Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Baseball itself claims, or asserts, that this amendment would somehow damage the admirable scholarship program under which a high school or college student who signs a professional contract is given college tuition by the club who signs him. This scholarship program was in effect several years prior to this year's draft, the first in baseball history, and there is absolutely nothing in the amendment which would prevent its continuation. If a boy has the desire and intellectual curiosity to complete his education a little at the time during those periods of vacation he is allowed from his profession, he is to be commended. However, this would be a rare individual, for the season runs from spring training to late September and even October. During the winter months professional rookie leagues are maintained by the majors in Florida specifically for the young players of college age. And, as I shall point out in more detail in a moment, most boys who leave college to play professionally, never return, despite the scholarship program.

Recently I have been asked why the special attention to the college student. In these days of annual bills appropriating more and more for Federal aid to higher education, at a time when we all realize that education is important not only for the economic well-being of the individual, but also to the future of the Nation, the answer should be clear. It is inconceivable that we would enact legislation which the colleges feel encourages young men to give up their education during the same session of Congress we give massive aid to the same colleges. But if we are to enact such legislation, let us make certain we preserve the freedom of contract for those who leave college.

Studies have shown that a college education is worth $100,000 in lifetime earnings to the individual. Studies have also shown that while fewer than 5 percent of those who leave college to play professional baseball ever reach the major leagues and have a meaningful baseball career, more than two-thirds never return to finish their education. It is my strong opinion that when a college student gives up so much for so little to enter professional baseball, the least we can do is grant him the freedom to contract and seek the best offer.

I strongly urge that my amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following items be inserted at this point in the RECORD: "A Summary of Intercollegiate Baseball and Its Relationship to Professional Baseball," and the article, "Baseball Still Thinks First of Itself" from the Milwaukee Journal, June 9, 1965, and the article, "Smell Detected in Pro Football" from the Washington Post of August 17, 1965.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SUMMARY OF A STUDY OF INTERCOLLEGIATE BASEBALL AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL

INTRODUCTION

The information contained in this summary was obtained from surveys conducted

by the American Association of College Baseball Coaches (AACBC) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It not only affords a comparison of college baseally weighs the merits of a student-athlete ball and professional baseball, but it factually weighs the merits of a student-athlete forgoing a college education for the uncertainties of a career in professional baseball.

It is heartening to those identified with or interested in college athletics to observe the interested in college athletics to observe the growth of baseball as an intercollegiate sport. growth of baseball as an intercollegiate sport. The expansion is occurring at a time when professional baseball is confronted with the shifting of franchises to stimulate interest

and the deterioration of its minor league system.

Those who are impressed by the payment of super bonuses to a comparatively few prospects should be sobered somewhat by the facts in this report as to what happens to the vast majority of student-athletes who attempt a professional baseball career in preference to a college education.

PARTICIPATION

Ninety-two percent of the member institutions of the NCAA sponsored baseball on an intercollegiate basis during the 1957 season. This represents an increase of 6 percent over 1954 when 86 percent of the NCAA membership conducted intercollegiate baseball. The 433 participating NCAA member institutions provide equipment, facilities, coaching and competition for more than 15,000 studentathletes.

PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL

In 1953, 36 minor leagues of all classifications finished the season. In the spring of 1958, 24 minor leagues (a decrease of 33 percent from the 1953 figure) started the season. As of last month (August), the same 24 leagues involving 173 clubs were operation.

The total number of players in professional baseball in 1958, including the 400 in the major leagues, is less than 4,000. FACILITIES

NCAA colleges and universities provided 448 first-class diamonds in 1954. A survey of 1957 facilities shows that NCAA members have 562 baseball fields. In 3 years, the average per institution has increased from 1.09 to 1.27. It should be noted that these fields are cared for by the regular building and grounds departments of the institutions and are complemented by ample dressing rooms and locker space.

CONTESTS

Further testimony to intercollegiate baseball's growth is the fact that in 1957, NCAA member universities and colleges played 10,950 games. In 1954, NCAA institutions reported 8,944 games. This represents an average increase of more than 3 games per institution-1957: an average of 24.8 games; 1954: an average of 21.7 games per college.

COACHING

The survey results clearly indicate that unless a college student-athlete is considered talented enough to merit a substantial bonus contract or at least is signed to a major league contract, he has a slight chance of eventually reaching the major leagues.

A total of 224 (55.6 percent of 403) signed class B or lower classification contracts. Not one reached the majors; in fact, 168 or 75 percent dropped out of professional baseball before progressing beyond the classification in which they signed. Only 4 of the remaining 56 (1.7 percent of the original 224) progressed as far as AAA.

It is interesting to note that of the remaining 179 who signed class A contracts or bet

ter, 99 were seniors, 43 juniors, 14 sopho

mores, 19 freshmen. There were four whose classes were not specified. This indicates that the longer a student remained in school the more valuable he became. From this group came the 20 major league players; i.e., 11.2 percent of the 179 achieved their goal.

The survey also disclosed that the athlete who signs a nonbonus contract has a 50 to 1 chance of reaching the majors if he signs a major league contract; from an A to AAA contract his chances are approximately 400 to 1; as indicated, his chances are nil if he becomes a party to a class B, C, or D contract. A college product who signs a bonus contract has a 4-to-1 chance of reaching the majors. Forty-seven of the 403 players (11.7 percent) received bonuses to sign. Twelve (25.5 percent of 47) were in the major leagues in 1957; 22 (46.8 percent) were out of baseball and 14 were scattered between Class AAA and class B teams.

VALUE OF COLLEGE EDUCATION

In 1954-55, 30 percent of college-age boys and girls in this Nation attended college. The educational statisticians predict that as of 1971-72, 50 percent of college-age young people will seek higher education.

The survey shows that 81 percent of college freshmen and 77 percent of sophomores signing professional contracts withdraw permanently from college, thus sacrificing their education for a highly speculative career in

baseball.

It has been reported that a college education is valued in excess of $100,000. This is based on a survey which shows that the average college graduate earns 88 percent more than the average high school graduate or a total of more than $100,000 during a lifetime.

The value of a college education can only increase.

[From the Milwaukee (Wis.) Journal,
June 9, 1965]

BASEBALL STILL THINKS FIRST OF ITSELF
(By Oliver E. Kuechle)

Why can't baseball leave kids still in school alone? Why must it tempt them with bonus money not to go to school? The free agent

More than 850 coaches are employed at the draft, introduced at a joint major league

433 NCAA members which conduct intercollegiate baseball for 15,000 studentathletes. Over 85 percent of these coaches are employed on a full-time basis.

FINANCES

The Nation's colleges have a multimillion dollar investment in baseball, considering only equipment and real estate value. In addition, the NCAA membership annually spends more than $5 million on the sport.

CHANCE OF SUCCESS IN PROFESSIONAL

BASEBALL

This study included a sampling of college baseball players (403) who signed profes

sional baseball contracts during the 1947-57 period.

Of the 403 college players, 20 (4.96 percent) were playing in the major leagues in 1957. Of the 20, 12 signed bonus contracts and 8 were nonbonus players.

meeting in New York Tuesday, may one day save baseball from its wild, ruinous bidding of the past, although this remains to be seen, but once more it places its own selfish welfare above the welfare of the boy.

Of the first 20 young men drafted Tuesday, and these are the men baseball under its rules of the draft must sign to major league contracts, 15 were 17 or 18 year olds who had just received their high school diplomas, 4 others were 18 or 19 year olds who had just completed their sophomore year in college and 1 was a 21 year old who had just completed his junior year.

that important except to itself. Why interrupt education? Baseball is not

EXCEPTIONS

Admittedly, not all of the high school boys picked were of college timber or were even of a mind to continue on to college, and if baseball approaches such boys there can be

no quarrel. A job in baseball with a bonus is better than a job parking cars with no bonus. Admittedly, a high school boy who wants to go on may still say "no" to the game's blandishments although only a boy with his feet on the ground (or a parent) can say the "no" to a $100,000 bonus. Admittedly a higher education, by itself, does not guarantee a richer, fuller, and better adult life although there are very interesting statistics on this.

In principal, though, baseball's temptations are still wrong. You don't interrupt a boy's education for a game. In a day when education has come to mean more than ever, when a boy without education often has two strikes on him in later life, you don't lure him from the classroom.

And baseball indiscriminately tries to.

NOT SO

The argument is often advanced: "Let the kid take the money. It's hard to come by. He can always go back to school."

It is an argument insidiously false. The facts don't support it at all.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association made a study a few years ago of college boys who interrupted their education to go into baseball. Know how many never returned to school whatever their intention? Eighty-one percent of the college freshmen never did and 77 percent of the college sophomores. They were through with formal education.

In the same study, the NCAA sought to learn what success in baseball awaits the college boy who in the period from 1947 through 1957, chose to go into baseball. Less than 5 percent stuck in the big leagues 4.96 percent to be exact.

[blocks in formation]

The scandalous tales concern the cases

where booze and broads were used as bait to trap college boys into compromising positions where they could be blackmailed into signing contracts.

All last winter, the football grapevine brought stories of cloak-and-dagger operations as the National League and American League competed for talent. Stanley Frank retells a number of these yarns, perhaps deliberately mixing details of some cases to protect the young men involved.

At best, the stories tell about kids being snatched off campuses and held incommunicado in motels until they have been drafted and signed.

At worst, they tell of instances where boys were primed with liquor and housed with accommodating ladies until, at some hour like 4 a.m.. they would be invited under threat of exposure to accept an offer from a pro team.

Befuddled by grog and burdened by an uneasy conscience, a young man does not necessarily make the best deal he can for his services.

One story, at least, has a happy ending. A kid who had been trapped got back to college, found out how much more a teammate was getting from the other league, and hired a lawyer. The pro team that had collared him quickly upped the price rather than let the truth be told in court.

These tales have been kicked around so freely it is inconceivable that they have failed to reach the ears of Pete Rozelle and Joe Foss. Up to now, however, neither the commissioner of the National League nor the commissioner of the American has taken cognizance of the situation publicly.

They're going to have to take cognizance of it, for without firm action upstairs, conditions are going to get worse. The interleague war has escalated, as the political writers say, into total war. If the struggle goes on, the belligerents will find new and dirtier ways to operate.

It is a sorry situation, sorriest because it need not exist. There is no reason except for the stubbornness of a few men why two leagues cannot coexist peacefully in this country, cheating only a little for the fun

of it.

Human nature isn't going to change. Either these guys make peace, or they buy themselves a scandal that will make a few bets by a few players look like good, clean fun at a Boy Scout's jamboree.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I have heard only three arguments made against my amendment. One was that

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Aug. it would prevent professional teams from

17, 1965]

SMELL DETECTED IN PRO FOOTBALL

(By Red Smith)

NEW YORK, August 16.-Stanley Frank, who used to be a newspaperman himself, has a piece in the September issue of True called "The Dirtiest Scandal in Sports." The situa

tion he describes has not been a public scandal because the public hasn't been aware of it. But the tales he tells are scandalous and they are dirty. They are also true.

The piece describes some of the methods

used last fall by professional football clubs competing for the services of top college play

ers.

Somebody knows about the pros violating their own rules and breaking promises to the colleges by signing undergraduates secretly before they were through with amateur competition. Nobody got wildly excited about it, except the coaches and athletic directors of schools directly affected, because it was common knowledge that this sort of cheating had been going on for years, even back in the days when the National League had the field to itself and didn't have to bid against another league.

signing a college player. I think I have demonstrated by my argument that that argument is totally lacking in substance. The only thing my amendment would do would be to assure college players during their continuance in college of the right to sell their services to the highest bidder for cash and to negotiate with each business employing professional players.

As to the argument about the professional scholarship system, I think I have fully answered it.

The third objection is that the amendment applies to college players, and not to high school players. It is a peculiar thing that Senators who oppose the apthing that Senators who oppose the application of the amendment to college students are concerned about the failure to include high school students. For their information, if my amendment is adopted, I will send to the desk another amendment to the bill to include high school players as well.

Those who are engaged in operating professional teams undoubtedly regard them as sports, but they are not engaged in altruistic operations; they are engaged in moneymaking operations. I respectfully submit that we ought to see to it that the college players retain the freedom of contract which belongs to all other Americans, at least while they remain in college. If teams wish to have a draft, let them draft under this bill after the boys have completed their education. Or, if they are not willing to negotiate for the boys on the free market, let us allow a boy to get the highest price he can get for his skill.

Before closing discussion on the amendment, I would like to call for the yeas and nays. I do not know whether there is a sufficient number of Senators present to order them.

With the assurance of my friend from Michigan that he will join with me in such a request, I yield the floor.

Mr. HART. I assure the Senator that I will join in seeking to obtain the yeas and nays on his amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.

ERVIN].

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, I rise reluctantly. It is not often that my colleague from North Carolina and I find ourselves at a different point of view in a matter of this kind. There are few issues of any kind on which we differ. However, in this instance I believe there are sound reasons why we should not go along with the Ervin amendment and why it should be rejected.

I start by saying that the purpose of the bill is to exempt certain aspects, specifically including the "Reserve Clause and Drafting of Players" of organized professional team sports of baseball, basketball, football, and hockey, from the antitrust laws.

Be

We know the history of the antitrust laws. Briefly, in 1953, the Supreme Court of the United States in the Toolson case followed the Supreme Court decision of 1922, which held that baseball was in effect, exempt from the antitrust laws. However, in 1957 the Supreme Court in Radovic against National Football League ruled that professional football was subject to the antitrust laws, thus placing professional basketball and professional hockey under the antitrust laws. ginning with 1957 a series of bills were introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives to exempt professional football, baseball, basketball, and hockey from certain aspects of the antitrust laws; namely, the draft system, the reserve clause, geographic areas, and preservation of public confidence in the honesty of sports contests. Also included was a provision to exempt professional team sports from antitrust laws in negotiating television contracts by the respective leagues.

This year S. 950 was introduced on February 2, 1965, and I was one of the cosponsors of the bill. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] had suggested an amendment to S. 950 which would have put into the bill the new rules and regulations enacted by professional football

rules which would have prohibited professional football from signing a college football player to a professional football contract prior to the completion of the college football season during the fourth year of matriculation in college. He specifically left out professional baseball, basketball, and hockey because their systems of drafting players are such that to include them in the amendment might seriously damage the drafting of players. The distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] introduced an amendment approved by the Judiciary Committee which would go to all four professional sports, football, basket

ball, baseball, and hockey.

I have been receiving calls from staffs of various Members of Congress and of college and university athletic staffs as to the confusion as to the impact of the Ervin amendment on the professional team sports bill.

College football coaches and athletic directors have been urging the adoption of the Ervin amendment because they believe it would prohibit raiding of college football players whereas Senator ERVIN's letter clearly states that the purpose of his amendment is to protect a college baseball player-who may also play football or other college sports-by enabling him to negotiate with more than one major league baseball team prior to his completion of his collegiate athletic career. The present major league free agent draft requires that the drafted college player negotiate with only the team that drafted him and if the terms are not acceptable, he would then be subjected to a free agent draft 6 months later.

The meaning of this is that Senator ERVIN'S amendment would encourage would encourage college baseball players who may also be competing in other collegiate sports to leave college and enter professional baseball in his first, second, third, or fourth year of college matriculation. In this event, definitely that player would be lost to the college football team or other college sports for the balance of his collegiate career.

It should be remembered that the purpose of the original Dirksen amendment was to prohibit the raiding of college football players, primarily when in the past few years the National Football League and the the American Football League were trying to outbid each other in obtaining the best college football players. Since the Ervin amendment does not prohibit the raiding of collegiate football players and other collegiate athletes but is only intended to nullify the major league free agent draft, this amendment would be inappropriate to meet the requests of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the collegiate football coaches who are attempt ing to protect the raiding of their college players.

Recently, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina wrote a letter to all members of the Judiciary Committee, and to all Members of the Senate, if I remember correctly, in which he set out the position of his amendment which he eloquently restated just a moment ago.

However, I am particularly concerned about this particular wording in the Senator's letter:

One of these exemptions given to football, basketball, baseball, and hockey, is the right for the teams to meet and decide among themselves that only one team has the right This, of to negotiate with an individual. course, is done so that bonuses and other inducements which the professionals offer for talent may be kept at a minimum. It is also claimed that this action in restraint of trade helps even out the chances of various teams which compete in a sport.

Whatever the merits of this practice may

be generally, it is my strong opinion that boys in college who give up their education

to play as professionals should have the opportunity to negotiate with all teams in order to secure for themselves the most attractive offer. Therefore, I introduced an amendment, adopted by the Judiciary Committee, which would withdraw the antitrust exemption allowing exclusive rights to negotiate with college players during their 4 years of college. My amendment in no way prohibits teams from signing college players; rather, it prohibits the professionals from agreeing that not but one team participating in a sport has the right to negotiate wih a player. Its sole purpose is to insure freedom of contract to those who give up their general education in order to enter the business of professional sports. This provision has the support of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and a great many of the colleges of this country.

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

On page 328 of the printed hearings, Tuesday, February 22, 1958, William Howton, star player of the Green Bay Packers and president of the National Football League Players Association, stated, and I quote:

"I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee as representative of the players association, to present our views regarding the problems of antitrust laws as related to professional team sports.

"After much thought and careful consideration we of the players association realize

that due to the unique and somewhat peculiar aspects in the operation of profes

sional team sports, that the clubowners are vulnerable to antitrust attacks.

"We feel that some legislation should be enacted to partially relieve the club owners from their present position. That is to say, for the good of professional team sports as a whole, legal privilege should be allowed concerning the player draft and reserve clause, with which this committee is no doubt very familiar."

He stated further (p. 329):

"We recognize the player draft and reserve clause actually puts us in an adverse bargaining position with our clubs, but for the good of the sport we are happy to go along with the relaxation of laws pertaining

to them since they are beneficial to all. Otherwise successful teams would dominate the game and the weaker ones would die on

the vine."

Because my amendment has been widely misinterpreted, I felt this letter of clarification would be helpful. I earnestly hope that Green Bay at that time? you will give it your careful consideration

On page 331, he stated further:

"Mr. DIXON. Were you paid anything by

and will vote to retain it.

After reciting some of the background and history and necessity for the amendment, the Senator from North Carolina goes on to say:

"Mr. HOWTON. I was drafted by the Green Bay Packers in 1952. At that time, I became the property of the Packers, and I received no money upon signing a contract, and my first check from the Packers came after the first league game which is about the last Sunday in September.

"Mr. DIXON. How do the players feel about this system? Do they feel that it is equitable?

"Mr. HOWTON. We realize that it eliminates our ability to bargain with the clubowners

Therefore, I introduced an amendment, adopted by the Judiciary Committee, which would withdraw the antitrust exemption allowing exclusive rights to negotiate with college players during their 4 years of college. My amendment in no way prohibits and it appears to be in violation of the antiteams from signing college players; rather, it prohibits the professionals from agreeing that not but one team participating in a sport has the right to negotiate with a player. Its sole purpose is to insure freedom of contract to those who give up their general education in order to enter the business of professional sports.

Mr. President, the reason I signal this quote is that the Dirksen amendment was designed to prohibit professional football from signing a college football player before the 4 years of college football eligibility were completed. There were instances of raiding of the college football players which caused concern among college officials and Members of Congress. However, my understanding of the Ervin amendment is that it could be interpreted to kill the free agent and draft system employed in certain professional team sports which draft system has been declared to be the lifeblood of professional team sports.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the language contained in some of the official printed hearings of the past dealing with professional team sports, and dealing with this subject of the draft system as it exists in the sport as being the lifeblood of professional team sports.

trust laws because it is in restraint of free trade.

"But it appears to be the lifeblood of professional football, also."

On page 340, Lester Richter, football star of the Los Angeles Rams, stated as follows: "Mr. RICHTER. Senator Kefauver, I, as a player in the National Football League, am one of over 400 football players representing the league, feel that the legislation that is now before this subcommittee is important to the welfare and lasting existence of the National Football League.

in the development of professional football "As a player, I can foresee greater things if the draft is protected. I feel the draft is a definite reason why the National Football League has developed to the limits and heights that it has to this present day.

"The draft, although in many instances it

might seem unfair, has balanced the league in the 5 years I have been playing in the National Football League, to where we have 12

evenly balanced football teams and I feel that on a given Sunday when we play our

National Football League games, due to the outcome of this draft, we are drawing greater crowds than we ever have before.

"As an example, last year the Los Angeles Rams, which to my regret were, in a sense, win, six-loss record, were the first football team in the history of professional football and college football to draw over a million people in 1 year through the turnstiles.

a second division club finishing with a six

"I think this is due to the game itself, because we are playing better football because of the balance created by the draft.

"As far as the reserve clause, so-called, in football, it is much different from that of baseball, and I am not an expert. I do feel that the reserve clause is necessary to preserve the rights of what we have established to date.

"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 Howton, both of whom I shudder every time we have to face them, but they are players

"Senator KEFAUVER. I do not imagine they find it too pleasant facing you either.

"Mr. RICHTER. 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.

"Senator KEFAUVER. You mean you are in favor of exempting them from the antitrust laws?

"Mr. RICHTER. Yes, sir."

It would do well to quote from some of the testimony from players in major league baseball beginning with one of the greats and one of the highest paid in baseball, Ted Williams, formerly of the Boston Red Sox who on p. 27 of the printed hearings of Wednesday, July 9, 1958, stated:

"After all, when you sign up in baseball, as I understand it, you are their property then until they sell you, trade you, or release you, and I think once you sign that, why, that's the way it goes for a ballplayer. "Senator KEFAUVER. Do you particularly approve of that system?

"Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I personally don't see how baseball could operate without the reserve clause and still maintain the integrity of the game.

"I have looked at the legislation that you are talking about, and the only reason that I would think there was a need for this legislation is to give baseball a chance to operate as it has been operating. I know if I had to do it all over again, I would do it exactly the same way.

"I think I have been awfully lucky, I know I have been lucky in baseball, and I know I have been treated wonderfully in baseball,

and I think the only reason for all this discussion, as I understand it and I am not a lawyer-is to give baseball a chance to operate as it has operated and to give it a chance not to be interfered with, because I think if it is, it is going to lose a lot of its a lot of the wonderful things in it and a lot of the good things in it, and it is going to dis

rupt it by a lot of technicalities."

Another one of the greats, Stan Musial, formerly of the St. Louis Cardinals told the committee on pages 35 and 37:

"Senator KEFAUVER. Do you still think, or do you not, that the reserve clause should be limited to some number of years?

"Mr. MUSIAL. No; I do not. I think the

reserve clause of baseball-most ballplayers understand the reserve clause when they sign

[blocks in formation]

and never has the reserve clause been brought up among the ballplayers, as to some limitations.

"Senator KEFAUVER. Have you, in your 20 years' experience, ever been dissatisfied with your salary or with the team where you were going to be sent to play?

"Mr. MUSIAL. No; I never have. Most ballplayers playing in the minor leagues, they are satisfied with conditions, and their main objective is to get to the big leagues, so I think they are satisfied.

"Mr. MUSIAL. Other than the fact that we did not, as I said earlier, we did not discuss the terms down at the Key West meeting. I don't think the ballplayers knew too much about what was said down there at that time. "A little later on, after discussing these things with our Player Representatives Roberts and Yost, we felt it was not in the best interests of baseball to have the term, 'reasonably necessary' included in this particular

bill."

Further a quotation of Robin Roberts, formerly of the Philadelphia Phillies and the National League player representative, who on page 43 states:

"The player representatives system in the last 6 years-oh, I would say since 1952-has become much more organized and much more helpful to the ballplayer himself. The pension plan really came out of a strong player representatives system, and other benefits such as the minimum salary increase and other smaller things that have come up have come through this meeting with the club owners."

"Mr. CHUMBRIS. I have one here for clarification, Mr. Chairman.

"Mr. Roberts, on June 24, 1957, you appeared before the House subcommittee, and the chairman, Congressman CELLER, asked you this question:

"Mr. Roberts, what are your views as to the unlimited clause? And your answer

[blocks in formation]

"In appearing before us today, you made a statement which may leave a wrong impression when you said, 'What is good for the owners is good for the players.'

"There is basically more reason to your views on the reserve clause than that one statement?

"Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. I don't mean what is always good for the owners is always good for the players. We thought in this one particular instance, the reserve clause, that what is good for them in connection with the reserve clause and good for baseball will only benefit the ballplayer in the long run. That is what I meant by that statement."

The subcommittee also heard from Edward Yost, star third baseman of the Senators and the American League players representatives who agreed with the testimony of Robin Roberts and stated also, beginning at page 65:

"Senator KEFAUVER. Do you have anything else you want to add about this bill? Do you feel the reserve clause has operated satisfactorily with your American League players?

"Mr. YoST. Yes, sir; I have had no complaints at all along those lines. You may hear of some now and then, but they are few

and far between.

"Senator KEFAUVER. HOWw about the draft provision?

"Mr. Yost. If there is a fellow in your system that has played in the minor leagues for 4 years, and you don't bring him up to the parent club, he is draftable. If you have

four on one team that are in that same situation, they are all draftable.

"Senator KEFAUVER. I thought the rule used to be that you could draft only one person. Has that been changed?

"Mr. YoST. That is right. That was changed in December of last year.

"Senator CARROLL. Would you say a young man in high school who wants to be a major leaguer, when he signs up is not, or would you say that he is, thinking of money, or is he thinking of perhaps a little fame and glory, too?

"Mr. YoST. Well, that could work both ways. I know in my particular case, I didn't think too much of money. I was concerned about playing big league baseball.

"But at that time, they weren't giving out the kind of bonuses that they are now, and I think a young fellow who has any talent almost has to be interested in the money angle, too.

"Senator CARROLL. Is his contract always open to reconsideration to get more money? I understand there has been some such testimony?

"Mr. Yost. Yes; there is.

"Senator CARROLL. Every year?

"Mr. Yost. As a matter of fact, it is open during the year, too.

"Senator CARROLL. Is this true in the minor leagues, also?

"Mr. YoST. Yes, sir; it is."

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, those excerpts from the testimony are from such players as William Howton of the Green Bay Packers, Lester Richter, football star of the Los Angeles Rams, Ted Williams, formerly of the Boston Red Sox, and others-Stan Musial is among them. They were interrogated at length, and they testified along the lines suggested.

Mr. President, in later hearings on the professional team sports bill, other witnesses, including the group of professional baseball, football, and basketball league officials and players, have testified that the reserve clause and the drafting systems that they use in the respective professional sports are absolutely necessary and that any action taken by the Congress to upset either the reserve clause or the drafting of players would be ruinous to the professional team sports and, thus, the most seriously affected would be the players themselves.

In conclusion, professional team sports, as testified to by the above witnesses, must have the draft system and the reserve clause because they are "the life blood of the professional team sport." We would all like to ensure the freedom of contract which would give the person the right to set the price for his services or for his wares but we know from experience in certain business and professions there is not always that freedom. Farmers are told by the Government just how many acres they can toil; oil people are told by the State just how much they can produce each month and also on an international level, how much oil they can import into this Nation. Union members have delegated the right to negotiate for their wages to a committee. The above represents only one from each category of industry, agriculture, and labor.

It surely would not be freedom because it would mean that without the draft system-and draft system-and it is functioning

pretty much as it has functioned heretofore we would find that the more fortunate and more prosperous teams would get the preference and get the better players. But it would not be in the interest either of confidence in the sport nor in the interest of real competition.

It was the intent of the Members of Congress in introducing the professional team sports bills to exempt from the antitrust laws the reserve clause and the right to draft players, a system which has been in effect in professional team sports for many, many years. In asking the Senate Legislative Counsel's office to prepare amendments to prohibit raiding of the college athletes by professional teams, they prepared two versions, one, applying only to football, to which I have referred earlier, and two, applying to all professional team sports which Senator ERVIN introduced as the Ervin amendment and adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, the Ervin amendment, as I have noted earlier, is not for the purpose of prohibiting raiding of college players but in his own

words:

My amendment in no way prohibits teams signing college players; rather it prohibits the professionals from agreeing that not but one team participating in a sport has the right to negotiate with a player.

Thus, Senator ERVIN's amendment could, in effect, kill the free agent and

draft system. If it is applied only to professional baseball, it would discriminate against that professional sport alone but it goes further because it gives freedom of contract to boys who are signed before they complete their 4 years of college eligibility but the amendment does not

give freedom of contract to college players after said 4-year period of eligibility nor to high school students who are qualified to play professional baseball.

I urge the Members of Congress to defeat the Ervin amendment.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield at that point?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MUSKIE in the chair). Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from North Carolina?

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

Mr. ERVIN. The 6-month provision is part of the present baseball draft system. Under the pending bill, the professionals could get together and draft persons in college of certain athletic skills.

approached the player, and they could
agree that only one team would ever
make an offer to that particular player,
and he would have to take that contract
with that team or never play professional
ball.

Mr. HRUSKA. That is not my under-
standing. My understanding is that the
first team would get an opportunity to
negotiate a contract with the player.

Mr. HRUSKA. After he graduates from college, he can.

Mr. BAYH. In the way in which they are operating this year?

Mr. HRUSKA. As I understand, the draft applies to either high school players, under the present system, or to college students who have finished at least 2 years of college.

Mr. BAYH. That is what I should like to have clarified. I should like to have additional information on this point. The Ervin amendment, as I understand,

Mr. ERVIN. Will the Senator read the bill at lines 11, 12, and 13? Where is there any such a limitation? Mr. HRUSKA. On what page of the applies only to the 4-year period in which bill?

Mr. ERVIN. On page 2. It states: The employment, selection, or eligibility of players, or the reservation, selection, or assignment of player contracts.

They could deny a man the right to
negotiate with any other team or with
more than one team.

Mr. HRUSKA. That is a conceivable
result which could follow from that lan-
guage. I am talking about the arrange-
ment that prevails under the free-agent
system. That arrangement provides for
a draft. The team at the bottom of the
list gets first chance to choose a player.
When it makes its choice, it enters into
negotiations with the player. If success-
ful, the parties arrive at an agreeable
figure for the purpose of entering into a
contract. For example, it could be for
$105,000 with Mr. Mundy of the Kansas
City team. The deal is made. However,
if the parties are unable to reach an
agreement, another draft is held.
some date more than 6 months after the
first draft was exercised, another choice
is made by the teams in the same way
that the first draft was made. It may be
that the first team would again make
that the first team would again make
the draft. If so, they would have an-
other go-around. There is the oppor-
tunity for that player to negotiate freely
tunity for that player to negotiate freely
as between himself and the team that
drafts him. That is my understanding

of how it works.

At

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

Mr. HRUSKA. I yield.

Mr. BAYH. I believe this point bothers not only the Senator from North Carolina. This is a specific point on which I should like to ask a question of the Senator from Nebraska, and perhaps of the Senator from Michigan, also, to elaborate on this point. With respect to the first draft choice to which the Senator has referred in his hypothetical examhas referred in his hypothetical example with respect to Mr. Mundy, the only choice available to the athlete in the first instance is to deal with the club that has been given the right in the draft agreement that was arrived at among the

They could make an agreement that no other team would ever negotiate with "A," if he did not sign the Detroit contract. Mr. HRUSKA. Yes; they could if clubs; is that correct? they agreed to do so.

Mr. ERVIN. That agreement could bind the individual until the last trembling note of Gabriel's horn trembles into ultimate silence.

Mr. HRUSKA. Yes; to the last note; but it would be reached between the club and the player.

Mr. ERVIN. No. That agreement would be reached by the teams, and they would reach that agreement before they

Mr. HRUSKA. Yes.

Mr. BAYH. Six months later another draft is held, and at that time the individual has an opportunity to deal with another club. Is that correct?

Mr. HRUSKA. That is correct.

Mr. BAYH. Is there ever a time under the present draft arrangement or under the rules to which the Senator has referred when there is an outright choice to deal with more than one club?

the athletes are in high school. The Senator from North Carolina said that later he would offer an amendment which would cover them in high school. This deals with athletes who are subject to the draft.

I wonder whether the Senator from

Michigan would elucidate on this point.

Mr. HART. If I correctly understand the Senator's question, it goes to this point: What opportunity does a young man have who has been drafted by a team in organized baseball under the free agent draft, to negotiate with someone other than that team? Is that the question?

Mr. BAYH. Yes.

that is pending, offered in committee by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN], and the question which indicates the concern of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. BAYH] brings us to the hard, direct issue in this bill. The answer to the Senator's question is that under this bill, draft lists and reserve clauses would be permitted to teams in organized profes

Mr. HART. I believe the amendment

sional sports. As a consequence of that, the rules could be such that a selected player would have no opportunity to bargain with other than the drafting team.

antitrust exemption do so out of the deep conviction that on balance this approach gives the best assurance of high level, balanced competition. This kind of balanced competition provides the best opportunity for a young man with professional athletic skill to obtain a salary which may be the just envy of most Americans. The players represented have said as much. They recognize that, in the short haul, the man with the fast breaking curve could do a better bargaining job for himself if he were able to deal with 20 ball clubs. However, in the long haul, they felt that their own individual interest could best be served by avoiding having the rich grow richer and the poor drying up, with only two or three left to pay the man with the fast breaking curve.

Those of us who support that type of

That brings us to the issue as bluntly as we can put it, and the question of determining between between two competing principles. As the Senator from Nebraska has said, freedom of contract is great. The maintenance of a system of professional team sports that enables a number of clubs to pay substantial salaries is also desirable. To achieve the latter we suggest that some limitation be applied in the former.

Mr. HRUSKA. May I ask the Senator if there is not a second benefit? The

« ПретходнаНастави »