Page images
PDF
EPUB

only confirm the reasonableness and desirability of statutory provision to the same effect.

It is no reflection upon the good faith or intentions of those in professional football who are parties to the recent agreements to observe that there is nothing in them which is necessarily binding upon a future generation of professional football's management; or to recall that the events giving rise to these agreements were in violation of pledges given the Congress and the public by an earlier commissioner of professional football. In short, it must be recognized the agreements are not necessarily permanent

or inviolable. Furthermore, the agreements referred to are limited to the sport of football and we submit that the principles involved are equally valid and applicable to any other team sport which does or may exercise antitrust exemptions to conduct a player draft to establish contract negotiation rights with college students.

The second amendment would perfect certain provisions of Public Law 87-331 (75 Stat. 732), which is an act giving professional football leagues privileges of televising games under a league agreement, notwithstanding the antitrust laws. The privileges are limited in that they may not be exercised on Friday evenings or Saturdays during the

football season over stations located within 75 miles of a scheduled intercollegiate football game.

These limitations were discovered, by events which transpired last year, to be inadequate protection to intercollegiate football and more particularly to interscholastic football. It developed, through publicized plans of a television network and sponsor, that it was possible for individual professional clubs to avoid the restraints of the law which are applicable only to joint agreements. Those plans did not materialize because the league schedule did not provide for a series of Friday night games, as contemplated by the television plan. The potential remains, however, and indeed was exemplified when a professional game played on a Friday night in New York (and, ironically, blacked out there under league policy which protects home games from TV competition) was televised in Washington to the substantial detriment of high school games scheduled for that time in that area.

It is proposed that the existing statute be amended, through an amendment to S. 950, to extend its protective features to high school and junior college football games, and that its restraints be operative upon individual clubs which otherwise, by joint agreement, enjoy the statute's exemptions from antitrust provisions.

This amendment is particularly vital to the high schools and junior colleges. The NCAA urges the amendment in support of those sister institutions in the school-college community and on behalf of a certain though considerably lesser number of its members who schedule football games on Friday or Saturday nights, and in recognition of the existing potential for professional football clubs individually arranging to schedule and televise games without restraint on Saturday afternoons, the traditional hour for and the heart of intercollegiate football.

It has been suggested that since S. 950 does not concern itself with television practices, the proposed amendment relating to television is not relevant. We submit that it is

always relevant to attach conditions and requirements of responsibility when privileges of statutory exemption are being accorded any party, and that since S. 950 is in essence a grant of privilege to professional football, among other sports, it is an appropriate and logical vehicle for statutory defi

nition of obligations which should be required of the benefited party.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM R. REED, Chairman, NCAA Legislative Committee. Mr. ERVIN. Also, Mr. President, I wish to say to my good friend the senior Senator from Kansas that I have a letter signed by Wayne Duke, executive director of the Big Eight Conference, Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association, who endorses this amendment. Mr. President, we might as well understand fully what we are doing. Those who are engaged in operating the college athletic programs understand what is involved. Under the bill they would be in danger of being raided by teams with immunity from the antitrust laws. It is said it may not happen. It already has happened with respect to football in the case of one of the great teams of America.

The bill before us provides, in lines 2 to 13 of subsection (a) about as broad an authority for exemption from the antitrust laws as can be conceived in this field. It provides that—

The antitrust law shall not apply to any contract, agreement, rule, course of conduct, or other activity by, between, or among persons conducting, engaging, or participating in any one of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, or hockey to the extent to which such contract,

agreement, rule, course of conduct, or activity relates to *

The employment, selection, or eligibility of players, or the reservation, selection, or assignment of player contracts.

PROHIBITION

OF OBSTRUCTION OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY BY THE ARMED FORCES

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I regret that I am not going to speak on the subject which is pending before the Senate at the present time, but it is my understanding that at 3 o'clock nongermane matters are allowed to be placed before the Senate.

Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill declaring it to be a felony against the United States for any person to interfere with or impede the flow of transportation of personnel, equipment or property of the military forces of the United States. Conviction for such an offense would subject the offender to a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed at this point in the RECORD.

[blocks in formation]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House

America in Congress assembled, That section 2387 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

I say in all seriousness that those words of Representatives of the United States of in the bill enslave any person in the United States who possesses any skill in baseball, football, basketball, or hockey. With respect to the reserve clause, my amendment does not relate to it, as I construe it.

My amendment provides that the exemption provided by subsection (a) shall not apply to "Any agreement, plan, or arrangement under which any club administering a professional sport team may have an exclusive or preferred right to negotiate for the services of any college student," during the period specified.

All the amendment does is preserve the freedom of contract.

As has been pointed out, I did not try to put in my amendment a provision that That would be unconstitutional, because a college player could not sign a contract. That would be unconstitutional, because a student should have the rights of contract. I would not deny the student the right to sign a contract. I do not propose to do so. I would not if I could, and I certainly do not want to.

All I am trying to do by the amendment is to preserve for a limited period of time a right which belongs to all Americans, namely, the right of anyone to negotiate a contract with anyone who is willing to negotiate with him to sell his willing to negotiate with him to sell his skill for the highest price he can obtain. I would apply that provision for only a

limited period of time.

When it comes to making a choice between freedom and economic enslavement, I stand by economic freedom. It is to protect that same freedom that I have offered this amendment.

(1) Redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);

(2) Inserting therein, immediately after subsection (a), the following new subsection:

"(b) Whoever, with intent to obstruct, impede, or interfere with (1) the performance of duty by any organization, unit, or member of or (2) shipment or transportation of any supplies or materiel to or for the use of, any of the military or naval forces of the United States, willfully obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or attempts or conspires with any other person to obstruct, impede or interfere with, the operation, movement, or passage of any vehicle, railway equipment, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other facility for transportation while such facility is in use or intended to be used for the transportation of any personnel or property of any of such forces shall be fined not more than

$10,000, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, recent incidents that have occurred in this country where organized groups have attempted to prohibit the transport of Vietnam-bound military personnel and loading of vital supplies aboard ships border on revolution and treason. One of the most flagrant attempted acts against our Government was committed at Berkeley, Calif., by an irresponsible group whose members recently tried to stop a passenger train containing military personnel assigned to Vietnam. On Thursday, August 12, a sizable group of irresponsible individuals demonstrated at the San Francisco port protesting

against the loading of a vessel with urgently needed cargo destined for Saigon. Mr. President, this August 12 act was incited as the result of distribution of a two-page piece of propaganda directly attacking our Government's policy and urging demonstrations to the extent that vitally needed cargo could not be shipped. I ask unanimous consent that the contents of this piece of propaganda be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PROTEST THE WAR IN VIETNAM

(On August 12, a ship is departing for Saigon, join us in this demonstration, Thursday, August 12, pier 39-Embarcadero from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.)

The second heaviest bombing of North

Vietnam to date was carried out the day after 25,000 students marched and protested in Washington (the April 17 SDS March on Washington). Only 11 days after the Washington protest, U.S. Marines invaded the Dominican Republic.

In the face of strong opposition, Johnson is stepping up the war effort; 200,000 men are now going to Vietnam. The number may reach 400,000 by the end of the year. The draft call has been more than doubled and reserves are scheduled to be called or

reclassified.

All this wouldn't be necessary if it were only to stop a handful of "foreign aggressors" infiltrating from the north. The Vietcong could not have had the military successes they have had unless the Johnson-backed regime in Saigon was opposed by the overwhelming majority of the people of South Vietnam. Washington knows this,

or they would not have gone to such lengths to prevent the free elections guaranteed by the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Johnson's call to the American youth: "He told a group of students who visited the White House that many of his ideas came from students. He said he would like to see them develop as much fanaticism as young Nazis did about their system during the war." From the New York Times, February 6, 1965-early edition only.

Everyone in this country must fight Johnson's efforts to drag us down this road to war and destruction.

The student community alone cannot halt U.S. aggression. Workers must be organized around the issue of withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Vietnam. This will not be a short or simple task. Students and intel

lectuals can provide the spark that could

lead to a worker-student alliance. Such an alliance would be a qualitative advance for the peace movement in this country.

is supposed to be loaded by ILWU longshoremen. At their international convention last April, the union delegates passed a strong called, in part, for an "immediate ceasefire" and the "withdrawal of all foreign troops (U.S. forces) from Vietnam."

"Get Out of Vietnam" resolution which

You'll be seeing more of us passing out these leaflets. If you agree with what we're saying, we invite you to join us, talk to your friends and demonstrate at piers where goods are being loaded for Vietnam. If you disagree, then argue it out with us. When we'll be on the road to making this country

a living democracy instead of a paper one.

Students who are against the war must aline themselves with workers and other segments of the community. In order to be effective in ending the war, all segments of the community must become united.

Alliance for Action: Alliance for Action is a coalition of individuals and organizations. Only when workers, students, and the community join together can effective opposition to the war be waged. We call on all individuals and organizations to join on a coequal basis.

propaganda leaflet is signed by: Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, this

Industrial Workers of the World. May

Second Movement. Noe Valley Committee Against the War. Progressive Labor Party. Students for a Democratic Society. Young Peoples Progressive Alliance-NAPA Junior College.

The docks are the last point from which war-supporting materials embark. The cargo is supposed to be loaded by ILWU longshoremen. At their international convention last April, the union delegates passed a strong "get out of Vietnam" resolution which called, in part, for an "immediate cease-fire" and the "withdrawal of all foreign troops (U.S. forces) from Vietnam."

You'll be seeing more of us passing out these leaflets. If you agree with what we're saying, we invite you to join us, talk to your friends and demonstrate at piers where goods are being loaded for Vietnam.

Mr. President, the leaflet does not incite violence and overt acts of interference, but the result has been that in every instance when citizens and youths have responded to the call of the leaflet, there has been physical interference with the military forces of the United States.

Such conduct and actions are deplorable and should not be condoned. I be

House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6927) to establish a Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendment of the Senate of the bill (H.R. 728) to amend section 510 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. GARMATZ, Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. MAILLIARD, and Mr. PELLY were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

The message further announced that the House had disagreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 8283) to expand the war on poverty and enhance the effectiveness of programs under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of

the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. POWELL, Mr. BRADEMAS, Mr. CAREY, Mr.

GIBBONS, Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD of Michigan, Mr. QUIE, Mr. GOODELL, and Mr. BELL were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

The message also announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 10323) making appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes; agreed to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. SIKES, Mr. McFALL, Mr. PATTEN, Mr. LONG of Maryland, Mr. MAHON, Mr. CEDERBERG, Mr. JONAS, and Mr. Bow were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

The message further announced that the House had passed the following bills and joint resolutions, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 7811. An act to authorize the sale or

loan of naval vessels to friendly Latin American countries, and for other purposes;

H.R. 7812. An act to authorize the loan of

naval vessels to friendly foreign countries,

and for other purposes;

H.R. 7813. An act to authorize the loan of naval vessels to friendly foreign coun

H.R. 8333. An act to amend title 10, United

lieve in free speech. I believe in the right of peaceful assembly, but the actions I have described constitute physical interference with the movement of personnel, equipment, and property of the military forces of the United States, and are, therefore, wrong and harmful to the die; their sons may die. In a nuclear war, security of our country. They must be gestions, inventions, or scientific achieveportion to the increasing escalation. Major stopped. My bill should have the early

The war in Vietnam is against the interests of workers. There are certain general reasons for this. Workers themselves may

we all may die. Taxes will increase in pro

repressions are prevalent during a war situation; strikes are forbidden; wage freezes, Taft-Hartley, and Kennedy-Landrum-Griffith Acts result.

We call for the formation of a broad, united front composed of students, workers, civil rights fighters, housewives, etc., to demand the immediate withdrawal of all forces from Vietnam.

Students and workers face a common enemy-ruling class imperialism. We are going to approach workers and attempt to involve them along with students and other segments of the community in direct action at the San Francisco docks.

The docks are the last point from which war-supporting materials embark. The cargo

CXI-1408

consideration and approval of Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill may be allowed to remain at the desk for 1 week, for cosponsoring by Senators who may feel sympathetic to what I am proposing.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its reading clerks, announced that the

States Code, to provide for the establishment of a program of cash awards for sug

ments by members of the Armed Forces which contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government oper

ations;

H.R. 9022. An act to amend Public Laws 815 and 874, 81st Congress, to provide financial assistance in the construction and op

eration of public elementary and secondary

schools in areas affected by a major disaster; to eliminate inequities in the application of Public Law 815 in certain military base closings; to make uniform eligibility requirements for school districts in Public Law 874; and for other purposes;

H.J. Res. 403. Joint resolution authorizing an appropriation to enable the United States to extend an invitation to the World Health Organization to hold the 22d World Health Assembly in Boston, Mass., in 1969; and

H.J. Res. 632. Joint resolution to authorize the Administrator of General Services to enter into an agreement with the University of Texas for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Archival Depository, and for other purposes.

HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION REFERRED OR PLACED ON CALENDAR

The following bills and joint resolutions were severally read twice by their titles and referred or placed on the calendar, as indicated:

H.R. 7811. An act to authorize the sale or loan of naval vessels to friendly Latin American countries, and for other purposes;

H.R. 7812. An act to authorize the loan of naval vessels to friendly foreign countries, and for other purposes;

H.R. 7813. An act to authorize the loan of naval vessels to friendly foreign countries; and

H.R. 8333. An act to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of a program of cash awards for suggestions, inventions, or scientific achievements by members of the Armed Forces which contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government operations; to the Committee on Armed Services.

H.R. 9022. An act to amend Public Laws 815 and 874, 81st Congress, to provide financial assistance in the construction and operation of public elementary and secondary schools in areas affected by a major disaster; to eliminate inequities in the application of Public Law 815 in certain military base closings; to make uniform eligibility requirements for school districts in Public Law 874; and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

H.J. Res. 403. Joint resolution authorizing an appropriation to enable the United States to extend an invitation to the World Health Organization to hold the 22d World Health Assembly in Boston, Mass., in 1969; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

H.J. Res. 632. Joint resolution to authorize

the Administrator of General Services to en

ter into an agreement with the University of Texas for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Archival Depository, and for other purposes; placed on the calendar.

APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE FEDERAL TRADE

Mr. HART. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan will state it.

Mr. HART. Do I correctly understand that the question on which we are about to vote is on agreeing to the first two committee amendments en bloc offered by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN]?

The PRESIDING Senator is correct.

OFFICER. The

The question is on agreeing to the first two committee amendments en bloc. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. BENNETT (when his name was called). Mr. President, on this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Iowa have a pair with the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I withhold my vote.

The rollcall was concluded.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. GORE], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Georgia

[Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT] and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. MCGEE], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], and the Senator from Ohio Ohio [Mr. YOUNG] would each vote "nay."

vote

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] is necessarily absent and his pair has been previously announced.

The result was announced-yeas 29,

COMMISSION ACT TO ORGANIZED nays 60, as follows:

Bass

Bayh
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.

Dodd

Eastland Ellender Ervin Gruening

PROFESSIONAL TEAM SPORTS The Senate resumed the consideration of S. 950, to make the antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act applicable to the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and to limit the applicability of such laws so as to exempt certain aspects of the organized professional team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey, and for other purposes. Mr. HART. Mr. President, briefly, be- Allott fore the yea-and-nay vote on the pending amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Aiken

[No. 244 Leg.] YEAS-29

Hartke
Hill
Holland
Jordan, N.C.
Long, La.

McClellan

McGovern

Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Robertson Russell, S.C. Sparkman Stennis Williams, N.J. Yarborough

NAYS-60

Miller

Monroney

Montoya Nelson

Fong Hart

[blocks in formation]

Mondale

Morse Morton Moss

Mundt

Murphy Muskie Neuberger Pastore Pearson Pell Prouty Saltonstall Scott Simpson Smathers Smith

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 425 and ask that it be made the pending business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin will be stated.

The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading

of the amendment be dispensed with, and the amendment be printed at this point in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. The amendment will be printed in the RECORD.

The amendment offered by Mr. PROXMIRE is as follows:

On page 2, strike out all in lines 14 and 15, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(3) the right of any team which is a member of a league to operate within a specifically defined geographic area, if that league by rule requires that all revenues derived by all member teams from the radio and television broadcasting of contests and exhibitions of such teams be divided equally among all such member teams; or". On page 3, strike out all in lines 7-9, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 2. As used in this Act

"(1) The term 'persons' means any individual, partnership, corporation, or unincorporated association, or any combination or association thereof; and

"(2) The term 'league' means an association composed of two or more teams engaged in a professional team sport which by agreement have adopted, accepted, or placed in effect rules promulgated by that association for the conduct of such teams and the regulation of contests and exhibitions in which those teams regularly engage."

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF] and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MCINTYRE] be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the amendment would modify subsection 3 of section 1 of S. 950, which grants major league baseball and other professional sports an exemption from antitrust laws by allowing teams "the right to operate within specific geographic areas."

This exemption permits exclusive territorial franchises for teams, including the sale of television and radio rights.

My amendment would permit professional sports' leagues to grant territorial rights only "if that league by rule requires that all revenues derived by member teams from radio and television broadcasting of contests *** be divided equally among all such member teams."

I am strongly opposed to this bill without my amendment because it would sign a death warrant for major league baseball in Milwaukee. It would seriously weaken the chances for survival in cities with limited television and radio marketing areas, such as Kansas City, Washington, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Cincinnati.

This bill, without my proposed amendment, is likely to give great encouragement to baseball owners to move from some of their present established locations.

It will prevent still other cities wishing

to attract baseball teams in the future from any realistic possibility of ever having major league baseball.

All of this is because the bill would permit teams exclusive rights to operate in specified geographic areas, including television and radio rights.

Broadcasting revenues have become such an important part of the profit picture for all professional sports, and this is especially true with major league baseball, that the TV and radio marketnot local fan support-is becoming the determining factor in where a team locates.

The proposed move of the Milwaukee Braves to Atlanta is a case in point. For the 12 years the Braves have played in Milwaukee-1953 through 1964-Braves' attendance topped every team that

stayed in one city during that period,

including the New York Yankees.

The team is being taken out of Mil

waukee despite this strong fan support

because television revenues in the southeastern section of the country promise to be enormous.

The bill would provide that kind of jurisdictional, geographic monopoly, so that it would be possible for a team to know that it could be guaranteed a market, not merely in one State or two States but, in this case, in many, many States.

Milwaukee's television market is limited almost entirely to the State of Wisconsin because it is hemmed in on all sides-by Chicago teams on the south, the Minnesota Twins on the north and west, and by Lake Michigan on the east. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. DOMINICK. I merely wished to ask the Senator from Wisconsin whether professional football pools its TV and radio remuneration.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, indeed. I am happy that the distinguished Senator from Colorado asked that question. Professional football does pool its revenues. Incidentally, that is one of the reasons why we have a team in Green Bay, Wis.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PROXMIRE. The revenues are the committee have shown this concludivided equally among the teams.

Mr. DOMINICK. That is the proposal that the Senator from Wisconsin sets forth in his amendment?

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is correct. That is what my amendment provides.

Mr. DOMINICK.

I thank the SenI thank the Sen

ator. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, other cities with major league teams face a similar situation and still others who wish to attract teams will confront it too.

In short, without my amendment, the Hart bill will inadvertently write into law a situation that threatens major league baseball in some cities and forever blocks it in others.

I used the move of the Braves as an example because it is current, because I am familiar with it, and because it is

a classic example of the need for the amendment I propose, and not because I expect to be able through amending or defeating the bill to keep the Braves in Milwaukee.

Before going into a justification for my amendment and further elaboration on the points already made, it is necessary to describe the Hart bill in greater detail.

The purpose of S. 950, according to the report of the Judiciary Committee, "is to place the organized professional

team sports of baseball, football, basketball, and hockey on an equal antitrust footing and then to grant exemptions relating to the essential sports practices as opposed to the business practices of the sports involved."

To accomplish this, the proposed sports bill places all professional sports under antitrust laws and then provides four broad exemptions, which relate to: The equalization of competitive playing strengths, the employment, selection, or eligibility of players, or the reservation, selection or assignment of player contracts, the right to operate within specific geographic areas, the preservation of public confidence in the honesty of sports contests.

The Judiciary Committee, which reported out S. 950 favorably, gave, in part, the following explanations for the exemptions:

These (first two exemptions) permit the use of the draft system and the reserve clause in addition to regulations restricting the employment, selection and assignment of player contracts. The committee considers these exemptions as necessary to maintain competitive equality among member clubs and leagues in various sports.

The third exemption permits the leagues to restrict geographic areas in which their member teams operate.

And that is what I would amend.

sively that exemptions are necessary if professional teams sports are to continue to operate under the league concept of organization.

My amendment does no injury either to the purpose of the bill as stated in the committee report or to the justification for the third exemption contained in the report. Senators will recall that the report said that the purpose of the proposed legislation was to place all professional team sports "on an equal antitrust footing and then to grant exemptions relating to the essential sports practices as opposed to the business practices of the sports involved."

This purpose is even more clearly spelled out in the conclusion of the report, which states, in part, that:

It (the committee) feels further that the

public interest is best served by keeping the

business aspects of the team sports involved within the antitrust laws while the essential sports activities are exempted.

It seems clear that by applying the territorial rights concept to the sale of television and radio rights and granting a blanket exemption without some regulation, the committee has violated its own purpose.

The committee appeared to recognize this in its discussion in the report on the third exemption when it said:

to restrict geographic areas in which their The third exemption permits the leagues member teams operate. This exemption is necessary to provide financial stability through preservation of the "live gate" and to give each of the leagues geographic bal

ance.

But by failing to deal with TV and radio rights, this exemption would, through disparity of TV revenues, do just the opposite.

Dan Topping, president of the New York Yankees, pointed out in testimony before the Judiciary Committee that the Yankees would continue to obtain more revenue through the sale of the team's TV and radio rights locally, not through a pooling arrangement in network package deals. This is because New York commands such a huge radio-TV market

area.

Topping indicated that the Yankees had to take in more money, because the team's salaries and expenses are double those of any other American League team. Topping and Frank Stanton, president of CBS, which recently purchased the Yankees, called my pooling arrangement as grossly unfair and inequitable from the Yankees' point of view.

This is precisely the point. By failing to equalize radio and television revenues, the Hart bill would guarantee that the

Yankees and one or two other teams could continue henceforth to dominate the leagues. Under such an arrangement, the teams with lucrative TV and radio revenues would continue to enjoy their extra income from this source.

So, instead of providing "stability and geographic balance," the third exemption would grant an unequal, not equal, chance for victory for teams like the Yankees.

Television and radio rights are not mentioned in the Judiciary Committee report, as if such revenues were mere incidental revenues.

The fact is, however, that the sale of these rights have assumed immense proportions in recent years and the trend is still upwards.

From that standpoint, it is the position, it seems to me, that we would have considered, possibly, in 1922, instead of 1965. What a vast difference television revenue has made in the meantime.

Television Age, a TV trade magazine, pointed out this remarkable growth in its February 1965 issue.

In 1956, when some 860 games were aired-and this was only 9 years ago$6.2 million was spent for rights and another $6 million was spent for air time and facilities.

By 1964-last year-the numbers had grown to 975 games, $16 million for rights, and another $35 million for TV time and talent.

The March 1, 1965, issue of Broadcasting magazine estimated that the rights to major league baseball climbed to $25,310,000 for 1965.

Mr. President, just consider that. Since 1956 television rights have grown from $6 million to $16 million last year. This year they will be $25 million. It is clear, on the basis of all experience and of all knowledge of what is happening in television broadcasting and the lucrative aspects of the business, that in a very short time television revenues will dominate baseball's gross receipts. They will substantially exceed the gate receipts. There is no question about it.

If this factor is ignored, as it is in the present bill before us, there will be a gross disparity and a disproportionate distribution of revenue among teams. That will result in imbalance, and a few teams will then dominate baseball and destroy it.

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

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. PEARSON. Do I correctly understand that the point the Senator from Wisconsin is now making relates to the exemption as to territorial franchise rights? While I understand the Senator to agree that that ought to be a part of the bill, he still feels that the television and radio money derived is the real essence of why baseball clubs move from place to place. Is that the point the Senator makes?

Mr. PROXMIRE. I believe the Senator makes the point well. While I believe that is the essence of why they move now, it was not, of course, the reason

years ago, before television came into the picture, and it was not nearly so much the decisive reason 10 years ago as it is today. But in the future it is going to be overwhelmingly the determining factor unless the kind of amendment I am proposing is adopted.

The determining factor will have nothing to do, I suppose, with whether a city has supported its team or will support it. It will be whether or not the team can move into a more profitable territory.

The section to which the Senator from Kansas refers relates to guaranteed geographic protection, geographic franchise, and geographic monopoly.

Mr. PEARSON. In all the discussions, in all the pronouncements made by team owners and officials as to the moving of franchises from city to city, has television and radio money ever been given as a reason for moving? In truth and in fact, have not all pronouncements and all rationalizations been on the basis of general attendance from city to city?

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator makes a good point. Those who have tried realistically to analyze moves such as the proposed move from Kansas City and proposed moves from other cities, including the move from Milwaukee, soon to take place, recognize that this is the real factor. factor. This is it. This is it. To my knowledge, though, the owners have not admitted it. It is clear that the moves are being made to where the TV money is. Teams are not moved from cities like Milwaukee to smaller cities like Atlanta for any other reason. Milwaukee has a higher Milwaukee has a higher per capita income than Atlanta.

Milwaukee has turned out more fans than any other city in the last 12 years, so there is no reason to move the Milwaukee team to another city unless there is a strong financial reason for doing so. There is a controlling reason for doing so. Television receipts in Wisconsin are limited and will be from now on. If television pooling is lost the possibility of having a Milwaukee team is nil. In Atlanta there is not that problem to worry about. What is of importance is the ability to reach into Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, and other Southeastern States. This is the reason for the move by the Braves to Atlanta.

This amendment is not intended to block the move of the Braves from Milwaukee to Atlanta. In all probability, they are going to move. They have signed a contract. Unless the present suit which has been filed by the State of Wisconsin and Milwaukee County is supported in the courts, the Braves are going to move.

Mr. PEARSON. Would the Senator say what reason the club owners give for moving the franchise from Milwaukee to Atlanta?

Mr. PROXMIRE. The only reason, in my judgment, and the only one I can understand and that makes sense, is that they can obtain a very lucrative-and I mean very lucrative-television contract.

Mr. PEARSON. What is the public reason given by the club owners?

The

Mr. PROXMIRE. The public reason given by the club owners is that they felt that fan attendance had declined. attendance at Milwaukee was down somewhat in 1962. It was down in 1963. It was below a million, but close to a million, in 1964. But the Braves owners estimated the team did not make money, and the owners felt that they can make more money in Atlanta.

Over the years, good and bad, Milwaukee has averaged a far better attendance than any other city.

Mr. PEARSON. I agree with the Senator. I shall support his amendment.

Baseball, in its dual capacity of commercial and public interest, involves a great many other considerations than television and radio revenue. Municipalities throughout the country float bond issues to erect stadiums. Huge great public and private investment has been made by many people in cities and counties all across the country.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. PEARSON. This puts baseball in the public interest and the public domain.

Mr. PROXMIRE. This is an important point. I am delighted the Senator raised it.

Milwaukee County built a beautiful stadium, at a cost of $8 million. It would now cost from $16 to $17 million to duplicate it.

It was built obviously for the sole reason of providing a home for the baseball team. This would be worth a great deal. There are a few football games we can play, a few exhibition games, and one or two gigantic conventions can be held there. However, throughout the year it would be vacant and idle under the proposed legislation.

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

Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I have a great amount of sympathy with what the Senator is trying to accomplish. I question whether we would not be setting a bad precedent. Nonetheless, I think the rationale that the Senator uses is that, because broadcasting plays such an important part in the prospects of organized baseball, before a person could receive an exclusive franchise, he would have to more or less make an arrangement whereby there would be an equal sharing of the television fees. Is that a correct statement? Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. PASTORE. If that is so, why not split, on an even basis, even the gate receipts? Where would we end?

Mr. PROXMIRE. The argument of the Senator from Wisconsin is that the television receipts are not related to control, or fan, or local support. Television receipts are a result of the accident of the team being located in a place in which there is a large area covering several States which has no other baseball team. The receipts will result entirely from the protection we are writing into the law today, not from any effort on the part of the owners.

« PreviousContinue »