Page images
PDF
EPUB

The reason that Houston is able to have such enormous television receipts is not because the people there support the team. Indeed support until this time has been near the bottom. However, the However, the reason that Houston receives these television receipts is that there is no other team in that particular area of the country.

In the State of Ohio, there is the Cleveland team, the Cincinnati team, and the team across the State border in Pittsburgh. Those teams are bound to have low receipts. In a case in which a community will not support the team, we have a logical and strong argument for moving to some place where the people are interested enough to support it.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, does that not depend on how good the team is? People tune in on certain baseball games because they like the competition between the two teams.

I believe I understand what the Senator is trying to accomplish. However, the Senator from Rhode Island is afraid that when we try to create equalization, we might take a chance of losing a little competition. How much can we do by legislative fiat?

Mr. PROXMIRE. It has been tried in

football. The receipts were divided equally. It has worked out very well. Mr. PASTORE. They did that on their

own?

Mr. PROXMIRE. They did that on They did that on their own, but it works out extremely well. As the Senator well knows, the argument that people will support a good team has been pretty well rebutted by the New York Mets, which is probably the worst team in either league.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I believe that the situation that prevails now might be due to the retirement of Casey Stengel. Most people were here to see the antics of Casey Stengel, more than to see the teams play.

That is a very unusual situation. I do not believe that we could use that as a criterion.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Milwaukee has had some good teams and some bad teams over the 12 years between 1953 and 1964. However, the teams have been supported on the average. They have been supporting their teams better than any other major league teams have been supported.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I have Mr. President, I have sympathy for what the Senator is trying to do. However, we may be approaching too closely to the area of competition when we begin to equalize these things. I can see that clubs can work this problem out for themselves. However, I wonder if we are not interfering too much as a legislative body in the freedom and exercise of a competitive sport when we place such conditions upon the sport.

PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the answer is that the Senate has just voted by a decisive majority to abrogate the freedom of contract that a young college man might have to sign a contract with one of several competing teams. The The distinguished Senator from Michigan

[Mr. HART], the Senator in charge of the [Mr. HART], the Senator in charge of the bill, was very frank to admit that this was done for the reason that the majority of the Senate felt that this would be one way to preserve effective league balance, so that we could have an opportunity for some kind of equal competition between the teams. Otherwise the team with the greatest amount of money would hire the best players and that would hire the best players and that would be it. If the Senate is going to go that far and abrogate the freedom of contract to that extent and I voted for the Ervin amendment-it would seem to me that that television relationship, me that that television relationship, which is far less important than the freedom of contract of the individual player, ought to be modified in this way, as it has been in football.

Mr. President, I yield to the junior Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Wisconsin for a very persuasive presentation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name may be added as a cosponsor of the amendment of the senior Senator from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, it is pertinent to point out that the revenues that are produced as a consequence of broadcasting and televising flow as a result of the people of the United States, through their Government, loaning or granting, on a temporary basis, a license to a private group to use the public airways, so that if one television or radio station in a city which has a baseball team has an advantage in the revenue it produces, it is not something that is a consequence of the effort of the participating baseball team.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the point made by the Senator from Wisconsin is one which frankly had eluded sin is one which frankly had eluded me. It is a very important and crucial point. We are not only talking about the fact that this is a sport which has the fact that this is a sport which has been given a territorial exemption and has been given protection and safeguarded from competition. We are also talking about a situation in which the television and radio revenue itself is regulated necessarily by the Government. Those who broadcast or televise are given a Government monopoly, in a sense, over their frequencies. For that reason, it is different than the usual kind of direct competition experienced in most industry.

Mr. NELSON. It is true that, theoretically, at least, we could have a baseball team with no stadium which would still be a most profitable enterprise if there were a large enough and lucrative enough outlet through a federally regulated radio or television station.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is correct. We could have a situation in which hardly anyone attended the game, perhaps 500 people. Nevertheless, the team might make much more money and hire the finest players and be able to do so because it had an opportunity such as that afforded by this bill to sell the television rights in an area which no

other team would be able to invade, and, because the bill would provide that, we would have a territorial and geographic franchise over this particular area, given as a monoply gift by the Federal Government.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin would in no way affect the television station itself or the network. It would make no difference to them who might see or hear the game once the air time was paid for.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is correct. All this amendment would do would be to distribute the revenues.

Mr. NELSON. The difference would be only as to the baseball teams themselves.

Mr. PROXMIRE. I suppose that we could make the argument that there would be some fringe situation in which a network or radio or TV station or some other group selling network or television time could bargain between teams in an area and get a little more money for them than it would if they did not. pool.

But I think that this is a minor consideration, particularly in view of the fact that radio and television are given a governmental franchise, or, in effect, a monopoly.

Mr. NELSON. The money they can get depends on the advertising they can get and the audience they can reach.

Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct. Broadcasting estimated that sponsors will pay a total of $85 million to purchase the air time, put on their shows, and sell their products. The broadcasting estimates include sale of local rights by individual teams, sale of package rights to networks, and sale of rights for the all-star games and the world series.

Broadcasting also furnished a teamby-team listing of the sale of local broadcast rights.

A study of the sale of local TV and radio rights by individual team shows clearly that such income is substantial and that a great variation exists between teams. A breakdown of such revenue for American and National League teams in the past 2 years illustrates this.

In the American League, revenue from the sale of local rights for 1965 ranges from $300,000 for Kansas City and Washington to $1,200,000 for the New York Yankees and $1,300,000 for Detroit. In the National League Pittsburgh gets $450,000, St. Louis gets $500,000, while Houston receives $1,770,000-which is easily the largest amount received by any major league team-and Philadelphia gets $1,300,000. Because of the proposed move the Braves were unable to find a Milwaukee sponsor and are obtaining only $150,000. The Braves received $400,000 in 1964 and would have received $525,000 this year if the team had agreed to remain in Milwaukee.

Mr. President, I have tables showing the estimated American and National League revenues from television and radio contracts. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the RECORD at this point.

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

be prudent for Congress to study closely the impact of this increased revenue before granting monopolistic territorial

Estimated American League revenues from franchises which would include radio

television and radio contracts 1

[blocks in formation]

and TV rights.

The problem has been recognized by professional football.

As I indicated in my colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Colorado, the TV and radio pooling system used in the National Football League has kept the teams competitive and has prevented the inordinant number of franchise shifting that we are witnessing in major league baseball. Pooling of radio and TV receipts has allowed the Green Bay Packers, whose home is a city with a population of 60,000, to remain in Green Bay. It can do the same for baseball. It has also allowed the Green Bay Packers to

1 Broadcasting magazine, vol. 60, No. 9, Mar. 1, 1965, compete on an equal financial basis, and pp. 44-49.

[blocks in formation]

as every football fan knows, field a great team. This would be flatly impossible if the NFL followed major league practices.

It might be well to discuss for a moment what has been happening to baseball in recent years regarding these franchise shifts to determine whether such shifts are good for baseball and good for the public.

In the past 12 years there have been six transfers of major league baseball teams from one city to another. Each of these transfers were accompanied by Widespread complaints by the cities losing the clubs. Thus far, fortunately none of the moves has resulted in the loss of professional baseball to a com

1 Broadcasting magazine, vol. 60, No. 9, Mar. 1, 1965, munity which has been a major league pp. 44-49.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the committee at one point, at least, recognized the growing importance of TV and radio revenue to baseball and it pointed this out in its report, stating: Organized baseball relies increasingly on television for financial stability and the position CBS has gained by its acquisition raises serious competitive questions that require the availability of antitrust weapons to protect the public interest.

The report failed to note other joint TV and radio-baseball relationships that I pointed out in my testimony in support of my amendment. These joint holdings include:

Gene Autry, who owns the Los Angeles Angels, also owns two television stations and shares joint control of 65 percent of Golden West Broadcasters. John Fetzer, owner of the Detroit Tigers, owns five television stations. John Allyn of the White Sox is president of a company which holds a franchise for pay TV in Dallas and Houston. Judge Roy Hofheinz, president of the Houston Astros, owns 16 percent of the stock in a Houston television station. And both the Giants and the Dodgers have substantial holdings in pay TV.

The importance of radio and TV revenue seems to be obvious to those baseball owners who are moving into radio and TV and to those in the radio and television industry who are buying into

baseball.

It would seem that Congress, too, should note the growing importance of this relationship. I submit that it would

city. But this could happen if the Braves move from Milwaukee, which seems likely.

When the Braves moved to Milwaukee, Boston retained the Red Sox. When the Browns moved to Baltimore, St. Louis still had the Cardinals. Philadelphia lost the Athletics to Kansas City, but fans there still enjoy the Phillies. The same situation existed in the moves of the Dodgers to Los Angeles and the Giants to San Francisco. The Senators were replaced in Washington when the team moved to the Twin Cities in Minnesota.

Although this shifting around caused grumblings and even dismay among sportswriters, baseball could and did argue that the shifts strengthened the league and did not deprive baseball fans in the stricken communities of the enjoyment of watching major league baseball.

And it was argued that in most of the shifts the fans were somewhat responsible because they failed to support the teams by attending the games.

Surely, it would be difficult to argue that a team should have to stay in a community even after the community failed to support it. So far, I am aware of no responsible person who is making such a demand.

But I ask baseball and Members of the Senate, Was the absence of fan support the sole cause of the moves of the Dodgers, the Giants, and the former Senator team? And I ask baseball and Members of the Senate, Is the absence of fan support the sole reason the Milwaukee Braves have decided to move to Atlanta, Ga.?

In the last case, which of course is the one with which I am most familiar, I can assure you that it was not lack of local support, but the lure of a television bonanza that prompted the two Chicago businessmen, who bought the team several years ago, to make the decision to move. Atlanta, Milwaukee-it makes difference to no to these businessmen. They will go where the television gravy is the richest.

This becomes transparently clear upon examination of the attendance record of the Braves during their 12-year stay in Milwaukee and comparing the average attendance during this period with that of other clubs in both leagues.

Braves attendance in Milwaukee, 1953-64 1953--1954

1955-1956 -. 1957___ 1958. 1959--1960_.

1961_.

1962__ 1963_. 1964.

1,826, 397

2, 131, 388

2,005, 836

2,046, 331 2, 215, 404 1, 971, 101

1,749, 772 1,497, 799

1, 101, 441

766, 927

773, 018

910, 811

[blocks in formation]

ically denied the rumor, county officials offered to sweeten the Braves contract with the county. Civic and business interests indicated they would rally to support the team and as a result, the team drew almost 1 million persons last year, despite a relatively poor season.

Throughout this period, the team owners denied any intention of moving and even tried to dampen efforts by the wellmeaning county officials and fans who sought to gain additional concessions for the team.

This does not fit the picture of a group of altruistic sportsmen who, after diligent efforts to make a go of it in Milwaukee, reluctantly decided to move to save their enterprise from bankruptcy. The fact is that the several enterprising Chicago businessmen saw an opportunity to move into a vast, unexploited television and radio market which dominates at least five States and jumped at the opportunity. In doing so, they abdicated their responsibility to the community which provided an outstanding facility for their team and to the millions of fans who supported the team in Milwaukee.

As I have pointed out earlier, while there have been six baseball franchise shifts in the past 12 years, the blow was somewhat softened by the fact that in none of the cases was a major league city deprived of major league baseball.

This is not true with the contemplated move by the Braves. It is also not true with the anticipated move of the Kansas City Athletics or of the possible move of the Cleveland Indians.

In each of these cases, major league baseball is abandoning a sizable public following, a significant number of local businesses which have been built up around the teams and, in the case of Milwaukee, a modern, multimillion dollar facility which will stand as a vacant, expensive white elephant to remind the community of the ruthless business tactics of professional baseball.

There can be little complaint if a team

moves because it lacks community support. But the community cannot be held responsible for the vagaries of television and radio marketing.

The Judiciary Committee took note of the impact of such franchise shifts and said in its report:

Concern has been expressed regarding moving baseball franchises from one city to

another in order to increase revenues. Baseball franchise owners have an obligation to the public to remain with their franchised territories, absent compelling reasons to transfer.

Naturally, there is a desire of many cities to secure a team; however, it seems that the public interest would best be served by expansion of the existing major leagues or the

formation of another major league rather than the movement of existing franchises.

The committee report correctly described my amendments a device to discourage moving a major league franchise to a more lucrative television market. Regarding the amendment, which was not accepted by the committee, the report said:

The committee views the amendment as

unfair to teams which have established a large following in their franchise areas en

abling them to obtain better television and radio contracts.

The variation in revenues received by casts and broadcasts is too great for the major league baseball teams for local teleproposal to be equitable.

If it were not so great, there would be no necessity for it.

Continuing reading:

There is a trend for pooling television and broadcasting revenues and that practice broadcasting revenues and that practice should not be discouraged as it tends to equalize further the strength of the various teams.

I should like to make several points on the committee's appraisal.

In the first place, a cursory glance at the current television and radio revenue picture quickly dispells the notion that having "established a large following" in the franchise areas has any relationship to the revenue amounts. Some of the teams having the lowest totals have been in established areas for many years while some of the teams receiving the most have been in their present locations for a relatively short period.

Among the lowest are Pittsburgh$450,000. The Pirates were in Pittsburgh long before I was born-in fact before the turn of the century.

St. Louis-$500,000. Cincinnati-$550,000. I believe CinI believe Cincinnati was the first major league base

ball team.

[blocks in formation]

Second, while the committee concludes that the variations in revenue are too great to be equitable, it admits that pooling of revenues is desirable because it would "tend to equalize further the strength of the various teams.” Indeed,

playing

of equalization strength and the need to prevent the wealthiest clubs from dominating play, is cited earlier in the report by the committee as a justification for an exemption which allows the leagues to use draft systems and other devices for the "equalization of competitive playing strengths."

On this point, the report states:

Although the exemptions provided in this bill, it is generally agreed that the wealthier teams would absorb the best talent and force the dissolution of the poorer teams and of

the leagues themselves.

Therefore, there is a special situation affecting the public interest involving team sports which does not apply to the traditional competitive situation.

It seems to me that this argument applies one for one to my amendment.

The statements in the committee report support my position even better than my own arguments.

The committee's own report provides the rationale for the desirability, need, and justification of my amendment. The precedent for such an arrangement al

ready exists. The National Football League has thrived on a pooling system and major league baseball, in its contracts for network package deals, has already embarked on a pooling arrangement on a modest scale.

In order to give the Senate the benefit of the results of the pooling arrangements which have already been in practice in the National Football League, I should like to quote from a statement made by Pete Rozelle, Commissioner of the National Football League, before the House Judiciary Committee on the House hearings, regarding the permission he obtained from the National Football League for this pooling.

This is what he said:

The fundamental issue is relatively simple-whether the National Football League and its member clubs are to have any say as to how their games are to be televised. If they cannot, the matter must be left entirely to the determination of the networks. The

networks have their own problems of production costs, cable charges, costs per homes reached, and sponsor availability. If the league cannot have any voice in the manner in which its games are telecast, the networks will be guided, as they necessarily must, by their own economic interests-which in this instance are not the interests of professional football, of the sports fans of America, or of the National Football League and its 14

member clubs.

The immediate result will be television programing for 1962 and all successive football seasons which will deprive many member clubs of the National Football League of all access to television facilities and television income. It will also deprive hometown fans in many National Football League cities of telecasts of the games of their home

club, sharply reduce TV income to the league, and seriously impede the league's

efforts to maintain a balanced league.

In the sport of professional football, with

its limited playing schedule and its emphasis on team play, equality of competition is

essential to the maintenance of fan interest and the survival of the league. Balance in the league has only been achieved during the past decade of the National Football League's 41-year existence. Without it, 41 franchises

had failed earlier.

We are now threatened with losing what has taken so many years to develop unless Chairman CELLER'S bill can be passed at this session of Congress.

These are not speculative concerns. The

league's problem is real and immediate. All

teams have been able to secure access to television facilities for the present season simply because their individually negotiated contracts carry through 1961. Most of these contracts expire at the end of this season.

For the 1962 season, the networks have already announced their intentions. They will abandon the league's longtime policy of televising the road games of each team back to the team's home area. It no longer makes economic sense for the networks to purchase individually the rights of all 14 member clubs of the league for local and regional telecasting. Costs and other factors make it more

productive for them to acquire the television rights of only a select few clubs for national or quasi-national telecasting.

Thus, unless the league is permitted to exercise some control over its television programing, only a limited number of teams in the National Football League will have access to television facilities in 1962. Only those fans in the large metropolitan centers and favored by their geographical locationsuch as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago-will be assured of seeing the games of their home team on television.

I don't think I have to tell this committee what the response of fans in Green Bay, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Dallas, St. Louis, Detroit, and even such cities as San Francisco and Philadelphia will be when they are informed that they will no longer be able to follow the road games of their home teams on television.

The bill would resolve the problem by permitting the commissioner and the member clubs of the league to act jointly in the sale of their TV rights. Only by grouping the weaker and stronger clubs and the clubs with

more and less favored geographic locations can the league hope to achieve any control over the manner in which its games are telecast.

This is the only way the league can maintain sponsorship interest in telecasts of National Football League games, restore order and stability to league television arrangements, equalize television income among the clubs, secure realistic values for

Regarding my proposed amendment, Mr. Finley said:

I might stop right here for a moment, Senator HART, and would like to state if I may that I was very much impressed with Senator PROXMIRE'S statement and would like to go on record at this moment and state that the Kansas City Athletics Baseball Club agrees with Senator PROXMIRE 100 percent.

Baseball Commissioner Ford Frick, who also testified before the committee, has conceded that baseball has considered pooling TV revenue. In a letter to Representative HENRY REUSS, of MilWaukee, dated July 15, 1964, Frick said: waukee, dated July 15, 1964, Frick said:

The pooling of television revenue by the major league clubs has been considered by them and is worthy of further consideration. Frick went on to say that he did not television rights, and assure all member think pooling was feasible at this time.

clubs of the league of continued access to television facilities and television income.

If the 14 teams of the National Football League and the 8 teams of the American Football League are each required to act separately in disposing of their TV rights, no more than a handful of these teams will, after this season, be able to find a home on the limited network facilities available.

Of course, the argument can be made, Why not leave it to the owners of the major baseball teams to make their own arrangements? The fact is that these arrangements are made only when there is a three-fourths vote to sustain them; that is, it is necessary to get 8 of the 10 teams in each league to vote affirmatively. To get an affirmative vote on this issue would seem to be almost impossible. Dan Topping has indicated the view of the Yankees. It requires only two other teams to block the American League from acting. If they did act to equalize the revenues by pooling, it would deprive the Yankees of perhaps millions of dollars in profits. We should not expect the leagues to act, under those circumstances, on a voluntary basis. They will not do so until the situation reaches the point where they fear some action by Congress.

Mr. President, I was speaking about a package deal. In one such package deal 18 baseball teams from both major leagues have contracted with ABC for televising 81 games. Each of the teams involved receives a flat $300,000 whether they play in 1 or 10 of the telecast games. Mr. Charles Finley, owner of the Kansas City Athletics, testified before the Judiciary Committee:

Television and radio income is the difference between profit and loss for almost every major league team.

Mr. Finley told the committee that Houston and the New York Yankee were able to get outstanding TV and radio contracts because they were in rich market areas.

He said:

Senator, Houston * * ** represents the Southwest and they have an enormous television market, and they were able to obtain this outstanding contract on the same basis as the New York Yankees have been able to obtain such good contracts year by year.

The same reason for Milwaukee going to Atlanta. A very, very lucrative contract. And it is getting to the point today where it is almost impossible for a ball club such as my club-and I could name you several others to compete with clubs that have a $1.4 million TV contract.

Warren Giles, president of the National Baseball League, in a letter to Representative REUSS, dated July 16, 1964, said that the "pooling of television receipts has been discussed by our clubs." Giles went on to say that while the pooling of weekly network shows might be worked out, sharing of receipts from local television coverage "seems impractical."

It is clear from these responses that there is strong opposition to pooling of all television revenue by some of the teams in both leagues. Dan Topping, president of the Yankees, told the committee that he opposes pooling TV receipts. Topping explained that the Yankees need television revenue from the huge New York TV market in order to pay the higher salaries Yankee players command.

In this answer, Mr. Topping hit the nail right on the head. This is prenail right on the head. This is precisely the point. With a pooling of receipts other teams could afford to pay greater salaries and attract better players.

What does that do to the Yankee competition with Kansas City or with competition with Kansas City or with other teams in the American League? It is true that the Yankees are having a bad season this year. However, that is a rather rare situation. This is that is a rather rare situation. This is that rare year in which the Yankees lost the pennant.

Is it in baseball's interest or in the public's public's interest to perpetuate the Yankees domination of baseball?

Is it in baseball's interest or in the public interest to encourage the opportunistic moving of teams from one location to another in a never-ending quest for optimum television revenue?

Is it in baseball's interest or in the public interest for the Congress to grant monopolistic territorial franchises

which include blank checks for incredibly which include blank checks for incredibly valuable TV and radio rights in the face of the overwhelming evidence that such a policy would give a clear and distinct business advantage, a financial advantage to some over others when there is not a scintilla of evidence that such an advantage is necessary for the sport. Indeed, it is sure to hurt the sport.

While I realize that it is conventional for Senators to follow a committee report, I would respectfully urge Senators to do some soul searching on this matter.

To summarize, the Hart proposal, if passed without the Proxmire amendment added, would kill major league baseball in Wisconsin and in other States which do not enjoy a huge TV market.

Professional baseball constitutes business. The Hart bill recognizes this by bringing baseball under the antitrust laws. It also recognizes that if baseball is to continue to provide roughly equal competition, there must be some exemptions for baseball.

The rationale of the Hart measure is to limit exemptions to those phases of baseball's operation which would otherwise result in destructive competition and bring about domination of the sport by one or two teams.

But the provision in the Hart bill for and TV rights does precisely the opposite geographic monopoly to include radio of this. TV is far and away the most rapidly growing source of revenue for

major league baseball.

It will soon be by all odds the main source of revenue. Without the Proxmire amendment, the Hart bill would hand a few teams located in rich TV markets an immense advantage.

This TV advantage will build a financial imbalance into baseball permitting domination by one or two teams. My amendment would prevent this by requiring that major leagues pool and equally divide TV and radio revenue as the National Football League now does.

This would be like passing a law which would state, in effect: "You cannot henceforth play major league baseball in Milwaukee or other cities of the country."

The public would be better served if the bill were defeated than if it were passed in its present form. I earnestly hope that my amendment will be adopted.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin and Senators who have joined him in offering the amendment hold their point of view with deep conviction. It is not alone the result of the experience that Milwaukee has had, but, of course, necessarily that experience does affect the attitude of not only the Senator from Wisconsin, but also of other Senators whose States find themselves in similar circumstances with respect to a baseball franchise.

I believe the amendment should be rejected, as it was rejected in committee, principally for the reason that this degree of regulation on the part of Congress of a business aspect of a substantial business in this country is unwise. At least it is unwise at this time.

I know, as the Senator from Wisconsin has argued, that football has decided that it wishes to pool its television revenues. This is a business decision, which Congress certainly will not undertake to reverse. Up to this point the baseball interests have not decided that they wish to pool their revenues. This points up the disparity and the difference between the two games. Baseball has never been presented by the television networks with the opportunity that football had been presented with. Baseball's TV and radio revenues are primarily local in nature.

Football has a season of some 14 games. Baseball has some 160 or more on an annual schedule. When the time

comes when baseball can obtain receipts from pooling comparable to football, I would anticipate that the decision to pool would be made by the businesses involved.

I feel that it is not desirable for Congress to make the judgment that is involved in the Proxmire amendment with respect to the distribution of profits by independent businesses, even though they are in a league operation. As a result of this bill, baseball will be required to surrender some of the broad immunity that it now has under the Court decisions.

With respect to the deterrent to the freedom of movement of franchises that would be provided if the Proxmire amendment were adopted, I think that under certain conditions it might well stabilize the movement of franchises. But if baseball, for reasons of its own, decided not to pool thereby forfeiting the exemption in this area the amendment might have quite the contrary result. It might induce a broader movement in relocation of franchises. At least there is a partial brake on the movement of baseball franchises now because league approval is required. If it was not required any team would be free to move anywhere at any time. Further, if all teams pool revenues, all teams would have a financial interest in member clubs moving into a richer TV area. This might also encourage moves.

I would also make the point that we should not dismiss too lightly revenues and receipts from sources other than television. It is quite true that in recent years income to baseball from television has increased appreciably. But the live gate remains a significant revenue source. It is the bread and butter revenue of baseball, though perhaps not of football.

The Senator from Wisconsin very properly cited the situation of the Green Bay Packers. The Green Bay Packers have survived, indeed flourished, at least artistically-I do not know whether financially-for a long period of time, and there was no pooling of television until a couple of years ago. But there was no movement out of Green Bay of

the Packer franchise.

There is a very great difference between baseball and football, not alone in the schedules, but in the individual team arrangements and the suitability of the game for television sponsorship. It appears that football is a more dra

matic attraction to the television tube than baseball.

But overriding all, I think, is the un

desirability for Congress to get into what is primarily a business decision, a de

cision that relates to how businesses

across the country shall be permitted to treat the profit that may be derived as a result of their management effort. It is for this reason, at least at this point in time, that I think it would not be desirable to require that exclusive territorial rights be permitted to organized baseball only if they agree to pool, to spread their television revenues.

Therefore, Mr. President, I hope that the amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HART. I gladly yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator has indicated-and, as usual, he is very fair and thoughtful in his appraisal of my amendment, even though he opposes it— his agreement that there are certain attractive aspects to the amendment, in that it might be desirable from the public interest aspect, the interest of the fans, if franchises were stabilized, for example, by a greater equalization of revenues.

But the Senator has said, as I understand, that this would be wrong because the decision should be left to baseball to make the authorization itself; is that correct?

Mr. HART. The Senator from Michigan stated that he sympathizes with and generally shares the feeling that it would be desirable that the location of franchises be stable and predictable. I did make that statement.

Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator not concede that if Congress does not act on the question, it is very unlikely that baseball will pool revenues, in view of the fact that it takes, as I understand itperhaps I am misinformed a threequarters vote-in other words, it takes eight votes of the ten teams in each league, to act in this particular way— and that there are at least three teams that have such an immense revenue from television, and expect a sky-rocketing revenue in the future, that it would be most unlikely, short of some very unusual development, for them voluntarily to take this action? So if Congress does not act, we simply will not get this pooling, and the disparity, the imbalance, is built in and guaranteed.

Mr. HART. I think the Senator from Michigan would not argue that there is a great likelihood or even a remote possibility that baseball, within its organized structure, would in the future agree to pool television revenues. I really do not know. But I do feel that there are many factors other than the pooling of television revenue that would persuade organized baseball generally to maintain a stable distribution of the franchises. ally has proved true. Over a long period of years, this gener

Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it not also true

that over the long period of years there has been bread and butter income from gate receipts and such other receipts as the various concessions, and so forth, but

that now in recent years television revenues have shot up enormously? After all, in 1956, revenues from television were $6 million, and this year they are going to be $25 million; by the early 1970's they are likely to be close to $50 million

or more. As the Senator himself has

pointed out and conceded, gate receipts are fairly stable; it seems most likely that the major revenue, the main revenue, will come from television receipts. If one team is to get 3, 4, or 5 times as much in television receipts as another, its seems to this Senator that we shall destroy any real prospect for a balance in the leagues and any real prospect for the winning teams to be determined on the basis of skill, good managership, and

that kind of thing, and not strictly on the basis of money.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think we have demonstrated by our vote on the Ervin amendment our desire to insure that player strength be balanced.

But I would hope that by the adoption of the Proxmire amendment, we would not add an effort to stabilize profits as between businesses.

The question can be asked, "Yes, but if we permit one club to develop, generate substantially more revenue from television than another, are we not thereby enabling that club to unbalance player strength?"

Not so long as we have the draft; and it is for that very reason that we argued against the adoption of the Ervin amendment.

Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator will yield on that point, the draft is only one source of players.

Is it not a fact that although the farm systems have deteriorated quite a bit, they are still of some importance and significance in the building of a strong baseball team? Also, the salaries that players are paid, and that sort of thing, can be important.

The draft is not the only method. Furthermore, I voted for the Ervin amendment. I did so because it seemed to this Senator that the freedom of contract between the employee and the baseball team should certainly take precedence over the right of owners to get a more profitable television contract than would some other owner.

Mr. HART. That is the point of view of the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. PROXMIRE. The distinguished Senator from Michigan stated that on balance, limiting freedom of contract for young players is justified. It seems to me we would violate their freedom of contract this way. Is that justifiable in the judgment of the majority of the Senate? If equality is to be this important, should we not consider applying the same kind of equal distribution of revenues in baseball that football now has? I subequalization of profits, we have only mit that in football, we do not have any equalization of gross receipts from one of their important sources.

tor from Wisconsin, eloquently voiced, Mr. HART. The position of the Senareflects, as it well should, the concern that the people of Milwaukee have with respect to a franchise transfer of recent day. I hope it will not persuade Congress to adopt an amendment which the majority of the committee felt was unwise.

The effect of this amendment would be to make a common denominator of profits among the franchise holders.

I am not at all persuaded that the adoption of an amendment which would tend to create a common denominator for profits is desirable or would even serve, in the long run, the job of stabilizing the franchises..

For that reason I hope the amendment will be rejected.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The amendment is not practical.

Mr. ERVIN. I have been intrigued by the colloquy between the Senator from

« PreviousContinue »