Just before the Cardinals wrapped up their home schedule on Sunday, the team’s owners scored a victory off the field with the announcement that Centene Corp. will be moving its world headquarters to Ballpark Village.

The move is a direct result of a state Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that quashed Centene’s attempt to expand its presence in Clayton through eminent domain.

That puts the Cardinals in a noteworthy position — they are simultaneously benefiting from both the limitations placed on eminent domain, and the broad condemnation powers that remain available.

Landing Centene was a key step in moving Ballpark Village forward — but an even bigger step for the Cardinals would be acquiring the property that houses the Bowling Hall of Fame on Seventh Street.

Ideally, the team would like to do a land swap or something similar with the Bowling Hall — exchanging their current land for a place in the village, where the museum would be re-branded as a hip, ten-pin attraction.

However, should negotiations between the Cardinals and the bowlers fail, City Hall has given the team the power of eminent domain.

But didn’t the Centene decision prevent that type of acquisition — transferring property from one private entity to another, in the name of development?

Not really, which is why the Centene ruling is actually rather narrow.

The company sought to acquire properties in downtown Clayton via Chapter 353 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, which defines blight as areas that are “economic and social liabilities.”

Read that again — economic and social liabilities.

The court found that regardless of whether the properties targeted for eminent domain were underperforming economically, the city could not prove they were social liabilities — the buildings were not a risk to the public health, a source of crime, or a fire hazard.

Now, bowling, most would say, is not a social liability either, but, if the Cardinals sought the sport’s Hall of Fame by eminent domain, that’s not something that would be a concern.

Ballpark Village is covered by a different state statute, Chapter 99, that defines blight as an area that is an “economic or social liability.”

Two letters. One syllable. Big difference.

Because Chapter 99 defines blight as an economic or social liability, the Cardinals would simply have to argue that their plan for the land would bring more money downtown. Not whether, say, bowling leads to increased alcohol consumption or chronic wrist ailments.

Why are there two sets of laws that seemingly provide different requirements for the same process?

I’m not sure, but it’s worked out well for the Cardinals.