see infra notes 17–23 and accompanying text.

[11] See, e.g., David Crump, David Caudill & David Hricik, Property: Cases, Documents, and Lawyering Strategies 404–09 (4th ed. 2020) (discussing background and decisions in Popov v. Hayashi and Pierson v. Post).  A staple of many property textbooks is the inclusion of preeminent cases applying the rule of capture to small tokens, animals, and larger, more sentimental pieces of property like hockey pucks or baseballs.  See id. (implying wide applicability of rule of capture); see also Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 177 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) (“It is admitted that a fox is an animal fertoe naturoe, and that property in such animals is acquired by occupancy only.”).

[12] See Post, 3 Cai. R. at 178–80 (discussing the implications of their new rule of capture).

[13] See Crump, supra note 11 at 404–05 (describing how fox chase that led to lawsuit occurred).  Unsurprisingly, the lower court held that Post was the lawful owner, reasoning that he “played fair,” and would have killed the fox if not for the untimely intervention by Pierson.  See Post, 3 Cai. R. at 179–80 (reversing equitable order of lower courts, upon which Post based his argument).

[14]  See id. (“However uncourteous or unkind the conduct of Pierson towards Post, in this instance, may have been, yet this act was productive of no injury or damage for which a legal remedy can be applied.”).

[15] See Knighton v. Texaco Producing, Inc., 762 F. Supp. 686, 689 (W.D. La. 1991) (recognizing that rule of capture applies to natural resources such as oil, as well as anything in nature that has no owner).  Although the court in Knighton would go on to note that the Louisiana legislature abrogated such rules, the fact remains that the default rule includes natural resources.  See id. at 689 (noting that Louisiana legislature wanted to avoid profuse drilling on private property, and therefore made oil drilling exception to rule of capture).

[16] For further discussion of the rule’s application to baseball, see infra notes 17–23 and accompanying text.

[17] Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545, 2002 WL 31833731, at *1 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002).  

[18] See id. (noting significance of ball to baseball, as well as financial worth of famous ball).  This record remains intact in the modern era, although critics do suggest the statistic should be considered invalid considering Bonds’s steroid use.  See generally United States v. Bonds, 730 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting existence of “steroid era” of baseball and commentators who deride it).

[19] See generally Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731, at *1–2, n.1–7 (showing wide range of conflicting testimony, yet little disagreement on law).

[20] See id. (showing wide degree of variation between Popov and Hayashi’s claims, as well as judge’s rejection of majority of their claims).  The judge here clearly had his hands full with evidentiary issues, and given the amount of money at stake, it was vital he dispense with each of them fully as he did.  See id. at *2 (noting financial significance of ball).

[21] See id. at *3 (noting that Popov could only sue to get ball back if he owned ball first).  Given the rule of capture clearly applies to baseballs, “the first person who came in possession of the ball bec[omes] its new owner.”  See id. at *3 (noting applicability of rule of capture).

[22] See id. at *3 (holding court could not conclude either man had sole control, and therefore ownership, over ball).  The judge’s honest admission here sets the stage for his proposed resolution, as he valued a decision that guarantees half of the money to the right person, rather than one that could potentially give all of the money to the wrong person.  See id. at *8 (splitting property ownership of ball in half because of impossibility of proving one claim over other).

[23] See id. at *8 (holding ball should be sent to auction, and proceeds divided evenly, to best fit unclear ownership pattern).

[24] See Shohei Ohtani 50/50 Ball Heads to Auction Despite Ownership Dispute, Reuters (Sept. 26, 2024, 10:16 PM), https://www.reuters.com/sports/shohei-ohtani-5050-ball-heads-auction-despite-ownership-dispute-2024-09-27/ (detailing events that led to lawsuit over 50/50 ball).

[25] See Ohtani’s 50-50 Home Run Ball Sold for Record $4.39 Million, Reuters (Oct. 23, 2024, 3:07 AM), https://www.reuters.com/sports/baseball/ohtanis-50-50-home-run-ball-sold-record-439-million-2024-10-23 (observing 50/50 ball sold for 4.39 million dollars).

[26] See generally Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731, at *2 (acknowledging fight over baseball at issue).

[27] See Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Emergency Injunction at *7, Matus v. Goldin Auctions, LLC et al., No. 2024-018488-CA-01 (Fla. Miami-Dade Cnty. Ct. Sept. 26, 2024) (claiming Chris Belansky stole ball from Max Matus, and Goldin Auctions is unlawfully selling it).  This document would later be amended and consolidated to name the proper defendant, Christian Zacek, as well as clarify that Matus and Zacek are the only two verifiable owners of the ball.  See Dan Hajducky, Name of Original Ohtani 50/50 Ball Owner Amended in Court Docs, ESPN (Oct. 28, 2024, 6:50 PM), https://www.espn.com/mlb/ story/id/42059833/name-original-owner-shohei-ohtani-50-50-hr-ball-amended-court-docs) (amending court documents to name correct plaintiff and remove other defendants).   

[28] See Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Emergency Injunction, supra note 27, at 5 (providing photo that illustrates Zacek’s control over ball at end of struggle between himself and Matus).

[29] See id. (providing photo and link to video that depicts fight for ball between plaintiff and one defendant).

[30] See id. at 7 (alleging photo showing Matus’ grip of ball alongside others meant successful capture of ball).

[31] See generally Popov v. Hayashi, No. 400545, 2002 WL 31833731, at *1, *5 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002) (applying rule of capture to home run baseball).

[32] For further discussion of Zacek and Matus’s claims, see infra notes 33–37 and accompanying text.

[33] See Popov, 2002 WL 31833731, at *2 (observing that mob attacking Popov could have taken ball from Popov’s hands even if he caught it).

[34] See Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 177 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) (noting that earlier precedent was “clearly distinguishable from the present; inasmuch as there the action was for maliciously hindering and disturbing the plaintiff”).  With this statement, the high court was admitting that had Pierson interfered, he would not succeed with his appeal.  See id. at 183 (noting Pierson’s conduct, although unsporting, did not infringe on Post’s ability to kill fox).

[35] Cf. id. at 180 (holding Pierson had right to fox because Post had not yet captured it at time Pierson intervened).

[36] See Popov, 2002 WL 31833731, at *2 (“Mr. Hayashi was not a wrongdoer. He was a victim of the same bandits that attacked Mr. Popov. The difference is that he was able to extract himself from their assault [where he found] the loose ball.”).  This innocence on the part of Hayashi helped to validate his claim to the judge.  See id. at *2 (noting Mr. Hayashi did not attack Mr. Popov as part of mob).

[37] See id. at *3 (“Resolution of [this] question is the work of a psychic, not a judge.”).

[38] Cf. id. at *7 (observing Popov may have had control over ball if not for mob’s intervention, which is why he should be entitled to ball).

[39] Cf. id. at *8–9 (noting that Mr. Hayashi could not claim sole control over ball because of Popov’s pre-possesory interest he obtained by being sole catcher of ball before mob attacked him).

[40] See id. at *9 (ordering ball to be sold and proceeds split equally).

[41] See Ohtani’s 50-50 Home Run Ball Sold for Record $4.39 Million, supra note 25 (observing that 50/50 ball sold for 4.39 million dollars, despite ownership battles, because both parties wanted money in escrow instead).

[42] See Popov, 2002 WL 31833731, at *1, *5–6 (“Both men have a superior claim to the ball as against all the world. Each man has a claim of equal dignity as to the other.”).

[43] Compare id. at *6 (lamenting that video of event does not show struggle for ball) with Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Emergency Injunction, supra note 27, at *5–6 (showing picture and video which depicts struggle over ball).

[44] See Popov, 2002 WL 31833731, at *8 (“Their legal claims are of equal quality and they are equally entitled to the ball.  The court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball.”).