Page images
PDF
EPUB

first point is that we give a player who is not outstandingly excellent a chance, but we also secure a relative degree of balance among the teams. This will result in a competitive arrangement: Is not that inherent in the draft system?

Mr. HART. It is fundamental to the maintenance of athletic balance and proficiency. It will permit a team to pay substantial wages.

Mr. HRUSKA. I address myself to the point that the Senator from Michigan has raised. This was illustrated in the testimony of Lester Richter, who was formerly with the Los Angeles Rams. He was asked about the reserve clause. He was an outstanding athlete and, no doubt, he protected himself. He said:

I, myself, would like to have the right to play a year and then turn around and bargain with another club, and I know you have two of the greatest players in the game today in Kyle Rote and Bill Newton, both of whom I shudder every time we have to face them, but they are players, where there are a few others in the league who have the ability and are of such stature that they could turn around and bargain freely with

another club.

This would, in turn, I think, create some difficulties just the reverse of what the draft has done of balancing out the league.

So, as the two main features of this legislation exempting the two aspects that we are discussing here, the reserve clause and the draft, as a player in the National Football League, I am definitely for their being deleted or refrain from being used in the subject of antitrust laws.

In that way the player who does not have an outstanding excellence gets a chance, too. He would get a chance along with the other fellow who gets a chance. Only the most successful team would get the most successful and outstanding players, if it were not for the draft and reserve system. This is what we are trying to preserve in the pending bill.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield. Mr. BAYH. Let me first make the record clear to my friends, the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART] and the Sen

ator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA]. I

cern. Could the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Nebraska elucidate or the Senator from Nebraska elucidate a bit on why this is such a matter of a bit on why this is such a matter of concern? If it is a matter of great financial concern to the club, why did they go so long in history before seeking a change? This is the first year that the baseball clubs have resorted to seeking such legislation.

If we had a situation in baseball such as we have in football, I think there would be a great deal more freedom of choice. I have not talked with the Senator from North Carolina, but in baseball, they have drafts in each league, which will put a boy in a better position to determine whether he wants to go to one league or the other, or even into a Canadian league. What I am trying to find is some way we can give some choice to that boy who wants to make his own choice.

Mr. HRUSKA. This free agent draft is a new rule, as I understand it, because the big leagues have found a vast field for supply of recruits. In the old days, the clubs used to sign them up and send them to the minors. The minors are sadly lacking in effectiveness for that purpose today. So a new mechanism had to be created for the purpose of recruitment. It is that which is desirable in the free agent rule, and which is now being used.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan. Mr. HART. I think the Senator from Nebraska has responded very effectively. I think also that if the only reason for a free agent draft was to save baseball money, they would have done it about 81 years ago. But there are also other reasons which make good sense to the league, the players, and the fans.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HART. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. PEARSON. I wish to go back to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, and ask the Senator from Nebraska the following question: Under the amendment, if a young man, school education, and he has athletic tala student athlete, is completing his high

fessional ball at some time, is he then

the time he plays the last college game in the sport for which he signs. He can get out of college at any time; he can refuse to go to college at any time. My amendment does not change that. My amendment merely preserves the freedom of contract. A college athlete, during the time he is in college or during the time he is not subject to a draft, can get his education at any time, and sign a contract with anybody; but he would be given a right to seek a contract on the free market, where he would not be limited to negotiating with any one team.

Mr. HRUSKA. Of course, that is another way of saying that the draft system as we know it, which gives an opportunity to achieve balance in a league and gives all players, in the spectrum of good, excellent, and outstanding, a chance, would be eliminated if the amendment is adopted. The draft system is a means of affording every player a fairly equitable chance to get into a big league, and also to achieve that second thing which is so important in baseball-some balance among the teams.

I subscribe to the thinking expressed a little while ago by the Senator from California. One of the best illustrations of the value of the draft is the present state of the race in the National League today. There has been that leveling off which has made a tremendously fine competition in the game.

Mr. PEARSON. If the Senator will

yield further, I have not had an intelligible answer to my question, although I know the limitation is mine, as to whether, under the Ervin amendment, all boys would be treated equally whether or not they decide to go to college, quit school at the high school level, quit school 2 years after they matriculate?

or

I am fearful-and I acknowledge again that perhaps I do not understand-that the effect of the amendment would be a deterrent to the further education of students who have athletic ability.

fore the Senate does not cover high Mr. ERVIN. My amendment now be

adopted, then I propose to offer another

find myself in somewhat of a quandary. ent such that he intends to play pro- school players. If my amendment is which I need to have resolved between now and the time a vote is taken. I do going to have to make a decision as to amendment which would put high school

not know exactly how I feel. That is the

reason I ask these questions.

As far as I can see, we are dealing with

two different points when we talk about the reserve and the draft. It seems to me that when we talk about the reserves, we are talking about a man who has already had a chance to make a determination, to decide between two or three different competing clubs, and once he has decided, then he is the so-called property of that club until they desire to trade him. But when we combine the draft and the reserve, we not only remove any future choice he might have, but we also remove any initial choice that he might have.

The Senator from Michigan referred to the financial ability of the clubs, which is something with which he has had a great deal of personal experience. I think it is certainly a very valid con

whether or not he goes to college or does not go to college? Because if he does bility of his playing professional sports go for 1 or 2 years, there is no possiuntil after 4 years following his ma

triculation.

I put the question, with the consent of the Senator from Nebraska to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HRUSKA. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ERVIN. There is nothing in my amendment that would prevent anybody at any time from choosing the best course for himself, or from signing a contract with any club at any price on which tract with any club at any price on which the parties can mutually agree.

All my amendment does is to provide that the exemption of these professional sports from the antitrust laws will not apply to any person who is a college student during his first 4 years, or until

players on exactly the same basis as college players. But there is nothing in any boy at any time from entering a promy amendment which would prohibit

fessional athletic career. The only thing my amendment would do would be to provide that the men who are operating teams for profit shall not be allowed to meet in restraint of trade, and then assign a particular college player to one team and say that he must negotiate with that team and not negotiate with anybody else.

Mr. PEARSON. Suppose the Senator's amendment is adopted and the proposed high school amendment fails. Would we not then get into a situation in which athletic organizations and teams would go to the high school boy and say, "Come to sports, come now, and quit your college"? We are going to get into a lot of redtape.

Mr. ERVIN. In fact, 55 percent of all boys who go into professional baseball now go out of high school and never see college.

It might be interesting to the Senator to see what happens to the college players who forsake their education for a baseball career. A study of a sample of 403 college baseball players who signed professional contracts during the years 1947 through 1957 showed that 20, or 4.96 percent, were playing in major leagues in 1957. Of the 20, 12 signed bonus contracts, and 8 were nonbonus players.

Mr. HRUSKA. To answer the Senator from Kansas, the Ervin amendment would not prohibit the signing of college players. All it would do would be to prohibit the professionals from agreeing among themselves that only one team at a time would be allowed to negotiate with a player in college. It would not prohibit the signing of players in college. That is the point that bears on the problem of dropouts in which the Senator from Kansas has evidenced an interest.

Mr. PEARSON. I ask the Senator the following question: The competition for football players crosses national boundaries. Our country is now competing with Canadian teams. Will a Canadian team be in a better position to negotiate with college athletes than the members of the National Football League?

Mr. HRUSKA. I am not familiar with the international aspects; however, I believe the National Football League and the American Football League have a set of regulations by which their members are controlled. It gets at the business of rating college football teams, such as those that engage in the post-season bowl games.

Mr. PEARSON. It may not be a problem, but the Canadian Football League imposes a limitation on the number of American players that can be used. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe there are any contractual relations between the American football leagues and the Canadian League.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska vield?

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.

Mr. HART. The Senator from Kansas is correct. There is no working arrangement between the American and National Football Leagues and the Canadian League.

As to the basic question raised by the Senator from Kansas: What would be the effect on the future of someone's academic standing if the amendment were agreed to? It is possible depending on the response from the leagues that the reaction could be to eliminate the draft by treating the men as free agents, and by intensively recruiting and raiding them. In the short run, that would be good for the best college shortstops. In the long run, it would be a disadvantage to those who enjoy the game, to the clubs which operate the teams, and to the players of the future.

On the other hand the leagues could decide not to touch any man for 4 years after his entering class began in college. Certainly, the Ervin amendment would

not have its desired effect if this course not have its desired effect if this course were followed.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield?

owned a highly successful farm club operated by George Weiss.

Over the years, the Yankees would bring up new players from the farm club.

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield to the Senator The situation became such that with the from Indiana.

Mr. BAYH. I hesitate to interrupt the Senator from Nebraska again; but so long as we are involved in a colloquy, will he indulge me the opportunity to ask a question, which I think is pertinent, of the Senator from North Carolina?

Mr. HRUSKA. By all means.

Mr. BAYH. One other alternative might be added, if I am not incorrect, to the proposal of the Senator from Michigan. I should like to ask the Michigan. I should like to ask the Senator from North Carolina what his Senator from North Carolina what his thoughts are in this respect: What might happen or what would be the best thing happen or what would be the best thing that could happen to the boys under the Ervin amendment would be that they would not sign up with a professional team until they entered college, then they could deal as free agents. This, it seems to me, might tend to increase the rate of college dropouts. In other words, the boys would know that they had a better bargaining agreement if they signed up.

Even if many professional teams wanted them, they could be limited to the one team that had drafted them. This would be contingent on the fact that the league would have to continue with the same sort of draft it now has.

Mr. ERVIN. I do not think it would do anything to encourage college dropouts. I have an amendment that would apply to high schools. It would permit high school students to be free agents, just as all other Americans are free agents. If the present amendment is agreed to, I intend to offer one relating agreed to, I intend to offer one relating to high school students, so as to take care of any difference between the two groups. I do not believe there would be any increase in the number of dropouts.

The professional baseball scholarship programs are for boys who must leave college to go to spring training and then must remain with the teams until the fall season is over. They are the ones

to whom there would be encouragement to drop out. As I said a moment ago, two-thirds of the boys who leave college to play baseball never return to college. That is what has happened under the present system.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Iyield.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. MURPHY. Is it not true that boys drop out of college for many reasons? Mr. ERVIN. That is correct.

Mr. MURPHY. Is it proper that we analyze the current baseball and football system in order to accommodate a situation which results in a large number of dropouts? Is it not also true that the present system of regulation has been established for several reasons; namely, the consideration of the audience, the consideration of the overall health of the sport, and the consideration of keeping competition close, so that there will be an interest in the sport?

Not so long ago a play entitled "Damn Yankees" was produced in New York. It related to the New York Yankees, which

Yankees continually winning the pennant, the American League was almost a lopsided league.

As to the individual benefits to be derived from the scholarship, I could cite many instances in which boys would not have had an opportunity to go to college had it not been for the scholarship system.

I am told-I believe my information is correct that there is never encouragement to have a boy drop out of college. The scholarship provides for a 4year period. The team giving the scholarship cannot retreat from the bargain, but the boy can. The boy can leave college any time he wishes to do so. The scholarship is for 4 years. In many in

stances, the pressure has been to the contrary: it has been to keep the boy in college.

harm, I believe that organized baseball If we balance the good against the

has rendered valuable service. I know that when I was a young man, if I had not had an athletic scholarship, I never would have got to prep school, let alone college.

Mr. ERVIN. There is no doubt that all scholarships have been beneficial, and have been so without exemption from antitrust laws.

I believe professional baseball teams can make a good case for the proposition that if they are given a monopoly on athletic skills, and can say who will hire a

particular boy, and that nobody else is going to hire him they can make a bigger profit. I believe the steel companies could make it appear that they could get along better if they were exempt from the antitrust laws.

Mr. MURPHY. The analogy is neither a fair one nor a good one. The Senator is discussing steel products; that is, the restricted use of a product. We are now talking about something basically accepted or generally accepted. The motion pictures are entertainment.

Mr. ERVIN. The steel companies have an interest in their product. They have to negotiate on the free market with the men who work for them. I believe that the professional sports are an example of another type of commercial enterprise, but they seek by this bill to deny other people the freedom of contract, for their own benefit.

Mr. MURPHY. The men employed in the steel industry do not have the right to negotiate individually. I submit that the unions negotiate for them.

Mr. ERVIN. I must disagree with the Senator from California on that point. The union may negotiate. The union seeks to obtain for them, however, the highest price the labor market affords. Mr. MURPHY. From a practical standpoint, he would have a problem.

Mr. ERVIN. I say to the Senator from California that it is a question as to what to attach the greater value: the right of people engaged in commercial

enterprise to deny to people whose services they want a free market for the sale of those services, or the freedom of the individual to contract.

I stand on the side of freedom of the individual wherever the issue is drawn. Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, this is predicated on the system of free agent and draft that we have now. If it is tempered with, two results may flow from such action.

First. The bill may be rejected. Second. If the free agent and draft system were abandoned, we would have

chaos and confusion.

Mr. ERVIN. Perhaps, instead of passing a bill to exempt the leagues from the antitrust laws, we should place them under the antipoverty program.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a rollcall vote on this particular amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I believe that it is poor policy to grant a rollcall vote by unanimous consent. I believe that is very poor policy.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I share the concern

of the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. Sometimes, in an emergency, we can save time by following such a procedure.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I should like to address one other question to the

Senator from North Carolina.

The Senator has mentioned freedom. Freedom is a question which concerns me also. The Ervin amendment, as I read it, would apply to all the sports mentioned in the bill.

Does the Senator from North Carolina make a difference or discriminate in his thinking concerning freedom which presently exists as between a lad who is about to be drafted by a baseball team and a lad who is about to be drafted by a football team?

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I see no difference between the two. It is a question of freedom of contract in both cases.

The Senator made a good point a while ago concerning baseball and football teams. The football teams at least have competition among themselves for the services of persons skilled in football. Under this bill, that freedom could be abolished.

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, the point I wanted to explore the thinking of the Senator on is that, in football, we now have the American, National, and Canadian Leagues. With respect to a prospective college or high school football player-and it would have to be college now because, under the league rules, there is now a freedom of choice any of those three groups of teams could participate. However, the thing that concerns me is that there would be only one league, or two leagues considered to

gether, and only one team would get a draft choice.

Mr. ERVIN. The reason that this situation exists now in the sport of football is a Supreme Court decision to the effect that they are subject to the antitrust laws. However, if the pending bill is passed, they can make the same kind of agreement as the American and the National Baseball Leagues can.

The baseball leagues have expressed the opinion that this would place them under the antitrust laws, not because they want to be there, but because they expect the Supreme Court to overrule the previous decision, and that would be one decision that I believe the Supreme Court would be justified in overruling.

Baseball is quite a different sport now than it was at the time Justice Holmes wrote, in his opinion, that baseball was not covered by the antitrust laws. Since that time, we have had the advent of radio and television broadcasting of games from one State to another in interstate commerce.

overrule its decision. People interested I believe that the Supreme Court will in baseball are afraid that it will happen at any time and they want to be exempt.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed at this point in the RECORD, an article by Shirley Povich, printed in the Washing

ton Post of August 13, 1965.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:

THIS MORNING WITH SHIRLEY POVICH The sports bill that was getting along so swimmingly in Congress has just been gaffed by Senator SAM J. ERVIN, who comes from North Carolina, a State that jumps with the professional leagues are asking too much college football. The Senator is saying that permissiveness in S. 950.

This is the bill that has already been reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and is expected to reach the Senate floor later this week. It endows the organized football and baseball leagues with virtual reinforces a 1922 Supreme Court decision immunity from antitrust legislation and that exempted baseball from Federal regula

But Senator ERVIN has said whoa, there, too much is being conceded to the pros. The college people who have long been sore at the pro clubs for their vulturelike descents on the campuses with tempting have found a forceful advocate in the Senoffers to go commercial with their skills, ator from North Carolina.

He has persuaded the same Judiciary Committee to accept the Ervin amendment to the sports bill. It strikes hard at the so-called draft rights of both professional football and baseball which eliminate competitive

bidding and at the same time erase the individual bargaining rights of the college athletes who find themselves indentured to the selecting team, with no choice of their own.

This is the power the pro football leagues, particularly, have arrogated to themselves and Senator ERVIN wants the freedom of conamendment would strip pro teams of extract rights of the athletes protected. His clusive bargaining rights and their antitrust protection if they negotiate with players during the 4 years they are in college. But it is a distressingly half-way measure that the Senator has introduced.

He seems to be saying that what is bad while the athletes are in college is good after they graduate. The same invasion of private bargaining rights that is horrendous while the athletes are in school becomes, in Senator ERVIN's view, permissible after a diploma is received. His amendment would approve their later loss of free bargaining rights.

The pro football people have defended their college draft, making the point that the draft pool is helpful to the weaker clubs in the league by giving them access to new talent that brings about a speedier balance to the league. They have not dwelled on the fact that the draft policy deprives the athlete of a right to invite competitive bidding and sign with the team of his own choice after weighing all offers.

It is not pro football, however, that will be wounded by the Ervin amendment. Baseball would take the biggest blow here, for reasons obvious to both professional sports. The pro football people couldn't care less that the Senator wants them restrained from signing players before they graduate. They already have a well-spelled-out policy that no player can be signed by any league team until his class graduates, including college dropouts.

The only manner in which the pro football clubs could be affected by the Ervin amendment would be in the restraint on their pregraduation negotiations. By league rule they are not supposed to negotiate with collegians, anyway, until their football eligibility expires in December. The pros would simply postpone their draft meetings until June and find themselves admirably within the law.

But baseball, which has proved a greater lure to college dropouts, has no wait-until

graduation rule and draws much talent from the campuses. Also, baseball likes to get them younger. The 17- and 18-year-old football player is too tender for the pros, but this is at the age when baseball teams like to muckle on to them.

The Ervin amendment is the more awkward for baseball, too, because that sport's clubowners voted only recently to indulge in the college draft after learning to envy the gravy train that pro football set up for itself. Like pro football, baseball was eager to be done with its expensive competitive bidding for talent and put the signings on a pool basis.

Earlier in the summer, the organized baseball leagues which once took pride in giving the school player at least an original choice of the team he would join, drafted 863 young players virtually on a pro football basis. The bulk of these were offered contracts long before college graduation, and a great many were high school players.

That is another thing about the Ervin amendment: It covers only college players. It seems to say that pro teams who entice boys to drop out of college are bad, but there is nothing naughty about encouraging high school dropouts. Somehow, there is something odd about the view from North Carolina.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, there are Senators who have not as yet had the opportunity to receive the benefit of reading the transcript of the hearings which took place before the committee.

I have received a letter from the Big Eight Conference, Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association, signed by Wayne Duke, executive director. This conference includes Iowa State University, Kansas State University, Oklahoma State University, the University of Colorado, the University of Kansas, the University of Missouri, the University of

Nebraska, and the University of Oklahoma.

I read from one paragraph of this letter as follows:

It is the concern of this office and the member institutions of the conference that unless S. 950 is adopted as amended by Senators DIRKSEN and ERVIN, Such bill will work to the detriment of the Nation's interscholastic and intercollegiate competition.

I have received a letter from Wade R. Stinson, director of athletics at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans. I I read one sentence of this letter. It reads as follows:

Having a very vital interest in intercollegiate athletics, I strongly request your vote favoring the Ervin amendment and the proposed floor amendment, placing the same television "packaging" restraints upon individual club arrangements to Senate bill 950.

I have a letter from the Kansas State High School Activities Association, Inc., which is signed by Brice B. Durbin, executive secretary.

I shall read two paragraphs of this letter. They read as follows:

We are hopeful that a proposed floor amendment to S. 950 will place the same restraints that attach to packaging upon individual club ararngements, if a club were the beneficiary of an antitrust exemption for television purposes.

We are also interested in the second amendment of S. 950 as introduced by Senator ERVIN, of North Carolina, and can be identified as the Ervin amendment. This amendment would put into law the substance of an agreement between colleges and professional football regarding contract signings of college students with eligibility remaining.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from which I have just read be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BIG EIGHT CONFERENCE,

MISSOURI VALLEY

INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Kansas City, Mo., August 10, 1965.

Hon. FRANK CARLSON, The U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR CARLSON: While on a recent visit to the Senate Office Building, I stopped by your office, without any advance notice, principally in the hope of making your acquaintance and also to submit views, informally, relative to S. 950, which would grant broad exemptions to the professional sports organizations.

It now becomes apparent that S. 950 will come to a vote shortly-possibly this weekprompting this more formal expression of views with respect to the bill on behalf of the eight State universities which comprise the Big Eight Conference.

It is the concern of this office and the member institutions of the conference that unless S. 950 is adopted as amended by Senators DIRKSEN and ERVIN, Such bill will work to the detriment of the Nation's interscholastic and intercollegiate athletic programs.

Our concerns in this matter center largely upon privileges which might be granted to permit (1) the premature signing of college student-athletes prior to the completion of their undergraduate program, and (2) the televising of professional football games in direct conflict with interscholastic and intercollegiate competition.

No more graphic illustration of the premature signing problem can be cited than the one involving one of our own member institutions, the University of Oklahoma, whose football team was virtually stripped of its key personnel prior to the Gator Bowl football game last season.

The matter of ruinous, indiscriminate signings of undergraduate student-athletes to professional baseball contracts has always been a problem to the development and maintenance of a sound intercollegiate baseball program, and the new professional baseball draft, unless curtailed by passage of S. 950, will accentuate this serious problem.

The seriousness of the television situation was emphasized by the forceful reaction of the Nation's high schools when it became apparent last fall that professional football contemplated televising on Friday nights in opposition to the many high school games being played on that traditional playing date.

While S. 950, as reported to the Senate, does afford protection to the high schools and colleges from telecasting of professional sports contests contracted on a league basis, it is my understanding that an amendment will be presented on the floor extending such protection from telecasts arranged by individual clubs. This amendment will afford even greater protection than that provided by the Dirksen amendment, and we urge your support of this additional proposal.

Without these statutory responsibilities incorporated in S. 950, the position of the school-college sports program as the backbone of American sports is seriously threatened. It is our hope that you will see fit to support passage of the bill containing these provisions.

Sincerely,

WAYNE DUKE, Executive Director.

THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, Lawrence, Kans., August 6, 1965. Senator FRANK CARLSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR CARLSON: Having a very vital interest in intercollegiate athletics I strongly request your vote favoring the Ervin amendment and the proposed floor amendment, placing the same television packaging restraints upon individual club arrangements to Senate bill 950.

We must continually be on guard for amateur high school and intercollegiate athletics, to prevent professional inroads that would prove very damaging.

All of us hope you will give these two amendments your favorable consideration. WADE R. STINSON, Director of Athletics.

Sincerely,

[blocks in formation]

in Senate bill 950 at this time does not give protection to the schools should clubs enter into a television agreement individually and, therefore, could cause a tremendous impact on the receipts and attendance at high school and college contests on Friday and Saturday nights.

We are hopeful that a proposed floor amendment to S. 950 will place the same restraints that attach to packaging upon individual club arrangements, if a club were the beneficiary of an antitrust exemption for television purposes.

We are also interested in the second amendment of S. 950 as introduced by Senator ERVIN, of North Carolina, and can be identified as the Ervin amendment. This amendment would put into law the substance of an agreement between colleges and professional football regarding contract signings of college students with eligibility remaining.

We urge your support of these two measures and, based on our contact with the school administrators throughout Kansas, they are most interested in what steps will be taken by the Senate to give some protection to the school athletic programs. We will be most appreciative of any action and help you can give in the solution of these two problems.

Very cordially yours,

BRICE B. DURBIN, Executive Secretary.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I asked that these letters be printed in the RECORD because, after listening to some of this debate, I have been a little concerned that we might do the wrong thing if we did not agree to the Ervin amendment.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CARLSON. I yield.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I have also received letters similar to those which have been read by the Senator from Kansas.

Concern is expressed by coaches and athletic staffs and directors of universities and colleges. However, that concern is based on the fact that they understand the Ervin amendment would prohibit the raiding of college students from the ranks of college students prior to graduation.

I again refer to the letter from the Senator from North Carolina in which he undertook to express to the Members of this body what his amendment means.

In his letter, the Senator from North Carolina stated:

My amendment in no way prohibits teams from signing college players.

All it would mean is that it would provide that there cannot be any arrangement to have a limitation within the rules and regulations of the league whereby a player, when he is signed up, would be prohibited from dealing with all the teams in the league.

That would not bear on the matter of signing college players. It would not prohibit the signing of college players. If that understanding had been clear in the minds of those who sent letters and

college program. We are interested in sup- telegrams such as those to which I reporting two amendments to the bill.

One of these does not appear in the bill as it was reported to the floor for the Judiciary Committee. The schools in Kansas are quite concerned about the privileges granted professional team sports for television rights through antitrust exemptions. The wording

ferred, I am confident they would have lost interest in the Ervin amendment.

The success of the Ervin amendment would mean the death knell to the draft system. Make no mistake about that. That is exactly what would happen.

Testimony has been taken, going back for the last 4 or 5 years, from the players and the league representatives, to the effect that we must have a draft system and a free agent system in order to give the players at large a chance to get on teams and in order to balance the teams within the league.

Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska that we are very proud of our athletic ability in the Midwest and in Kansas. No one knows that better than the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, whose football team usually romps on ours every year, or two, or three, and causes us some problems. However, in view of the statement of the Senator, I ask the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, if I were to vote against the Ervin amendment, can the Senator from Nebraska assure me that our situation, as it has been mentioned in the letters, would be protected?

Mr. HRUSKA. Letters and telegrams such as those to which the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CARLSON] referred have not been based on a proper understanding of the Ervin amendment or the rest of the bill, because, flatly, there is no prohibition in the Ervin amendment against the signing of college players. That is That is what interests the athletic directors.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, earlier I assured the Senator from North Carolina I would ask for the yeas and nays on his amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am rather astounded to hear it suggested that the colleges which favor my amendment do not understand the proposal. I do not believe that is so. To show that they do understand, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the RECORD a letter from Duke University, signed by E. M. Cameron, director of athletics, endorsing my amendment. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DUKE UNIVERSITY, Durham, N.C., July 21, 1965.

Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The educational community including all of the high schools, junior colleges, and colleges are really indebted to you for your assistance on behalf of the amendments to S. 950.

We are all observing your efforts with great interest and you have our unqualified support.

Thank you again. Yours truly,

E. M. CAMERON, Director of Athletics.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I have a copy of a letter which was addressed to the able and distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], from William R. Reed, chairman, NCAA Legislative Committee. He also represents the Big TenIllinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, and Wisconsinwhich asks for an amendment of this character. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the RECORD.

[blocks in formation]

Nor are we necessarily opposed to the through exemption from applicability of the means of providing uniformity of treatment antitrust laws in the four areas specified in the bill.

We do feel that the Congress should examine closely, in the interests of the individual athletes concerned and possibly from a constitutional standpoint, the propriety of the so-called free agent player draft which it must operate to inhibit an individual's opwould in effect be legalized by the bill, since portunities to negotiate freely in contracting for his services as a professional athlete. We recognize, however, that the question involved is essentially one of public policy to be determined by the Congress. We there

fore express no view, affirmatively or negatively, with respect to this feature of the bill

in its general terms.

Our views regarding S. 950 rest upon the fact that its essence is to grant broad exemptions from existing law, and upon the proposition that when such privileges are to be accorded it is appropriate, and essential, to provide corresponding requirements of responsibiliy in the public interest.

We submit that unless the bill is appropriately amended to create a statutory responsibility, privileges afforded professional team sports under existing law and as proposed by S. 950 can and would operate to the detriment of the Nation's interscholastic and intercollegiate athletic program, and we submit that such detriment is contrary to the public interest.

To qualify the latter statement, may we digress here to describe that system briefly. The tradition of the school-college sports program in the United States is unique among nations. (The Soviet track coach was recently quoted as saying "The U.S. chief advantage (in Olympic potential) is the annual vast flow of fresh athletic forces from the schools.") The system is the backbone of American sports, amateur and professional. The programs of the NCAA membership embrace formal intercollegiate competition in 32 sports, involving 144,000 participants. Additionally, some 33,500 male students engage in recreational club activities sponsored by their institutions, and some 1,161,000 students, or 85.7 percent of the male undergraduate enrollment, participate in 59 different intramural sports (1963 data).

Football, with college revenues amounting to approximately $71,500,000 annually, is a vital force in this sports program. Both at the high school and college level football provides a stimulus to the entire sports program and to the vitality of campus life, and is an important factor in financing the inter

scholastic, intercollegiate and allied recreational and physical fitness programs.

We earnestly believe that intrusions upon and disruptions of the school-college sports system on the part of professional sports in the exercise of statutory privilege would be contrary to the national interest and should be carefully guarded against.

We visualize such intrusions and disruptions occurring readily in two areas: (1) the signing of college athletes to professional portunity to fulfill their educational objecsports contracts before they have had an optives and before they have completed a normal period of collegiate sports eligibility; and (2) the televising of professional football games to the detriment of in-person attendance at and support for interscholastic and intercollegiate football games.

Our concerns in these matters were recorded with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee in connection with the consideration

of S. 2391 in the 88th Congress, a measure virtually identical with S. 950. Amendments to S. 2391, designed to relieve those concerns, were introduced in committee by Senator DIRKSEN, and with some modificato S. 950. tion we urgently petition their attachment

The Judiciary Committee, in reporting on S. 2391 August 4, 1964, indicated that it had given sympathetic consideration to the amendments but that the contract signing situation did not then "seem *** to war

rant congressional action" although the subcommittee would "follow closely the actions of the leagues and clubs in his regard"; and that action then on the television situation

"would be premature." We submit that events since the date of that report have amply confirmed our alarms and fully justify, if they do not compel, modification of S. 950 by inclusion of the substance of the

amendments proposed to S. 2391 last year.

The first amendment proposed would not preclude operation of the free agent player draft. It would, however, make it a violation of law to execute a contract for playing services, pursuant to negotiation rights acquired by a professional club through the draft, with a college student, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances would be limited to the signing of a contract with a student for his playing services in a particular sport before the end of his college's season

in that sport in the fourth year following his matriculation in college.

The thrust of such a measure would be simply to protect against operation of the draft privilege to permit signing a student to a professional contract before he has completed his normal or ordinary college eligibility in the sport. Such a statutory provision would have precluded those numerous instances of premature signings to professional football contracts last fall which were graphically and tragically illustrated when it was necessary for the University of Oklahoma to declare ineligible four members of its football team on the eve of a game after it was learned they had previously signed "undated" contracts for their professional football services.

These premature signings last fall were so serious in their implications that the NCAA made direct appeals to the National Football League and to the American Football League for assurances that such practices not recur. It should be a matter of record that pledges to this effect, with stringent penalties upon member clubs for any breach, have been given by both professional football leagues.

The point may be made that such pledges, to bar the same acts which the proposed amendment would make unlawful, obviate the necessity of such legislation. We submit to the contrary, that the agreements which have been executed between the professional football leagues and the NCAA

« PreviousContinue »