The Sauber Van der Garde Dilemna

[Tazio]

Will Buxton on NBC was suggesting that Giedo is actually quite a popular man in the paddock right now for this reason.

I fear he may be the Curt Flood of F1 however. Of course his situation was different, but it pretty much ended a great career!
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/1844945/

Flood v. Kuhn (407 U.S. 258) was a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision upholding, by a 5–3 margin, the antitrust exemption first granted to Major League Baseball (MLB) in Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It arose from a challenge by St. Louis Cardinals' outfielder Curt Flood when he refused to be traded to the Philadelphia Phillies after the 1969 season. He sought injunctive relief from the reserve clause, which prevented him from negotiating with another team for a year after his contract expired. Named as initial respondents were baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, MLB and all of its then-24 member clubs.
Although the Court ruled in baseball's favor 5-3, it admitted the original grounds for the antitrust exemption were tenuous at best, that baseball was indeed interstate commerce for purposes of the act and the exemption was an "anomaly"

[Duncan]

I fear he may be the Curt Flood of F1 however. Of course his situation was different, but it pretty much ended a great career!
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/1844945/

I think this situation is a bit different; in that case, Curt Flood was challenging already established (if arguably unjust) law and the well understood rules. In this situation, Giedo is merely asking Sauber to uphold commitments made in a contract that they freely entered into (and in respect of which they already took his money...).