When you ask Chicago White Sox fans what the biggest injustices in the history of baseball were, the name Shoeless Joe Jackson is certain to pop up. Jackson was swept up in the Black Sox scandal over conspiring to fix the 1919 World Series, even though he played his brains out and there was a lot of evidence to suggest he wasn't involved at all. His lifetime ban has been hotly debated for decades and today marks a huge shift in that discussion.
Seemingly out of nowhere, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred announced that lifetime bans no longer apply to players after their death. This means that Jackson, as well as Pete Rose, had their bans lifted on Tuesday, which raises a fascinating question about what this could mean for their Hall of Fame chances.
Breaking: MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred removed Pete Rose, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and other deceased players from Major League Baseball’s permanently ineligible list.
— ESPN (@espn) May 13, 2025
Manfred ruled that MLB’s punishment of banned individuals ends upon their deaths. They are now presumably… pic.twitter.com/YkIZ34jMUu
White Sox icon Shoeless Joe Jackson along with Pete Rose have their lifetime bans lifted
Obviously it feels bad that it took this long for MLB to come to the conclusion that banning these guys for eternity wasn't necessary, and this decision doesn't undo the damage done to Jackson's reputation. MLB is not saying that Jackson wasn't guilty here, but instead saying that when an individual dies, bans are automatically lifted from this point forward. The ball is now in the Hall of Fame voters' court.
This move is obviously pointed towards Rose's ban, as he passed away recently and the Reds are set to celebrate Pete Rose Day on Weds., May 14. However, it is obviously also a massive boon for Jackson's supporters, who for years have argued that he should be eligible for induction into Cooperstown.
That said, one wonders how exactly the Hall of Fame will handle this. Will they put them on the Hall of Ballot like normal first-timers? Will the relevant committees have to consider their cases? How much appetite is there among voters to induct controversial figures like Rose and Jackson when both are no longer around to accept the honor?
We don't have answers to their questions right now, but it is fun that this conversation can continue in earnest with actual repercussions instead of pure hypotheticals.