Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1686713
label
Olympics
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1686713
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Olympics
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Vice Presidential Papers
Paul Miltich's Subject Files
subjects
Olympics
Recreation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1686713
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-12-31
month
12
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-11-01
month
11
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e653181c7d8d75f9
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 154, folder "Paul Miltich Subject File,
1973-74. Olympics" of the Gerald R. Ford Vice Presidential Papers at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 154 of the Gerald R. Ford Vice Presidential Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Executive Offices
Midland Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
(816) 474-4600
President
Executive Director
Secretary-Treasurer
EARL M. RAMER
WALTER BYERS
SAMUEL E. BARNES
University of Tennessee
District of Columbia Teachers College
Knoxville, Tennessee 37916
Washington, D.C. 20009
December 4, 1972
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Room H-230
Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Ford:
The NCAA recently withdrew from the United States Olympic
Committee, calling for a restructuring of a new Olympic
organization under the mandate of a Federal charter.
We thought you might be interested in the enclosed history.
The chronology focuses on several of the problems at issue.
We are forwarding the report to you so you may have readily
available the information contained therein if Congress
decides to take an active interest in this matter.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Carl Mama
Earl M. Ramer
EMR:11
Enclosure
UNITED STATES
OLYMPIC
CRISIS
e
THE PROBLEM
THAT WON'T
GO AWAY
COLUMBIATE
NATIONAL
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
of
The United States Olympic Committee
by
The National Collegiate Athletic Association's
International Relations Committee
November 24, 1972
Kansas City, Missouri
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
It is impractical to record herein the entire his-
part in games open to amateurs sponsored by the
tory of sport in the United States. Dr. A. W. Flath
University of Pennsylvania under NAAAA rules,
PREFACE
did an excellent job in his doctoral dissertation,
charging that the colleges should control their
backed by extensive research. His work can be re-
own athletics, but when they planned to hold
ferred to as a primary source for the early history.
open meets, these should be held under the rules
The Council of the National Collegiate Athletic
teur sports and our nation.
Parts are summarized to give background for the
of those who control other than the colleges."
Association voted October 25, 1972, to withdraw
A surprising amount of information on this
present evaluation.
(Ibid.)
as a member of the United States Olympic Com-
general subject has been written by a multitude of
qualified experts in the field of sports. Only a brief
Early History of Amateur Athletics (to 1869)
The ICAAAA resigned from the NAAAA and
mittee, effective immediately. Its action was based
joined the AAU. Ineligible athletes' penalties were
upon the unanimous recommendation of the NCAA
summary can be useful in this assessment, but a
In the struggle for survival and statehood,
remitted, and by the summ er of 1889, being
International Relations Committee.
substantial bibliography is available to confirm the
there was little opportunity for sport when our
stripped of its power and support, the NAAAA
This decision was the result of more than 10
statements contained herein.
nation was being settled. In the early 1800s,
disbanded.
years of intensive effort to obtain a reorganization
Through all the information, patterns of action
public education was extended from elementary
of the U.S. Olympic apparatus because of the
and the positions of the various parties clearly
and secondary education to the establishment of
On March 19, 1891, a reorganization changed
emerge. These should be carefully considered in
state universities by federal assistance of grants
the AAU from a union of individual clubs to a
NCAA's conviction that the present U.S. Olympic
of land. However, private institutions provided the
union of district associations. The AAU claimed
organization does not serve the needs of the ath-
determining the future methods of obtaining the
lete, amateur sports or the national interest.
first trace of athletics. Forms of football, basket-
jurisdiction over 23 sports.
valid and necessary goals we seek.
A similar proposal to withdraw was before the
ball, boat racing and footracing appeared on cam-
During its early years, the AAU claimed juris-
The following fundamental truths serve as the
puses, with the first intercollegiate boat race be-
diction over all college sports, but by 1899 it
1965-66 NCAA Council, but at that time the
basis of our goals:
Council decided to continue to pursue negotiations
tween Yale and Harvard in 1852.
had dropped claim to jurisdiction over football,
within the U.S. Olympic framework in seeking ap-
1. We believe that participation in sports com-
The development of amateur athletics took
soccer, basketball and rowing while retaining
propriate restructuring and reorganization. Such
petition to attain and inspire excellence in hu-
place rapidly following the Civil War with the
control over track and field, lacrosse and basket-
negotiations not only have proved fruitless; the in-
man skill and performance is highly beneficial
organization of many athletic clubs. Purses and
ball. This list of sports has changed many times
terests of the NCAA and the school-college com-
to individuals and society.
betting soon evolved. The clubs defined "amateurs"
through the years, but track and field has re-
munity have been further subjugated to the point
2. Olympic competition represents a worth-
and tried to control their contests by establishing
mained the flagship of AAU activities.
that recent USOC legislation, in effect, has been
while opportunity in certain sports to create a
rules to restrict professionals from their competi-
Expansion of College Sports (1894)
an invitation for the NCAA not to participate
peak of achievement, good both for individual
tion. The date of April 22, 1879, marked the origin
Collegiate sports changed rapidly from inter-
further in USOC proceedings.
and for national incentives.
of the National Association of Amateur Athletics
class rivalries and challenge games to inter-
This pointed USOC rejection of the colleges' in-
3. Each citizen should be willing to assist the
of America and the collapse of the National Ath-
college competition. Following student control,
terests is difficult to understand, but the issue is
United States in attaining the best possible Olym-
letic Association following the defection of the
alumni came prominently into positions of spon-
clear and we will not accept membership in the
New York Athletic Club. (Kowgaard, "A History
pic showing and performance, within the rules.
sorship and control. Abuses developed so faculty
USOC as it is now constituted. As an organization,
of the Amateur Athletic Union of the United
4. Organizations and individuals in the United
and administrations took interest, resulting in in-
the NCAA will not contribute to or support the
States," unpublished dissertation. Teachers Col-
States should subordinate their jurisdictional am-
stitutional and conference controls being applied.
program of the USOC. Each member of the NCAA
lege, Columbia.) A college Rowing Association was
and the staff members and student-athletes of
bitions and personal self-interests to the overall
formed in 1870 and the Intercollegiate Association
The Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Confer-
each member, of course, are free to determine
interest of our national Olympic movement. They
of Amateur Athletes of America was formed in
ence started in 1894; the Intercollegiate Confer-
their own policies and positions in light of the
should be willing to contribute at all appropriate
1875 by 10 colleges to conduct a track and field
ence (Big Ten) in 1895. New emphasis was
record of the United States Olympic organization.
levels available, for the overall benefit of the
meet. "The beginning of amateur athletic control
placed on identifying and defining amateurism.
United States achievement.
had been established." (Ibid.)
In measuring the wisdom of the NCAA's posi-
The Revival of the Olympic Games (1896)
tion, and in determining their own future policies
5. Persons with policy-making and administra-
The Establishment of the Amateur
To counteract the professionalism and com-
in these matters, NCAA members, other institu-
tive responsibilities in amateur sports should ful-
Athletic Union (1888)
mercialism that threatened to dominate athletic
tions and organizations, former and current ama-
fill their obligation to obtain for the United States
The New York Athletic Club withdrew its
competition, Baron Coubertin was able to organ-
teur athletes and other concerned individuals gen-
the best possible organization to produce competi-
tors who will properly represent our country in a
support of the NAAAA in 1886 and joined other
ize the revival of the Olympic games for Athens,
erally are invited to review this record.
clubs to form the Amateur Athletic Union of the
Greece, in 1896.
History is important for purposes of making a
manner befitting United States prestige.
United States on January 21, 1888. A struggle
The first United States Olympic team of 1896
valid assessment, of measuring progress or re-
6. None of these aims should be sought by un-
for control ensued, marked by "the AAU Board
was organized largely through the efforts of Pro-
tardation. It seems appropriate at this time to
ethical or unsportsmanlike conduct and all should
of Governors passing a resolution that barred
fessor William B. Sloane, a Princeton historian;
appraise the past, consider current developments
be attained in accordance with the fairest moral
any amateur athlete from competition in any
James E. Sullivan of the AAU, and Arthur Burn-
and determine anew the course of action which is
principles of our democracy and sports traditions.
games under the rules of the AAU if they com-
ham of the Boston Athletic Association. The
most desirable in advancing the worthwhile and
NCAA COUNCIL
peted in open games in the United States not
team was made up of athletic club and collegiate
legitimate interests of the student-athlete, ama-
Earl m. Ramer
governed by the rules of the AAU. These actions
athletes. The BAA sent five participants, four
by the AAU were designed to create a boycott
Princeton athletes led by Robert Garrett financed
November 24, 1972
Earl M. Ramer, President
of the NAAAA and other organizations by the
their own trip and the Suffolk Athletic Club sent
athletes who had to choose between competition
one athlete, James B. Connelly. The U.S. was
under AAU or under 'outlaw' rules." (Ibid.)
successful in track and field.
"Early in 1889 the Amateur Athletic Union de-
In 1900 at Paris, the 55-member U.S. team that
clared athletes under their control would not take
won was mostly from colleges, with a few un-
5
attached athletes. The winning team at St. Louis
ground management, YMCAs, Boy's Clubs, Turn-
mal schools, high schools, turners, Young
of Athletic Research Society," 1914)
in 1904 was composed of athletic club members,
vereins, Rural Boy Scouts, Foundations in Play)
Men's Christian Associations, etc., have gone
The AAU and the NCAA agreed on a definition
mostly from New York, Chicago and Milwaukee.
formed the National Federated Committee to im-
throughout
the land carrying with them
of an amateur, but the opposition of the AAU
The first team selected by the American Olympic
plement the solutions of the Research Society.
the principles of amateurism and clean sports
curtailed the forming of a National Federation,
Committee was in 1906 and financed by its solicita-
H. F. Kallenberg, in the American Physical
Furthermore, these organizations are
and World War I stopped consideration of it.
tions. The 35 members were concentrated in the
Education Review of June 1912, summarized the
grappling with problems in the administra-
track and field competition where they were suc-
feelings of those who formed the new federation.
tion of athletics, working out their own sal-
AAU Control of U.S. Olympic Committees
cessful, but the U.S. was not diversified in the
He felt there was need for cooperation among
vation and setting up new and high standards
(1908-1922)
other sports, and France won the most medals.
the various sports bodies but that this coopera-
without any help from the Amateur Athletic
The 1908 Olympic games were marked by bitter
The AAU had been the only athletic body in ex-
tion could not be brought about under the leader-
Union. Therefore, when these organizations
disputes between the AAU and the British Olym-
istence to play the major part in planning and
ship of the Amateur Athletic Union:
are requested to become members of, or affili-
pic officials, causing Baron de Coubertin to make a
conducting United States participation.
ated with, the Union, they naturally ask,
special plea for efficient administration of the
"First, the Amateur Athletic Union in-
The Formation of the National Collegiate
'Why should we become members or regis-
1912 games in Sweden. The 1912 games were suc-
sists it is the only national controlling body
Athletic Association (1905)
ter with the Amateur Athletic Union?'
cessful in this respect except for the AAU officials'
for athletics in this country in spite of the
The necessity for change in the football rules
"Fourth, practically 85 per cent of the gym-
mistake in permitting Jim Thorpe to be eligible.
fact it has a membership of only 538 clubs
"On December 12, 1918, a meeting was held of
recognized by President Theodore Roosevelt in
and a registration of only 18,861 individuals
nasiums, athletic fields and swimming pools
1905 brought about a meeting of interested col-
(the Federation in Chicago, Philadelphia,
are controlled by the organizations that are
the former members of the Olympic Committee,
leges, and 38 colleges and universities initially
and North Eastern Pennsylvania alone have
independent of the Amateur Athletic Union.
whose members had originally been appointed to
ratified the constitution of the Intercollegiate
between 400 and 500 units representing
With these same organizations are many
membership and offices entirely at the discretion
Athletic Association, whose name was changed
more than 20,000 individuals). The Amateur
trained physical directors and teachers, giv-
of James E. Sullivan, who served as Secretary
to the National Collegiate Athletic Association in
Athletic Union therefore declares that every
ing much time and thought to educational
until his death in 1914. They had operated with
1910. Faculty control was emphasized, and the
'open' meet (one in which a college and a
athletics. The large bulk of men and boys of
no constitution, by-laws or rules of procedure."
first President, Palmer E. Pierce of the U.S. Mili-
YMCA or turner, etc., compete) must be
athletic age are also connected with organiza-
(Dr. Flath, "History of Relations Between NCAA
tary Academy, stated at the first convention, De-
sanctioned by the Union, otherwise every
tions outside the Amateur Athletic Union."
and AAU, 1905-1963")
cember 28, 1907:
athlete who takes part will lose his amateur
At this meeting, it was decided to form a con-
Kallenberg concluded his summation by saying
standing
tinuing committee representative of the various
"The purpose of this association is, as set
that "for the colleges, turners, playgrounds, etc.,
"This unfortunate autocratic position of
organizations interested in Olympic games, and
forth in its constitution, the regulation and
to accept the Amateur Athletic Union as the na-
the Amateur Athletic Union will never bring
invitations were tendered to chosen groups. The
supervision of college athletics throughout
tional controlling body would mean the adoption of
the athletic forces together under its banner.
1920 U.S. Olympic team was nominated and se-
the United States, in order that the athletic
a viewpoint wholly out of sympathy with the gen-
While the Union's system of registrations
lected by the same few men appointed by this
activities in the colleges and universities
eral policy and objectives of these organizations."
and sanctions may do for the unattached
organization.
may be maintained on an ethical plane in
The Cook County Amateur Athletic Federation
athletes and athletic clubs, clubs organized
Charges and complaints concerning the manage-
keeping with the dignity and the high pur-
was formed in 1911 allowing various organizations
primarily for some one branch of athletics,
ment and arrangements for the 1920 games were
pose of education. All institutions enrolled
to have representation for mutual administration
it is a system which will not be accepted by
SO damaging that a "complete reorganization" was
as members agree to take control of student
but responsible for its own athletics. The AAU
permanent organizations
which
conduct
called for, and the NCAA, on December 29, 1920,
athletic sport SO far as may be necessary to
referred to the Cook County Federation members
athletics as one of many other activities. It
adopted "a resolution favoring the organization of
maintain in them a high standard of per-
as "outlaws" (Henry Kallenberg, "Who is to Con-
must be remembered that the Amateur Ath-
an Olympic Association, to be made up of bodies
sonal honor, eligibility and fair play, and
tract Athletes," American Physical Education Re-
letic Union's system was developed to meet
like this that have to do with participation in the
to remedy whatever abuses may exist."
view, 1912), and threatened to suspend any indi-
the problems presented by athletic clubs and
Olympic games," and requested President Pierce
(NCAA Proceedings, January, 1909)
vidual who participated in a Federation meet as
unattached athletes.
to use his influence to carry this resolution
an official or as an athlete.
Early Attempts at a Federation for Amateur
"Second, we do know that the average
through. (Proceedings of the 15th annual NCAA
In his presidential address before the Athletic
Athletics (1906-1920)
athletic club does little or nothing in the way
Convention)
Research Society in 1914, W. P. Bowen said:
After formation in 1906, the Intercollegiate
of promoting the educational view of ath-
"A new organization for the control of sport is
General Pierce conscientiously followed this di-
Athletic Association soon had problems in bas-
letics. The prime object of these clubs seems
made necessary by its enormous growth in new
rective.
ketball and baseball where the AAU claimed
to be to corral all the 'star' athletes in order
fields. In addition to the athletic clubs, which were
On February 5, 1921, the American Olympic
jurisdiction.
to beat some other club, win a meet and fur-
the only promotors of sport when the AAU was
Committee accepted a report of its Reorganization
Dissatisfaction with the AAU's handling of
nish a spectacle.
formed, it is now being fostered and encouraged
Committee, drawn up in the home of President
the registration requirement led the colleges to
"This viewpoint of the Amateur Athletic
everywhere
and since unity is important in
Gustavus Kirby, giving a preponderance of votes
publish their own basketball rules independent of
Union
is wholly at variance with the
such a field there is need for a democratic organi-
to the AAU.
AAU control.
trend in educational institutions, turners,
zation in which all the interests will be repre-
"At a meeting of the Reorganization Committee
In 1907 and subsequent years, representatives
Young Men's Christian Associations, play-
sented. Cooperation by all is essential; any at-
on May 4, 1921, a majority of the committee de-
of various organizations met and formed the
grounds, etc., which is toward a scheme of
tempt on the part of one interest to dictate to all
cided to reduce the number of invited delegates
Athletic Research Society to discuss problems in
athletics which will not serve expert per-
the others or to monopolize control, is like all other
of the NCAA to three from 16, over the protest
athletic administration, difficulties encountered in
formers, but will also interest and stimulate
schemes in the interest of one class, distinctive
of General Pierce that such action was beyond the
inter-institutional competition and such changes
every man and boy of athletic age to take
of best results, and in the end suicidal for the
power of the Reorganization Committee." (Dr.
in athletic control as might seem desirable.
part in wholesome competition.
group attempting it. The study thus far points to
Flath, "History of Relations Between NCAA and
In 1911, this group (composed principally of col-
"Third, during the past 15 years thousands
some form of federation as a kind of organization
AAU, 1905-1963")
leges, public high schools, elementary schools,
of individuals who have come in touch with
suited to American ideals of government and to
Excerpts from a letter General Pierce sent to
normal schools, private secondary schools, play-
amateur sports in universities, colleges, nor-
the need of the situation." (Bower, "Proceedings
President Kirby of the American Olympic Com-
6
7
mittee appeared in the New York Times on May
form of management. Second, that this Associa-
ing and opposition came from the AAU delegates
"It is my belief that the AAU cannot suc-
24, 1921:
tion favors the idea of the organization of a Na-
since they felt the power of the AAU as governing
ceed in its efforts to perpetuate its system of
"The whole effort seems to bind all the or-
tional Amateur Athletic Federation." (Dr. Flath,
body would thus be curbed.
control upon amateur sports. It is un-Ameri-
ganizations concerned to a constitution and
"History of Relations Between the NCAA and
On January 26, 1924, President Pierce of the
can and out-of-date. It places responsibility
by-laws formulated for them by this subcom-
AAU, 1905-1963")
NCAA renewed the charge that the AAU was
for amateurism on the individual instead of
mittee, instead of calling together a confer-
The Army, Navy and YMCA also did not join
trying to use the Olympic Games as a means for
on the organization he may represent. The
ence and simply furnishing it with a basis
the American Olympic Association.
the arbitrary control of sports under its jurisdic-
athletics of the United States have become
for work, the conference itself, after a full
The National Amateur Athletic Federation was
tion, and that the AAU was making an effort to
too well and completely organized to make it
and free discussion, to come to a conclusion
formed in 1922 (New York Times, Sept. 1, 1922)
gain absolute control of all matters connected with
necessary or desirable that every athlete
as to the best organization of an Olympic
and expressed a willingness to join the Olympic
American participation in the Olympic Games.
should be required by the order of a foreign
Association.
Association, believing the Federation should have
(New York Times, Jan. 27, 1924)
organization (the IAAF) to sign a registra-
"The attitude of the Committee on Reorga-
equal voting power with the Amateur Athletic
He brought out that the AAU engaged in foster-
tion card and pay a fee to the AAU before
nization, and the steps it has taken are such
Union and the principle of jurisdiction, which the
ing an international sports federation, which enun-
he can compete for the Olympic games
that the National Collegiate Athletic Asso-
AAU claimed over sports in the United States,
ciated a rule that "no amateur athlete can com-
"It is recommended that the National Col-
ciation feels that it is for the best interests
should be removed.
pete in any foreign country without a certificate
legiate Athletic Association resign from the
of amateur sport in the United States, and
In answering the NAAF, President William
from the sports-governing body of his own coun-
American Olympic Association, that a state-
especially for the best interests of intercol-
Prout of the Amateur Athletic Union replied that
try of that particular sport in which he wishes to
ment be prepared and published as to the rea-
legiate sport, that it withdraw from the pres-
"the NAAF proposals not only would eliminate
engage." (Proceedings of 1925 NCAA Conven-
sons for doing so, that a copy be forwarded
ent movement to organize an American Olym-
the Amateur Athletic Union as a sports governing
tion)
to the Amateur Athletic Union and that this
pic Association
If the National Collegiate
body, but would kill practically every similar or-
Under Colonel Thompson, the handling of the
latter organization be informed that the col-
Athletic Association, the undergraduates of
ganization in the country."
1924 Olympic Games was smooth and satisfactory.
leges of this country once again deny its au-
the members of which number 350,000, is
At this point, the respected Colonel Robert
Major John L. Griffith, who became well known
thority in any way to control the participation
prevented from exerting an influence in the
Thompson, then president of the American Olym-
as Big Ten Conference commissioner, pointed out
of their undergraduates in intercollegiate
selection of the contestants for the Olympic
pic Association, approved voting changes which al-
that 94 per cent of the points scored by the U.S.
athletics, here or abroad."
games, their managers and trainers, and the
lowed the NCAA, Army, Navy and YMCA to
Olympic team were scored by athletes trained and
Major Griffith presented the reasons for with-
conduct and control of the contests, and in-
withdraw their resignations and be represented
developed by the colleges.
drawal as follows:
fluence commensurate with its position in
with more appropriate share.
There was a slight lull in the dispute in 1925,
"1. Because the constitution of the Olympic
amateur sport, it is much better that it should
but the struggle flared again in 1926, harder than
remain independent."
More Differences (1924-26)
Association was SO changed at the meeting in
ever. The AAU refused to stop the athletic clubs
Soon Charles Paddock, competing in University
Washington last month as to deprive the na-
Pierce added that he hoped for one of two solu-
from approaching undergraduates during the col-
games conducted by the YMCA in Paris without
tional organization that composed the feder-
tions to the problem:
lege semesters to join their athletic teams, show-
approval of the AAU, was declared ineligible with
ation of any influence in relation to America's
ing little, if any, regard for the educational pro-
"First, the organization of an American
other competitors for the tryouts for the U.S.
part in the Olympic games and place the con-
gram. At the 1926 quadrennial meeting of the
Olympic Association that would be really
Olympic team in 1924.
American Olympic Association, the AAU bloc
trol in the hands of one member of the Olym-
The NCAA stated the case involved "whether
pic Association, the Amateur Athletic Union.
representative of all interests concerned, or
voting dominated the issues and elected the for-
second, the taking over of the entire responsi-
or not the colleges have to request authority of
mer President of the AAU, William Prout.
"2. Because the centralization of control in
bility for the proper conducting of the Olym-
any super-organization to enter the intercollegiate
The New York Times said, "The AAU is right
the hands of the A.A.U. restored an unsatis-
pic Games by the Amateur Athletic Union."
athletic competition in this or any other country"
back in the saddle where it was years ago when
factory situation that the American Olympic
Of the two solutions suggested, Pierce felt the
and "whether or not all amateur athletes of good
the late James E. Sullivan ruled it (U.S. Olympic
Association was organized to correct.
first was the more desirable, but, if that couldn't
character who are citizens of the United States
organization) with a firm hand." (Dr. Flath,
"3. Because the constitutional changes en-
be accomplished, then the Amateur Athletic Union
and have never represented another country are
"History of Relations Between NCAA and AAU,
gineered by the A.A.U. representatives
should be given charge of the American Olympic
eligible to enter our Olympic tryouts." (Dr. Flath,
1905-1963")
changed the basis of participation upon which
effort.
"History of Relations Between the NCAA and
The NAAF, the Navy, YMCA, and the NCAA
the colleges, the Y.M.C.A. and the Army and
AAU, 1905-1963")
withdrew from the American Olympic Associa-
Navy joined the Olympic Association in
General Pierce made strenuous attempts to
broaden the scope of the U.S. Olympic Committee,
At the December 28, 1923, NCAA meeting, the
tion.
1921." (Presented at 1926 NCAA Convention)
NCAA stated its policy "that American colleges
General MacArthur (1928)
but Secretary Rubien of the AAU opposed and re-
General Pierce said, in part:
and universities reserve the right to determine the
"I agree with the expressed opinion that
The situation changed after the death of Presi-
fused to attend a meeting. Subsequently, Secretary
eligibility of their students to compete in the in-
of War John Weeks proposed a National Federa-
the only participants in Olympic games of
dent Prout in 1927. General MacArthur was elect-
tercollegiate athletic meets in this country and
tion, which was first applauded by Olympic Presi-
which the United States has reason to feel
ed President of the American Olympic Associa-
elsewhere. The NCAA recognizes the American
dent Kirby, but later was defeated at a meeting of
proud were those of 1912 and 1924, both under
tion. He was able to get the defected organizations
Olympic Association as having complete jurisdic-
the Olympic Association, attributed to the voting
the fine leadership of Colonel Robert M.
to rejoin in the interest of unity and amity for the
tion over all matters pertaining to representatives
Thompson. Now that the AAU has assumed
1928 Olympic games.
en masse of the AAU opposing it. (New York
of the United States in the Olympic Games." (Pro-
Times, Nov. 26, 1921)
complete responsibility again, the outlook is
On April 16, 1928, Big Ten Commissioner Grif-
ceedings of NCAA Convention, January 1924)
The NCAA at its 16th annual meeting, Decem-
far from promising. Since the NCAA is in
fith suggested that a representative American
At the subsequent American Olympic Associa-
ber 1921, passed the following resolution proposed
such a helpless minority, it seems to me the
Olympic Association be organized to take control
tion meeting, the NCAA and NAAF failed in an
in General Pierce's report:
part of wisdom to withdraw entirely from ad-
of America's Olympic effort "and end the domina-
effort to have certification of the amateur and
ministrative participation. Whether or not it
tion of the Amateur Athletic Union over Ameri-
"First, that the National Collegiate Athletic As-
citizenship status of all athletes taken from the
should assume anything more than a 'watch-
can amateur athletics." (Dr. Flath, "History of
sociation does not accept the invitation to join the
hands of the various governing bodies and placed
ful waiting' attitude depends upon develop-
Relations Between NCAA and AAU, 1905-1963,"
American Olympic Association under its present
in the hands of the Olympic Committee. Bloc vot-
ments
p. 156)
8
9
Commissioner Griffith went on to charge the
and obtained an equal number of games commit-
geographical spread in reference to assign-
with certain countries regarding proposed in-
AAU with being an organization of "cheap poli-
tee members for the NCAA and AAU in the sports
ment." (NCAA Yearbook, 1955-56)
ternational meets and has failed to develop
ticians" who had gained control "over the best ele-
of men's track, men's swimming, boxing, wres-
At Melbourne, Australia, in 1956, the USSR
exchange programs between the U.S. and
ments of our athletic public by intimidation." The
tling, men's gymnastics, basketball, ice hockey and
won more medals than the U.S.
other countries.
"intimidation" Griffith claimed was the threat of
field handball, with an extra member appointed by
Accumulated Grievances (1954-1960)
6. AAU track meets often are poorly man-
disbarment of athletes competing in an amateur
the President of the U.S. Olympic Association.
(New York Times, Nov. 18, 1937)
Although not publicized, a number of incidents
aged and many times incompetent officials are
event not under an AAU sanction. He also char-
and an accumulation of complaints were growing
used.
acterized Olympic managers, officials and com-
After World War II, at the January 1946 con-
mitteemen as "henchmen of the AAU."
during the 1950s against the AAU's administra-
7. Poor planning has been exhibited by the
vention, NCAA President Wilbur C. Smith re-
tion of amateur sports and its cavalier attitude in
AAU in preparing teams for foreign competi-
Following the 1928 Olympic Games, where Gen-
ported:
domineering Olympic matters.
tion. Practice sites and schedules as well as
eral MacArthur put down all complaints, he stated
"The relations of the NCAA and the Olym-
in his report:
In the frustrating sessions of the USOC Exe-
travel accommodations are open to criticism.
pics have evolved through a curious history
cutive Board in 1958-59, the NCAA strongly ad-
8. The AAU has shown no special regard
"The complicated chancellories of American
resulting in a situation which saw the NCAA
vocated rotation of Board members and members
for the welfare and treatment of foreign ath-
sport-I may even say international sports
in the sports under its cognizance, providing
of Games Committees to obtain new ideas and pos-
letes visiting the United States.
as well-are even more intricate perhaps than
U.S. Olympic personnel to as high as 90 per
sibly relieve the situation of personal animosities.
9. The AAU has failed to coordinate and
political chancellories. To abstain from the
cent as well as financial support to a large de-
conflicting interests of various sports bodies
gree, but with scarcely more than nominal
The only way rotation could be approved in 1958
process efficiently applications for U.S. and
and yet to demand of all support for the Olym-
representation on the Olympic Association
was by making an agreement that the rule would
world records.
pic movement has been a problem which at
which governs American Olympic affairs."
not be retroactive, SO that the incumbent AAU
In January, 1960 the NCAA amended its defini-
members would not rotate off for another eight
times appeared insurmountable. It is my most
(NCAA Yearbook, 1945)
tion of an amateur to emphasize that scholarship-
earnest recommendation that within a few
years. Seeing that this was the only way the ob-
aid granted to students, who were also athletes,
As a result of this agitation, Kenneth L. (Tug)
months an athletic congress be called, under
jective could be attained, the NCAA members ac-
would not be misunderstood by Avery Brundage
Wilson, successor to Major Griffith as Big Ten
the auspice of the American Olympic Associ-
cepted this AAU provision, and agreement was
or his AAU colleagues. (NCAA Yearbook, 1959-
commissioner, was appointed Vice-President and
ation, of all amateur sports associations in the
made. (USOC Minutes, 1958) This rule was sub-
60)
Asa S. Bushnell, commissioner of the Eastern Col-
United States, attended by the leading ath-
sequently rescinded by an AAU-led clique before
The AAU wrecked the tour of the Swedish Na-
lege Athletic Conference, was appointed Secretary
letic figures of America, wherein the various
it could affect any of the incumbents.
tional Basketball team by threatening suspension
of the U.S. Olympic Association.
athletic problems that have been agitating the
The NCAA also proposed a development pro-
of eligibility in the winter of 1959-60 if it played
In the 1948 Olympic Games, the U.S. was suc-
nation during the immediate past shall be
gram, and it was authorized under the Chairman-
a number of college teams. (AAU Magazine, Vol.
cessful and relationships fairly harmonious except
thoroughly discussed without crimination or
ship of Thomas J. Hamilton, with equal member-
30, January 1960) This imposition of monopo-
for Avery Brundage, former AAU president who
recrimination and policies and standards fixed
ship from AAU and the NCAA, and one other
listic control over college activities was unaccept-
had taken over as president of the U.S. Olympic
SO definitely as to thoroughly chart the course
member, General O'Donnell of the Air Force. The
able.
Association, expressing his belief that "college ath-
of American athletics for the immediate fu-
program made progress, but was kept under con-
Further, the need for improvement of the Olym-
letes who receive scholarships because of their
ture." (Dr. Flath, "History of Relations Be-
stant harassment, delays and opposition from
pic organization was felt keenly, SO the NCAA
ability in sports become, in fact, professionals."
tween NCAA and AAU, 1905-1963")
AAU personnel.
took action. At the 1959 NCAA Convention, a
(New York Times, Dec. 12, 1949)
Basic grievances as compiled by the NCAA in-
resolution was passed and transmitted to the
President Pierce of the NCAA pointed out that
The 1952 Olympic Games in Finland were the
cluded:
Olympic Association President that the NCAA
the selection of competitors, coaches and managers
first in which the Soviet Union competed. The
1. The major point of dissension is the dic-
recommended and would support efforts to attain
of the 1928 Olympic team was not conducted in
Russians showed immediately that they would
tatorial attitude of the AAU with reference to
improved Olympic teams.
accordance with Article 2 of the American Olym-
challenge U.S. domination.
established policy in sports in which it is the
The NCAA cancelled the Articles of Agreement
pic Association constitution. He said the Olympic
Willis O. Hunter, athletic director of the Uni-
international representative. The AAU ap-
Track and Field team had been selected as a part
with the AAU in April 1960 and announced it
versity of Southern California and chairman of
pears to disregard the suggestion of others
of the National Championship of the AAU con-
would not honor any suspensions imposed on col-
the NCAA Olympic Committee, told the 1956
without considering the sport itself; its de-
ducted by the AAU Track and Field Committee.
lege students by the AAU. (New York Times,
NCAA convention:
cisions too often have been based upon self-
He also pointed out AAU discrepancies in regis-
April 27, 1960)
"A large majority of participants of the
interests of the organization or the individ-
tration.
U.S. Olympic teams in the various sports
New Negotiations (1960-1961)
uals involved.
Quiet Period Before the Storm
schedules are either undergraduates or gradu-
2. Complaints registered with the AAU are
The NCAA Executive Committee made a formal
(1929-1954)
ates training under their former collegiate
not investigated, whether they be justified or
request to the President of the U.S. Olympic Com-
President Avery Brundage of the AAU was suc-
coaches. A majority of the U.S. Olympic team
unjustified. Requests by athletes for hearings
mittee to undertake a complete review of the or-
cessful, following the 1928 Olympics, in amending
coaches are also NCAA personnel. Therefore,
have been ignored; institutional requests for
ganization and operations. The NCAA asked the
registration procedures to the general satisfaction
it is only fitting that the NCAA member in-
hearings on suspensions have gone unan-
USOC to correct several weaknesses that were
of both the NCAA and the AAU. Also, the Ameri-
stitutions assume a large share in raising
swered.
damaging to the Olympic movement and a deter-
can Olympic Association was reorganized in 1930
funds to finance our Olympic teams.
3. Athletes and coaches have been denied
rent to the U.S. fielding its best teams.
with votes assigned to organizations within five
"Bearing these facts in mind, the NCAA
foreign trips when such denial would better
A special committee for AAU and Olympic re-
classifications. An executive committee and games
Olympic Committee feels that for future
suit the purpose of the AAU. Invitations to
lations was appointed with Wilbur C. Johns, ath-
committees with more equal representation
Olympiads an important function of the
athletes have been withheld when foreign
letic director of UCLA, as chairman.
brought peace for a time. It was culminated in an
NCAA Olympic Committee will be the fur-
participation would have prevented the same
The Committee was organized to meet with a
Alliance agreement being signed between the
therance of NCAA interest in the U.S. Olym-
athletes from competing in an AAU event.
similar committee of the AAU to resolve differ-
NCAA and the AAU.
pic Games Committees and administrative
4. The AAU has neglected the vital area of
ences and negotiate a new Articles of Alliance.
Following the 1936 Olympic Games, John L.
staff, consistent with NCAA policy. It is our
research.
The Committee met with the AAU group on June
Griffith, then president of the NCAA, advocated
thought that there should be rotation, and a
5. The AAU has even failed to correspond
4-5, 1960, and it was agreed the NCAA should
10
11
write and transmit its proposals. This was done.
least equal representation in the organization
Special NCAA Committee was as follows:
Olympic administration and sports planning.
Unrest among the gymnastics and basketball
SO designated. (Development and support, as
"The NCAA Executive Committee be in-
This was accomplished by solid bloc voting
coaches was prevalent. With urging from the Na-
used in this context, means specifically: teach-
formed that (1) negotiations with the AAU
of AAU for fear that the high schools would
tional Association of Basketball Coaches, the Na-
ing, coaching, acquiring facilities, arranging
representatives are discontinued, (2) the
side with the colleges and give us a few more
tional Basketball Committee of the United States
competition schedules, recruiting candidates,
Articles of Alliance between NCAA and AAU
votes. Instead of getting into some of the
(primarily a rules-making body) met and decided
stimulating interest of participants and spec-
have been dissolved and no new articles have
political overtones concerning all three amend-
to seek recognition as the U.S. governing body in
tators, promoting National and International
been approved, (3) we recommend to the
ments, I think you should concentrate on the
basketball, supplanting the AAU. Edward Steitz,
competition.)
NCAA Executive Committee that the NCAA
rejection of the amendment to give the high
of Springfield College, NBC representative, made
"(d) That definite steps must be taken to
lend all its effort to bring about the formation
schools representation on the Olympic games
the presentation at Rome, but was preemptorily
break the 'strangle hold' of the AAU, if the
of new organizations to represent the U.S. in
committees. It was proposed to give the high
dismissed by Bill Greim, AAU representative, who
NCAA is to acquire its rightful place in In-
basketball and gymnastics to the Interna-
schools one representative on 15 Olympic
was president of FIBA, the international govern-
ternational representation, particularly in
tional Federations, (4) the Committee be-
Games committees, which ranged in size from
ing body for basketball.
those Olympic sports which are completely
lieves the new organizations must be truly
seven to 22 people, and to give the high
At this time, the AAU paid the Swedish Ama-
dominated by NCAA athletes.
representative of the amateur sports inter-
schools two representatives on one commit-
teur Basketball Federation $7,000, and arranged
ests of the U.S. (historically these have been
tee (swimming) composed of 20 people.
"(e) That the AAU has shamefully neg-
another tour in 1961-62 of eight to 10 games to al-
lected to explore and foster International
high schools, colleges, armed services, YMCA
"Statement: It seems tragic that the
leviate its past error. FIBA appointed Lou Wilkie,
competition in many Olympic sports, and as a
and AAU), (5) the position of the NCAA is
United States Olympic organization would
AAU, to convene a meeting of all basketball in-
result of this neglect, our Olympic team repre-
that we need different representation in cer-
reject the high schools' request to have token
terests in the U.S. to solve the internal dispute.
sentatives are at a great disadvantage.
tain other sports in the International Federa-
representation on 16 Olympic sports com-
Track, basketball and gymnastics coaches be-
tions, and we recommend a committee be
mittees. This comes at an unfortunate time
came aroused and requested separate Federations
"(f) That one of the primary problems is
appointed to study and determine those sports
when President Kennedy's youth fitness pro-
be formed in their respective sports.
the self-serving interests of the AAU leader-
needing a revision of representation, and (6)
gram is appealing to our school system to
ship and their unwillingness to evaluate the
we recommend that this committee be dis-
Wilbur Johns' Committee on AAU and Olympics
stimulate and encourage sports participation.
merits of any suggested changes.
met with the officers of the USOC and the AAU
charged."
The Olympic movement, chartered by Act of
Committee on December 15-16, 1960. Proposals
"(g) That positive steps must be taken by
On a separate front, in mid-August 1961, the
Congress, supposedly stands for all elements
for Articles of Alliance and changes in Olympic
the NCAA if we expect to bring about these
U.S. Handball Association terminated its five-year
of American amateur sports. Certainly the
organization were discussed. The AAU promised
desired changes which we believe will result
agreement with the AAU. (U.S. Handball Associa-
high schools are an integral part of our sports
to submit its suggestions in writing to the NCAA
in general improvement of our competitive
tion Bulletin, September 8, 1961)
structure and have a vital part to play not
Committee.
strength in International and Olympic com-
Nonetheless, the NCAA Executive Committee
only in the early training of potential Olym-
petition.
voted for the Special Committee to meet on Sep-
pic athletes but furthering the basic objec-
The AAU did not submit its suggestions as
promised on February 3, 1961, and was requested
"(h) That the U.S. Olympic Association
tember 15, 1961, with Olympic and AAU repre-
tives of the fitness movement. I fail to under-
again to do this by letter.
organization is completely outmoded and
sentatives for a final effort to resolve the ques-
stand why the Olympic movement would
Johns' Committee on AAU-Olympic matters met
tions. This meeting ended in a stalemate with no
reject, for example, the request that the high
should be reorganized SO as to create a vital
schools have one man on the 22-man track
again on May 23-24, 1961, and stated its beliefs
continuing structure. (Reorganization would
progress.
and recommendations:
include Constitution and Olympic Executive
Formation of Federations (1961-1962)
and field committee or one representative on
"In essence our Committee believes the fol-
Board Games Committees, and Coaches' se-
the 20-man wrestling committee. This narrow-
In Chicago on October 1, 1961, 88 representa-
ness cannot move America forward in the
lowing:
lection.)
tives of many different organizations gathered to
area of athletics."
"(i) That Constitutional provision should
explore the desirability and feasibility of forming
"(a) That the AAU of the United States,
which claims to have been designated the
be made to insure a strong and continuing
new Federations in several different sports. There
Another so-called summit meeting was held in
development program.
was much interest and approval. Subsequently,
February 1962, where the AAU again offered to
governing body in nineteen (19) different
separate Federations were formed in basketball,
place more school and college representatives on
sports (although their official publication lists
"During the February 3 meeting with the
track and field, gymnastics, baseball and wrestling.
AAU Foreign Relations and Sports Committees,
only 14 for which they hold membership in
AAU officers and after lengthy and detailed
Lon Wilkie, long-time AAU official and FIBA
but all merely in a position of recommending to
an International Federation) is no longer
discussion of the most urgent problems, it be-
convener, unsuccessfully attempted to get the
the AAU Executive Committee, which would
truly representative of all interests in certain
came evident that the AAU people were not
basketball organizations to accept some new com-
maintain the same monopolistic control.
sports, and is certainly not the best repre-
inclined to agree to anything unless we were
promises.
The AAU, on the other hand, was invited to at-
sentative group for NCAA interests in specific
willing to 'deal.' They set forth certain pos-
The Olympic quadrennial meeting produced no
tend a meeting of sports organizations to further
sports.
sibilities of conceding certain changes in the
changes, but track and field, basketball and gym-
consider formation of Federations on March 4-6,
"(b) That in these specific sports, basket-
area of International representation, but only
nastics coaches were further disturbed by the
1962, in Chicago. The AAU declined.
ball, track and field, gymnastics and swim-
on the basis that the NCAA would immedi-
frustrations of politics in games committees. The
However, the Federations came into being with
ming, new organizations are needed as Inter-
ately withdraw support of the National Bas-
AAU voted down representation by the high
the strong support of the greatest participants in
national Federation representatives, if the
ketball Committee's effort to be recognized as
schools in the Olympic organization. NCAA Exec-
the various sports. The Basketball Federation was
best interests of these sports are to be fur-
the United States membership in FIBA, the
utive Director Walter Byers wired the White
formed on July 1, 1962; Track and Field Federa-
thered at home and abroad.
international governing body for basketball.
House, in light of then-President John F. Ken-
tion on July 24, 1962, and the Gymnastics Federa-
"(c) That the organizations which contrib-
As chairman of your Committee, I told Mr.
nedy's announced interest in promoting amateur
tion on December 8, 1962.
ute most in the development and support of
Barack that we were not in any position to
sports, as follows:
any sport in the United States should be the
make such a 'deal.' (Report of Special
It is significant that all the Federations urged
officially recognized representative to the In-
NCAA Committee, May 21, 1961)
"Background: The U.S. Olympic quadren-
the AAU to join and fulfill its role, and suggested
nial meeting rejected three amendments to
the AAU perform most of the administrative
ternational Federations, or should have at
Action taken at the May 1961 meeting of the
give the high schools a voice and vote in
functions for the Federations with adequate com-
12
13
pensation. Perhaps the AAU attitude was de-
"2. Member colleges should not enter ath-
At its January 1963 convention, the NCAA re-
rotating chairmanship and be em-
scribed best by Wilbur C. Johns, Chairman of the
letes or teams in AAU competition unless the
solved:
powered to pass upon the qualifications
Special Committee at the 1962 NCAA Convention,
event is sanctioned by the appropriate feder-
"1. The members of the Association re-
and eligibility of every candidate for the
when the Federation concept was approved:
ation. In those AAU sports in which there is
affirm their full support of the amateur sports
United States Olympic Team of 1964
"This was not the Council's intention in
not an operating federation, member institu-
Federations.
and any matters directly related there-
April 1960. It was not your Committee's in-
tions desiring to enter such AAU events
"2. The members of the NCAA will sup-
to. Any matter on which the board can-
tention in June 1960; but as time passed, it
should enter their athletes unattached.
port only those meets and tournaments which
not reach an agreement shall be re-
became evident to all those intimate with de-
"3. Staff personnel of member institutions
have obtained sanctions from the established
ferred to me, as arbitrator, with a full
velopments that a major reorganization was
should withdraw promptly from AAU com-
sports federations in basketball, track and
statement of the divergent views, and
a necessity. In September 1961, during the
mittees in the sports of basketball, gymnas-
field, baseball and gymnastics.
my decision shall be final; and
fourth meeting, your representatives were
tics and track and field.
"3. The member institutions of this associ-
"(d) That it be strongly recommended to the
advised that the AAU would never relinquish
"4. Institutional facilities and equipment
ation will contribute to and participate with
President of the United States that, if
its exclusive and, in effect, monopolistic con-
should be utilized to the maximum to further
absolute priority and to the fullest possible
desired, following the Olympic Games
trol of basketball or any other sport over
federation activities; the AAU may enjoy
extent in the programs of the Federations and
of 1964, an athletic congress be called
which it held jurisdiction. This propelled the
these same privileges and support by entering
they will provide competition, coaching per-
by him, composed of representatives of
NCAA in the direction of seeking complete
into cooperative arrangements with the new
sonnel and facilities for Federation meets and
the athletic groups and associations,
reorganization.
federation."
assist in the Federations' development pro-
leading sportsmen and sportswomen of
"It was felt that new controlling bodies
Federal Intervention (1962-1963)
grams." (NCAA Yearbook, 1962-63)
the country and such educators and
should be organized in the sports of basket-
At this time Attorney General Robert Kennedy
Whereupon Executive Director Hull of the AAU
writers as may be engaged in the field
ball, gymnastics and track and field-and we
expressed the Federal government's concern and
bitterly denounced the NCAA's policy program as
of sports, to devise a permanent plan
committed ourselves to the proposition that
called a meeting in Washington on October 26,
"another in the series of the NCAA blackmail tac-
under which all organizations dedicated
no one segment of amateur sports would have
1962, with representatives of the USOC, AAU,
tics to destroy the AAU." (Dr. Flath, "History of
to amateur athletics and all individual
control of the policy determining organization
NCAA, Federations, NAIA, YMCA and govern-
Relations Between NCAA and AAU, 1905-1963")
men and women aspiring to represent
in the United States." (NCAA Yearbook,
ment officials. An agreement was made, but the
Although General MacArthur was not, in fact,
our country in international games be
1961-62)
AAU renounced the "Washington Alliance" prior
accorded arbitration power, he did work out an
able to pool their resources SO that by a
While dissenting with increasing feeling on the
to a November 12 meeting called to implement it.
agreement which he announced January 19, 1963,
united effort we may be able success-
administration of the Olympics, the NCAA con-
(Ann Arbor News, Nov. 8, 1962)
as follows:
fully to meet the challenge from any
tinued to fulfill the responsibility it felt for con-
The impending AAU-arranged tour of the Rus-
"Our purpose here is to devise a means
nation in the field of athletics and sport.
tributing as much as possible to the success of the
sian National Basketball team also was discussed.
whereby the American people may be assured
"Implementing Agreement:
United States athletic performance, and gave
The NCAA decided its athletes might participate
of a team composed of the finest amateur ath-
"The members of the USTFF will restrict
strong support to many activities.
if the Basketball Federation, to which it belonged,
letic talent in the country to represent the
their activities to enrolled students and the
Development work was undertaken by various
would approve. The AAU refused to request
United States in the 1964 Olympic Games,
organization will be classified as closed. This
conferences and regional NCAA members with
the sanction, SO the players were not invited, and
and I am sure that every individual at this
includes graduate students, students in the
junior college and high school cooperation. NCAA
for the first time Russia won many of the games.
conference is equally dedicated to the achieve-
vacation period between terms, and students
championships were established in soccer, water
On November 12, 1962, without a "Washington
ment of that purpose. Time is of the essence.
in the summer period between high schools,
polo and volleyball. The Track and Field Rules
Alliance" to implement, negotiations continued.
We must accomplish our purpose with a mini-
junior colleges, colleges or universities. Fur-
Committee installed the steeplechase, intermedi-
The Attorney General made a late evening appear-
mum of delay to assure our country's victory
thermore, on this basis an agreement will be
ate hurdles, six-mile run, triple jump and decath-
ance after 13 hours of meeting had failed to pro-
in 1964.
developed by mutual consent between the
lon into its events. Wrestling rules were adjusted
duce agreement in New York City. The next day
"To such end I propose the following sam-
AAU and the USTFF on a non-membership
for better liaison with international style, and the
the so-called Olympic House Coalition was agreed
ple plan:
basis. An athlete not in the foregoing classi-
gymnastics rules were similarly altered. The num-
to, and needed only ratification of the parent
"(a) That an immediate amnesty be granted
fication shall be required to have an AAU card
ber of rowing colleges had more than doubled even
bodies to go into effect. Later in the month at the
to all athletes who have been disquali-
to compete in USTFF open events sanctioned
in this most expensive of sports. Canoeing and
AAU convention in Detroit, this agreement was
fied from selection for reason other than
by the AAU and must in addition comply with
bicycling have grown on the campus, and new
repudiated, although the U.S. Track and Field
those which are purely personal to the
any USTFF requirements to compete in such
regions introduced fencing. The NCAA has given
Federation approved it.
individual;
events." (Detroit Free Press, Jan. 20, 1963)
encouragement to responsible women's organiza-
Louis Fisher, president of the AAU, and AAU
"(b) That any discrimination against the full
A moratorium was thus established until after
tions to foster competitive opportunities for de-
Executive Director Colonel Hull vilified the
use of available facilities and all athletes
the Olympic Games of 1964, although General
velopment of higher skilled female athletes.
NCAA and coaches in vicious press statements at
for scheduled athletic meets and tourna-
MacArthur was called upon to make a straddling
In October 1962, since the AAU refused to
the 1962 AAU Convention. The AAU ruled ath-
ments be lifted.
decision on sanctioning, which kept both sides
recognize the Federations and threatened "to rule
letes ineligible who participated in Track and
"(c) That a board be formed to be known as
"sullen but not mutinous."
ineligible any athlete who competes in a federation
Field and Gymnastics Federation open meets.
the 'Olympic Eligibility Board' com-
A great portion of the NCAA Convention pro-
event sponsored by a high school or college" (Dr.
President Kennedy, following AAU rejection of
posed of six members, three to be desig-
ceedings at the January 1963 meeting was de-
Flath, "History of Relations Between NCAA and
two consecutive negotiation agreements worked
nated by the Amateur Athletic Union,
voted to the subjects of AAU and Olympic rela-
AAU, 1905-1963"), the NCAA Council recom-
out by its own AAU negotiating committee, re-
and three by the United States Track
tions and the Federation concept, with full reports
mended:
quested the sports leaders to submit their dispute
and Field Federation as the duly con-
being made by various people responsible for dif-
"1. Member colleges withdraw from mem-
to arbitration. General Douglas MacArthur ac-
stituted agent of the National Collegiate
ferent phases.
bership in the AAU until such time as that
cepted appointment as arbitrator. (Dr. Flath,
Athletic Association and all other affili-
To sum up the situation at this point, it might
organization indicates a cooperative attitude
"History of Relations Between NCAA and AAU,
ated members. That such board shall
be said the NCAA conducted serious negotiations
toward federation members.
1905-1963")
meet at the call of either group under
for a period of three years to try to solve the prob-
14
15
lems. Rebuffed by delays, broken commitments
President Kennedy, by Executive Order, estab-
complete dominance of U. S. Olympic Committee
President Mahoney and Executive Director
and a refusal to face the issues by the AAU in its
lished an Interagency Committee on International
voting by the AAU. However, subsequently, the
Hull, the matter of sanctions was carefully
desire to maintain the status quo, there was no
Athletics, chaired by the Department of State
U. S. Olympic Committee restored the eligibility
reviewed. At that time, these officials did
alternative but to proceed with new organizations
Representative, on August 13, 1963. The Special
of five standout Midwest gymnasts for the Pan
state that there is no international rule which
in the form of Federations which offered the best
Assistant for Athletic Programs of the State De-
American Games, and made meaningless the con-
governs sanctioning policies within a coun-
potential for improving the nation's athletic pos-
partment was charged with collecting and dispens-
vention action and AAU threats.
try for domestic competition. Thus, under in-
ture.
ing information on the subject.
Persons attending the biennial meeting came
ternational rules, it is permissible for co-
The new Federations made rapid progress in set-
The NCAA Yearbook, covering 1963, reported
away with a feeling of revulsion and disgust that
operative sanctioning. However, the AAU's
ting up programs and operating meets, clinics and
that "The NCAA Executive Committee, April 26,
an operation SO related to their nation's interna-
own rule specifically prohibits sanctioning by
other events. Local and regional track meets were
1963, approved a request submitted by Richard C.
1
tional standing could be operated so much for per-
any other body but the AAU, and this rule
conducted with mutual sanction by the AAU and
Larkins, chairman of the Olympic Development
sonal interests. Typical of this reaction was a tele-
was put into the AAU's book in the first part
the USTFF, but the AAU National Championships
Committee, to jointly sponsor with the Division
gram sent to USOC President K. L. (Tug) Wil-
of December 1962. Thus, gentlemen, the
became a sore point when the AAU would not
for Girl's and Women's Sports of the American
)
son the day following the meeting, which said:
AAU's persistent denial of the colleges' right
request a sanction from the USTFF. The AAU
Association for Health, Physical Education and
"Please accept my resignation as Chairman of the
to sanction outside competition does not come
contended that a boycott was being placed on their
Recreation and the Women's Board of Olympic
Olympic Development Committee. The continued
from any international rule-which so often
meet. Meanwhile, the gymnastics coaches were
Development a national institute for girl's sports,
domination of the U.S. Olympic Committee by the
has been implied and reported to the press-
highly indignant that the trials for the selection
scheduled to take place at the University of Okla-
AAU makes it distasteful to fulfill responsibilities
rather it stems from the AAU's own hand-
of the Pan American team had been scheduled to
homa in October 1963, and appropriated $9,500 to
of this position. I see no hope for our country in
book, which was revised approximately a year
discriminate against a number of college gym-
underwrite the costs of that institute." (NCAA
future international competition under this mo-
ago for this specific purpose.
nasts.
Yearbook, 1963-64, p. 144)
nopoly." (Signed) Richard C. Larkins.
"I would call your attention to the very ex-
At the Pan American games in Rio de Janiero
The NCAA Executive Committee, August 25,
Statements and letters from Gordon H. Chal-
cellent report that Reverend W. H. Crowley
in 1963, FIBA, the International Basketball Fed-
1963, named Mr. Larkins chairman of a special
mers, Wiles Hallock, Clifford B. Fagan and Don B.
has made on track and field. As he observes,
eration, authorized the Basketball Federation of
committee for liaison on women's competition.
Canham* further indicate the frustration of how
the right of educational institutions to sanc-
the USA as well as the AAU to sanction and
The Basketball, Baseball and Track and Field
an organization which should enjoy the enthusi-
tion outside competition put on by private
schedule foreign competition. This caused an in-
Federations reported progress, but the Gymnas-
asm and devotion of almost any person, is SO con-
promoters has been a cornerstone of intercol-
crease of about 600 foreign exchanges in the next
tics Federation provided information about the
trolled by men obsessed with retention of their
legiate athletic regulations for years and is
three years by the action of BFUSA.
own positions that it quenches this enthusiasm.
accepted throughout the sports world. Spe-
Richard C. Larkins, Ohio State University, then
circumstances of the AAU's actions which pro-
Clarence L. (Biggie) Munn, then athletic director,
cifically, that is what we do in such matters
chairman of the USOC Development Committee,
hibited three U.S. Gymnastics Federation tram-
Michigan State University, wrote, "I think it
as baseball and football, for example, at the
reported the Olympic treasurer did not charge
polinists from performing in an exhibition in
present time. In track and field, the AAU
Germany.
would be un-American to stay with a situation
much of the Olympic Winter Games training costs
that is impossible; therefore, it is my feeling that
merely states that the nation's colleges have
against the Development Fund for this Olympics
Storm Clouds Gather (1963-1965)
the NCAA representation should resign from the
no rights." (NCAA Yearbook, 1963-64)
as he had done in the previous Olympiad.
The biennial meeting of the United States Olym-
Olympic Board after the 1964 Olympics."
The track and field report, stated that the
The minutes of the USOC Board of Directors
pic Committee was held November 10-11, 1963.
At this point in time, temporary enthusiasm
USTFF constituency provides track and field com-
meeting on September 17-18, 1963, stated that the
The motions to seat the U. S. Baseball Federation
was felt for a plan that would form a National
petition for 682,926 boys and girls throughout the
motion to approve the U. S. Baseball Federation as
as governing body or even to be admitted to USOC
Sports Foundation. It would be a private organiza-
year, employs 27,353 coaches, spends $31,653,784
a Class E member was tabled until the December
membership in Group E were defeated in a dis-
tion with a top, impartial Board of Trustees, and
a year to support track, and, since World War II,
meeting of the entire organization. A motion to
graceful performance by the AAU representatives.
would raise money from private sectors to build a
130 United States athletes have finished sixth or
have the Baseball Federation succeed the USOC as
They denied membership to a qualified organiza-
tion, which was requested to be formed by the
comprehensive and efficient program to develop
better in Olympic competition-129 of whom at-
Governing Body of Baseball in the United States
USOC itself.
sports and fitness activities as a general crusade
tended and competed for NCAA colleges.
passed 17-11. The AAU objected to the Baseball
for excellence at home and internationally. Many
Mrs. Jernigan, Women's Olympic Advisory
Federation even though it did not recognize the
At this meeting, the independent international
organizations wished to play the lead role in this
Board, and Miss Marguerite Clifton, director of
sport, and even though the USOC was seeking an
franchise holders were granted 40 votes each, giv-
act, but the USOC was SO concerned that it would
Physical Education at Purdue, spoke of the eman-
organization to assume this nation's international
ing this group with the AAU a majority of votes
interfere with its own fund raising, the idea never
cipation of women in sports following World War
responsibilities. J. Lyman Bingham, then execu-
in the USOC; as a matter of fact, 62 per cent at
got off the ground.
II and made excellent recommendations for co-
tive director of the USOC, wrote that the chances
that time. The National Junior College Association
The NCAA Convention in January 1964 de-
operation and guidance regarding increasing op-
of the Baseball Federation being recognized would
was admitted to Group B, and the National Fed-
sit better with the AAU if the baseball group did
voted much attention to these subjects. The presi-
portunities for higher skilled girl's athletic com-
eration of State High School Athletic Associations
dent and executive director of the AAU met with
petition and regulation. Dr. Mason Gross, presi-
not use the name "Federation."
changed from Group E (with one vote) to Group
In considering proposed amendments, the AAU
the Executive Committee and Council the day be-
dent of Rutgers University, spoke in part as fol-
B (with 10 votes.) An amendment which would
initiated a motion which passed to eliminate a rep-
fore the convention, and NCAA President Henry
lows:
have allowed them each 50 votes and five delegates
Hardt reported to the Convention:
"It seems to me that just as we have oper-
resentative of the National High School Federa-
was defeated by the AAU voting in a bloc.
Thus, two of the greatest contributors to the bene-
"Now keep this point in mind because it is
ated with football and basketball, SO with
tion as a member of the USOC Executive Com-
mittee.
fit of the Olympic program were denied their ap-
important-in the discussions yesterday with
track and field affairs; that the college organi-
zations are the proper ones to police the en-
Roy Dath, soccer coach at Trinity College, pro-
propriate position, and their representation on the
tire program. There is going to be resentment
tested that college players were eliminated from
various Olympic Games committees was inade-
*Mr. Chalmers is now athletic director, Indiana State Uni-
at any change but I think we have to assert
trying out for the Olympic soccer team when the
quate. In another voting action, a resolution to re-
versity; Mr. Hallock is executive director, Pacific-8 Con-
trials were scheduled in St. Louis on October 12,
ference; Mr. Fagan is executive secretary, National Fed-
our concern for the programs in which our
store the eligibility of more than 500 gymnasts
eration of State High School Associations; Mr. Canham is
students take part." (NCAA Yearbook, 1963-
1963.
suspended by the AAU was defeated, showing the
athletic director, University of Michigan.
64)
16
17
Robert Kendler, president of the U.S. Handball
the moment, but not discouraging enough to
dispute with the AAU; Dean Ernest B. McCoy,
ordinating the efforts of all organizations inter-
Association, said:
prevent us from keeping on working."
Pennsylvania State University, explained very
ested in amateur wrestling to improve America's
"I certainly can understand why any sport
(NCAA Yearbook, 1963-64)
clearly the topic of sanctioning, and Federation
international record. (NCAA Yearbook, 1965-66)
would want to be free of AAU domination.
Wilbur C. Johns reported the Basketball Feder-
spokesmen outlined the growth of their activities
The AAU steamroller was very much in evi-
The suspension of my national championship
ation is representative of more than 85 per cent
and membership, which moved rapidly.
dence at the USOC Board of Directors meeting
handball team, the persecution of my national
of the organized basketball played in the United
Dean McCoy's conclusion is worthy of quota-
and the Special USOC meeting on May 8-9 and
championship swimming team, the slander of
States, and plans to sanction foreign competition
tion:
June 12-13, respectively, augmented by the bloc
my club and the threats to me personally con-
for the next three years.
"Sanctioning authority is for one purpose
vote of the independent international franchise
stitute one of the blackest pages in AAU his-
Reverend Crowley, reporting for the Track and
alone; to encourage well-managed competi-
holders who caucused with the AAU. Some of the
tory.
Field Federation, said:
tion, not to inhibit it; to provide a broad base
non-controversial legislation suggested by Arthur
"Our entire controversy with the AAU re-
"One is forced to the inescapable conclu-
of wholesome and constructive competitive
Little, Inc., was passed. The Baseball Federation
volved around one basic point-freedom.
sion that if there is any illegality about the
opportunity within the legitimate programs
was admitted as a Group E member, while the
Freedom for the game and freedom for the
Federation movement or any restriction of
of all organizations, and that this authority
other Federations' applications were tabled.
player. I made a tremendous effort to obtain
competition among our athletes, or any
does not preclude sanctioning of meets and
An assessment of the meetings was supplied by
this freedom. A fortune in money and 14
threat of ineligibility for Olympic or interna-
tournaments by other amateur sports bodies
an NCAA delegate:
years in time have been required to give play-
tional competition, it stems from a monopolis-
having a legitimate interest therein."
tic regulation which rejects co-sanctioning
A motion passed which directed the NCAA to
"Unfortunately, as far as improving the
ers the right to play with anyone they chose
and in any place they chose. In a nutshell,
for domestic open meets. The officers of the
participate in direct negotiations with the AAU
United States Olympic effort is concerned,
Federation recognize the right of the AAU
to again try to solve their differences, and to ob-
the USOC took a giant step backward. It
this tells you the story of handball's war for
turned back the hands of time some 35 to 40
independence. It stems from the inability of
to take a stand as a splinter group, if it so
tain cooperative sanctioning.
the AAU to be a 'Jack of all Trades and Mas-
pleases, but they cannot recognize its claims
Correspondence between Asa S. Bushnell and
years. In short, the international franchise
to interfere in the legitimate interest of the
Max Ritter, USOC secretary and treasurer, re-
holders have enslaved the school-college sys-
ter of None.' The slow decay that cost the
AAU one sport after another is not good for
spectively, brought out the fact that large sums of
tem as far as the Olympics are concerned."
major sports groups in this country." (NCAA
them, nor is it good for us. I would like to see
Yearbook, 1963-64)
money were expended for training of Olympic
"Gentlemen, what our predecessors fought
the AAU do a good job in handball. We have
Winter Games teams and charged to the Devel-
for SO determinedly has been cancelled and
no fear of good clean competition. History will
"Biggie" Munn, chairman of the NCAA Olym-
opment Fund. Mr. Bushnell was insistent that a
taken away. The era of equal representation
prove that the USHA and the NCAA took the
pic Committee, criticized the USOC voting struc-
means be found to differentiate the two purposes.
on Olympic Games Committees has passed.
ture:
human footsteps necessary to right a great
The USOC Board of Directors met March 22,
The nation's high schools and colleges, always
wrong and thereby restore the dignity of the
"Consequently, the National High School
Federation, representing more than 20,000
1965. Arthur D. Little, Inc., had been paid $136,-
a minority voice in over-all Olympic policy,
athlete. No longer need he fear suspension
000 to that date. Some of its recommendations
now have lost their last vestige of equity.
without trial. No longer need one sport suf-
high schools, many thousands of coaches and
"At the recent meeting of the United
hundreds of thousands of athletes, has a
were prepared for legislation, although the Olym-
fer a secondary boycott because of contro-
pic Board did not have a copy of the report as yet.
States Olympic Committee in Chicago, the
versy in another sport." (NCAA Yearbook,
staggering total of only 10 votes, or one-half
of one per cent of the total votes of the United
It seemed to many that the material submitted
AAU, together with the 17 other sports gov-
1963-64)
by the Little company reflected a desire by this
erning bodies, relegated the high schools and
Through the years, Mr. Kendler said, it became
States Olympic Committee." (NCAA Year-
book, 1963-64)
management firm to please the voting majority of
colleges to a completely subservient role. The
apparent that most important to the AAU were
The USOC Board of Directors, at its May 1964
the organization which had authorized the survey,
NCAA is no longer in the minority but now
the clubs and not the players; the money they
and sustained the suspicion that the people inter-
becomes a segment of the minority.
could take in, not put out.
meeting, authorized Arthur D. Little, Inc., man-
viewed did not embrace the full horizon of com-
"An amendment (Sulger) was adopted
agement consultants, to conduct a study of the
Everett D. Barnes, then athletic director of Col-
Olympic Committee and its operations. Plans for
petent people who could present the complete
which provides that the majority of votes on
gate University and later to become president of
the NCAA, reported to the 1964 NCAA Conven-
the 1964 Tokyo games were made.
picture.
all Olympic Games Committees must be re-
The NCAA offered amendments for the USOC
served for the governing body of that sport.
tion for the Baseball Federation:
The Olympic Games at Tokyo, Japan, were well-
Constitution, which would make officers and Board
"Example: The AAU has 23 votes of the
"I knew that the AAU did not sponsor base-
managed and conducted by the Japanese. The
members ineligible for the same office after two
45-man basketball committee and the track
ball, they had no interest in baseball, they had
United States had many superb performances
Olympiads (eight years), and to have the games
and field committee. Regardless of contribu-
no facilities, no equipment, no personnel, no
from its athletes, but again did not win as many
committees appointed in numbers according to
tion to the sport or what all other organiza-
medals as the Soviet Union. President Johnson
coaches. So in the development work of the
each group's contribution to the sport.
tions believe is right for this country's Olym-
Federation we were requested by the United
did a splendid thing on the athletes' return by en-
On April 8, 1965, Myron Roderick, wrestling
pic teams in those sports, the AAU now is in
States Olympic Committee to make applica-
tertaining them at dinner at the White House.
coach at Oklahoma State University, appeared be-
a position to dictate try-out arrangements,
tion to represent the United States on the In-
An uneasy feeling grew in many sectors of the
fore the NCAA Executive Committee stating that
name the Olympic coach and manager and de-
ternational Baseball Federation. Many of you
college community on the limited number of con-
the Wrestling Coaches and Officials Association
termine how the athletes will be selected.
will remember the Washington USOC meet-
tacts and questions asked by the Arthur D. Little
had voted 60-4 to join a proposed U.S. Wrestling
"Why the change in games committee
ing. I think this was one of the darkest mo-
investigators, which indicated that a superficial
Federation. He stressed that the USWF was not
structure after 35 years? Probably because
ments for amateur sports in that the Baseball
report would be the result.
intended to oppose the AAU, but that the AAU
the international franchise holders are just
Federation had to become the political foot-
The NCAA Convention at Chicago in January
and other organizations interested in wrestling
plain scared. Why are they afraid? The an-
ball for all the Federation movement
for
1965 again reaffirmed its support of the new Fed-
were urged to join to aid the sport of wrestling.
swer in the case of the AAU, and probably
this one reason: If one Federation was rec-
erations, and alloted a large segment of time to
He stated that the main reasons for the formation
some of the others as well, is that they have
ognized, they had nothing to do but recognize
having speakers report to the membership on the
of the USWF were (1) to provide leadership in
not performed in a manner equal to their re-
the remaining Federations. It had nothing to
issues involved. Professor Earl M. Ramer, Univer-
promoting one of the country's fastest growing
sponsibilities in administering sports. They
do with athletics. This was discouraging for
sity of Tennessee, gave an excellent history of the
sports, and (2) the necessity of unifying and co-
have banded together in a self-protective
18
19
union to blunt the strong position of the col-
international franchise holders was an emascula-
School Athletic Associations, Minutes of June
garding our Olympic relations somewhat at odds
leges and high schools.
tion of the democratic process in the Olympic
30, 1965)
with the feelings of other NCAA people. I am
"It is ironical that the sports governing
movement.
NCAA delegates to the U.S. Olympic organiza-
gratified that these views not only have been heard
bodies should take such action at this time
In a post-meeting autopsy, NCAA delegates
tion and members of the NCAA Olympic Com-
by the policy councils of the NCAA but have
when Arthur Little, Inc., calls for greater co-
listed three alternatives: One, remain in the
mittee, including the chairman, Mr. Munn of
been endorsed, as symbolized by my appointment
operation between the educational community
Olympic movement and adjust to a subservient
Michigan State University, recommended to the
as chairman of the NCAA Olympic Committee."
and the franchise holders. They have defi-
role; two, withdraw from the Olympic Committee
NCAA Council, at its meeting in conjunction with
(Letter from Reed, February 9, 1966)
nitely injured this country's Olympic efforts.
and continue to provide the best possible athletic
the 1966 NCAA Convention, that the NCAA with-
His communications and dealings carried out
program for America; three, the high schools and
draw from the Olympic organization. NCAA Pres-
"It is worthy of note that the President of
his intentions of attempting by logic, friendliness
colleges present a united front and carry the bat-
ident Barnes and William R. Reed, then commis-
the USOC excused himself from the chair to
and persuasive discussion to obtain better results
tle to higher authority.
sioner of the Big Ten Conference and incoming
speak in opposition to the amendment, and
for the NCAA and sports in the U. S. through-
chairman of the NCAA Olympic Committee, ar-
that the Armed Services, the YMCA, and the
A majority of NCAA delegates offered the fol-
out his term.
gued against the recommendation. They contended
American Association of Health, Physical Ed-
lowing:
The Secretary of the USOC, Robert J. Kane,
low-key, friendly negotiations within the USOC,
ucation and Recreation voted with the NCAA
1. The NCAA and its allied and affiliated mem-
wrote to the USTFF that their application for
particularly with the groups other than the AAU
and the National Federation of State High
bers should withdraw from the USOC.
membership could not be considered until the bi-
which held international franchises, would result
School Associations.
ennial meeting in February 1967.
2. Federations should be established in other
in the USOC accepting the views and recommenda-
"When an AAU spokesman claimed that
sports.
tions of the schools and colleges. The NCAA Coun-
Bill Reed and Jay-Ehret Mahoney of the AAU
such a games committee change was neces-
3. Federal supervision of amateur sports could
cil approved the Barnes-Reed line of reasoning,
worked with great zeal on redistributing the votes
sary under International Olympic Committee
in the USOC to accommodate the new Constitu-
be a possibility.
which subsequently was proved invalid. It also
rules, the USOC counsellor stated that this
4. The Association should investigate the pos-
was a major tactical error. Mr. Reed, shortly be-
tion. It is interesting to note that with the reor-
was a fallacious argument. The USOC coun-
fore his untimely death in 1971, publicized his
ganized USOC Board, the distribution had not
sibility of appealing for Federally-directed reor-
sel quoted Rule 24 of the existing IOC rules
reluctant conclusions that total reorganization of
materially changed in that New York and Mary-
ganization of the USOC. The Association and its
that international franchise holders are not
allied and affiliated members could withdraw from
the USOC was necessary and that external inter-
land had 23 members, 18 states had 50 and 32
entitled to majority vote on the games com-
states had no members.
the USOC and ask Congress to investigate the
vention was the only means of accomplishing the
mittees or on the Board of Directors."
present Olympic structure since the USOC holds
necessary change; i.e., it could not be realized
The USOC Board meeting held in Washington,
NCAA Withdrawal? (1966)
a Federal charter.
within the USOC framework. (NCAA NEWS, May
D. C., was preceded by a two-day conference on
5. The NCAA should refrain from making any
15, 1971)
Olympic Development, which was very useful.
In 1958, the NCAA had been successful in
Barnes and Edward S. Steitz, athletic director at
amending the USOC Constitution to limit the
appointments to the various Olympic games com-
Dr. Jerome H. Holland, then president of Hamp-
mittees.
ton Institute and a member of the NCAA Council,
Springfield College and an NCAA delegate to the
terms of Board members to two Olympiads. Such
reporting for the Council at the 1966 Convention,
USOC, spoke on "Bright Spots in Olympic De-
legislation would provide for the infusion of new
The National Federation of State High School
blood and ideas to hopefully stimulate Olympic
Athletic Associations at its annual meeting passed
said:
velopment." Excellent charts of present rating
progress. The first rotation would become oper-
a resolution, which it sent to members of Con-
"As stated earlier, the NCAA has long been
of various sports were produced.
gress, which said in part:
on record favoring revisions designed to im-
Reed discovered that some gymnasts had not
ative for the first time in the fall of 1965. What
happened? The majority of the Board members-
prove the United States Olympic Committee.
been invited to a training camp on the basis of
"Whereas, there are 20,200 high schools in
who represented the AAU and other international
Through the years there has been a general
their affiliation. Correspondence confirmed this
the United States of America that are mak-
disregard for ideas advanced by the NCAA.
same tactic had deprived college gymnasts of try-
franchise holders-decided they did not want to
ing significant contributions to the Olympic
In 1965, the nation's schools and colleges suf-
ing for the Pan American team in 1963. The prob-
relinquish their positions on the Board. As a re-
effort through their broad competitive sports
sult of another Constitutional amendment, the
fered a serious setback when the USOC
lems were worked out satisfactorily.
programs, and
rotation system was removed. The then Board
adopted an amendment which provides that
A. E. Simonson, president of the National Fenc-
members could stay on in perpetuity (although
"Whereas, these schools are not equitably
the international franchise holder must have
ing Coaches Association, revealed in his letters
the NCAA kept its promise and rotated its dele-
represented on the United States Olympic
a majority vote on the Olympic Games Com-
that the Amateur Fencing League of America as
gates). The Olympic movement still was devoid of
Committee and their repeated requests for
mittees. This situation obviously is inequi-
Governing Body had convened a committee of
new ideas and outlooks.
fair and proportionate representation con-
table and cannot be justified by any argu-
AFLA representatives of the New York City area,
sistently have been denied by the Committee;
ments or facts. It is the result of some type
which presented and had approved a plan for de-
The May-June 1965 meetings were a disaster for
progress and a triumph for the fumbling USOC
"Therefore be it resolved, that the Council
of misunderstanding, or perhaps we might say
velopment without informing the other members
oligarchy.
of the National Federation of State High
political manipulation. Our dissatisfaction
of the Olympic Fencing Committee. They planned
School Athletic Associations respectfully re-
must not be misunderstood. We continue to
to accept money and run a program in high schools
The NCAA sponsored an amendment for in-
creased representation for junior colleges and high
quests that the Congress of the United States
encourage our members to provide the finest
and colleges, unbeknownst to the national coach-
make a reappraisal of the public law which
athletic programs possible SO that the Olym-
ing association. Also, the AFLA instructed its
schools. The result Another defeat.
charters the United States Olympic Commit-
pic Committee can reap the fruits of our har-
members to resign from the coaches association.
The NCAA supported a 66-year age limit rec-
tee and examine its plan of operation to the
vest every four years." (NCAA Yearbook,
This is a good example of the authority assumed
ommended by the Little company report. It was
end that all areas of the United States and all
1965-66)
by the governing body by its majority in a Games
also defeated.
amateur sports programs now being con-
The NCAA appointed a new group to the USOC
Committee, and their lack of ability to get the
Geographical representation on the Board was
ducted be justly and equitably represented in
Board, under the chairmanship of Big Ten Com-
working teachers united in the program.
suggested, but to no avail.
the Olympic Committee SO that a united ef-
missioner Reed. At the outset, Reed said, "As you
The Olympic Committee balance sheet on Dec.
Regardless of merit, suggestions were summar-
fort may be made to further insure and in-
may know, I have, in a manner of speaking, im-
31, 1966, showed assets of $4,849,869, and alloca-
ily dismissed by the USOC unless they proved
crease the prestige of the United States of
posed myself upon the NCAA Olympic Committee.
tions for development of $296,724.
beneficial to the international franchise holders. In
America in international athletic competi-
I have done so in good conscience for what I think
Sports Arbitration Board (1966-1968)
brief, the Chicago action of the AAU and other
tion." (National Federation of State High
are sufficient reasons, to express a viewpoint re-
NCAA President Barnes reported to the NCAA
20
21
Convention in January 1967 on the work of the SO-
doubt of the constitutional qualifications of
National Federation of State High School Athletic
Field Committee is pretty well summed up by a
called Sports Arbitration Board, which had been
the applicants.
Associations, wrote Lentz as follows:
letter from William R. Reed to Oregon track
appointed by Vice-President Humphrey as a result
"In the words of the AAU president, tak-
"It is commonplace, rather than unusual,
coach William J. Bowerman, with this quote:
of action by the U.S. Senate following hearings by
ing evident satisfaction in the fact, the mem-
for a person who is introduced to Olympic
"I am greatly concerned by the operations
the Senate Commerce Committee under the chair-
bership applications of the Federation were
Committee work for the first time to come
of the majority of the USOC Track and Field
manship of Senator Warren G. Magnuson. Barnes
'resoundingly rejected.' The AAU has also
away totally amazed and ask not only himself
Committee. It may be significant that in most
said:
stated that all the independents joined with
but everyone else, 'Is this the way Olympic
Games Committees, partisanship has not been
"Two basic issues in the dispute remain
it in this rejection, but this was incorrect for
business is conducted?' People who are dedi-
asserted SO blatantly, but that in our most
unsolved-sanctioning and jurisdiction. About
three independents.
cated to the Olympic movement, and who are
important Olympic sport, track and field, it
a week ago, the AAU notified Chairman Kheel
"It is a fair conclusion that, echoing the
looking for opportunity to serve the United
evidently is. The whole thing is a result of
(Theodore Kheel, New York City lawyer and
experience of our predecessors, a sense of fu-
States in this effort, more often than not are
that action of the USOC which gave govern-
labor negotiator) that it was unable to meet
tility and frustration prevails within the
not concerned with the differences of the or-
ing bodies absolute control over Games Com-
in January and requested a postponement of
NCAA Olympic Committee in its approach to
ganizations that work within the Olympic
mittees, and authority which is always a po-
the meeting until mid-March.
the affairs of the United States Olympic Com-
structure. However, they find if they are not
tential source of abuse.
"We have met 12 times in the last 13
mittee." (NCAA Annual Reports, 1966-67)
of the AAU membership they are not given
"The situation is symptomatic of a sickness
months and what concerns me personally,
Charles M. Neinas, assistant NCAA executive
an opportunity to participate. They are made
within the USOC, which should be solely con-
having been associated with this problem for
director and an NCAA delegate to the USOC, ex-
to feel all too frequently that they are in-
cerned with the advancement of our Olympic
SO many years, is a repetition of history. If
pressed concern that since no master plan for de-
truders. The person who is taking part in
future negotiations are delayed two or three
Olympic Committee work for the first time
effort and should be making every effort to
velopment had been presented, much of the $400,-
keep the disputes which do exist for good
months, we are going to be faced immediately
000 allocated for Olympic development would be
finds it extremely difficult to differentiate be-
reason outside its affairs." (Letter from Reed,
with the Pan American Games. Immediately
wasted.
tween the AAU and the Olympic Committee.
October 20, 1967)
following are the Winter Games and the
He is led to believe that it is the AAU that is
In its letter of April 27, 1967, the NCAA told
establishing the policy and procedures rather
Clarence L. (Biggie) Munn wrote on December
Olympic Games in the summer of 1968. We
USOC Executive Director Art Lentz:
find ourselves repeating the position in which
than the Olympic Committee. Since there
6, 1967, wondering if it was proper for colleges
"Since Mr. Hull (AAU executive director)
we found ourselves in 1963 and 1964-Please
isn't any question but what the AAU is in
such as his to pay expenses of his coaches and him-
is telling the Olympic Games Committees
don't tip the applecart and don't rock the boat
control, it is difficult for us to understand
self to all the Olympic meetings without credit or
what they can and cannot do, I think you
during the Olympic year.' (NCAA Conven-
why it is necessary for that organization to
reimbursement when the USOC rejected the co-
should have a copy of his March 10 Bulletin
flaunt its power to the extent that it is harm-
operation and ignored the services rendered by the
tion Proceedings, January 1967)
and I am enclosing same.
ful to the United States Olympic Committee's
college group. Neinas answered:
[Editor's Note: Although named the Sports Ar-
"The point is that the AAU is imposing its
image and its work." (Letter from Fagan,
"We agree that the nation's colleges and
bitration Board, the Board was never given arbi-
own myriad requirements on top of the
June 14, 1967)
universities have been shortchanged in more
tration authority.]
IAAF and Olympic rules, and stating that if
At a 1967 meeting of the USOC Board of Direc-
ways than one and are still expected to con-
Bill Reed's report of the NCAA Olympic Com-
an athlete does not obey all the conflicting
tors, Clifford Buck of the AAU brought up a
tribute to the Olympic movement. You will
mittee reveals what that group was experiencing,
rules, interpretations and restraining orders
motion which passed that the Olympic Basketball
be interested to know that the current NCAA
viz:
of the AAU, he sacrifices his right to com-
Committee be given the assignment of trying to
Olympic Committee is rapidly coming to the
"The present NCAA Olympic Committee
pete for the United States in the Olympic
solve the basketball dispute between the AAU and
same conclusions voiced by the previous Com-
had reasoned that the U.S. Olympic Commit-
games. For example, the AAU has ruled five
the Basketball Federation of the USA. Buck knew
mittee of which you were the chairman. It
tee was not necessarily subject to the domin-
Penn State gymnasts ineligible for the Pan
FIBA, the governing body of international basket-
appears that you and your colleagues were
ation by the AAU, contrary to our predeces-
American Olympic games. Why? Because
ball, had cancelled the Basketball Federation's
right while the new Committee, including the
sors.
The biennial meeting of the USOC,
they competed against the University of Col-
right to sanction foreign games and had told
writer, was wrong."
February 26, 1967, confirmed that there does
ogne in an intercollegiate meet (at Penn
the AAU to settle the domestic question prior to
Ed Steitz's letter of December 29, 1967, brings
exist a political coalition between the AAU
State) not sanctioned by the AAU."
the 1968 Olympic Games. This move was inter-
out more detail of the action of Cliff Buck, past
and the independents which constitutes con-
Counsellor Sullivan of the USOC ruled that ath-
preted to take the AAU off the hook, using the
president of the AAU, in sending the basketball
trol of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and
letes trying out for the Pan American team were
Olympic Committee again in an unconstitutional
dispute back to the Olympic Basketball Committee
which operates to serve the interests of the
not required to join the AAU to be eligible for the
manner. The Olympic Basketball Committee chair-
in spite of the possible damage to the USOC visu-
AAU.
U.S. team, only after selected they would have to
man refused the assignment, stating that it was
alized by Dr. Harold Friermood of the YMCA and
"The test issues before the USOC were the
be certified by the governing body.
not the Committee's job, and that it could not
Asa S. Bushnell.
applications for membership by the U.S.
The minutes of the U.S. Olympic Gymnastic
possibly reach a fair decision since the Basketball
At the NCAA Convention, January 1968, Presi-
Track and Field Federation, the Basketball
Games Committee of May 6, 1967, illustrate the
Federation was not represented on the Committee.
dent Marcus L. Plant reported:
Federation and the U.S. Gymnastics Federa-
improper dominance of the AAU in that body,
He was redirected to undertake the task, which
"We have worked very earnestly during
tion, supported by the NCAA as a constituent
through the imposition of AAU rulings for those
graphically shows how the U.S. Olympic Commit-
the past year with the Sports Arbitration
member of each and vigorously opposed by
that Committee should make, including false
tee is used to do the bidding of the AAU.
Board, which was appointed by Vice-Presi-
AAU.
statements made to uphold the AAU position.
Letters from members of the Olympic Track and
dent Humphrey. As you may recall, some time
"It is ironic to note that the classification
The trials for the 10,000 meter track team of
Field Committee reveal their disgust and frustra-
ago we offered to arbitrate all issues if the
for membership in the USOC being sought
the U.S. Pan American team were removed from
tion at the meeting of that group where, for the
other side would submit all issues to arbitra-
called for one vote for each Federation, among
the regular tryouts, and selections made from the
first time, no coach or manager was selected from
tion. Our offer was refused. We have observed
a total USOC voting strength of approximate-
AAU championships by a postcard decision of the
the NCAA coaches' nominations for 1968 Olym-
the moratorium meticulously in the face, I
ly 3,000. It is essential to record the constitu-
45-man track and field committee of the USOC
pic duty.
might say, of repeated violations by the other
tional requirements for the classification be-
by memo of June 5, 1967.
A flurry of correspondence including Don Can-
side. The AAU, as far as we can see, holds
ing sought, since there can be no possible
Clifford B. Fagan. executive secretary of the
ham's resignation from the Olympic Track and
that no one can put on a track meet without
22
23
its permission. This is and will continue to be
ization to be responsible for governing the sport
for example, by restrictions upon the compo-
and gave support to the burgeoning programs
totally unacceptable to us." (NCAA Conven-
of track and field in the United States.
sition of the Games Committees. There is con-
building in the Track and Field, Basketball, Gym-
tion Proceedings, January 1968)
Senator Magnuson indicated he was anxious to
cern that the role of the NCAA in the USOC
nastics, Baseball and Wrestling Federations. More
The NCAA waived the provisions of Bylaw 7B
have the SAB's decision put into law, but Senator
may be anomalous because of the capacity of
colleges continued to add rowing to their pro-
to conform to the moratorium request; however,
James B. Pearson proposed a bill to accomplish the
the international sports federation members
grams. An active interest and participation in the
Plant said:
above chartered track organization, and the mat-
(the multi-sport AAU and the so-called inde-
World University Games movement was main-
ter reverted to the Judiciary Committee where it
pendents) to combine politically to dominate
tained; however, the general dissatisfaction
"There was a track meet at Albuquerque
languished.
the USOC and exclude the NCAA from a posi-
showed in lesser financial support from the col-
in June, at which another example of capri-
The Olympic Basketball Committee experienced
tion of responsibility and influence." (NCAA
leges for the Olympic quota.
cious declaration of ineligibility appeared.
many problems in attempting to operate with a
Annual Reports, 1967-68)
John Sayre, Olympic Gold Medalist, sports edi-
The meet was not sanctioned by the AAU, but
45-man membership but was able to field an Olym-
the AAU picked out seven high school girls
There was concern expressed also by many
tor of Pace magazine wrote, "The Olympic games
pic team that won, although probably the weakest
when the U.S. Olympic Committee officers, without
are in grave danger. Heavily publicized charges
and declared them ineligible, allowing quite a
U.S. team up to that point. The NCAA Council
executive committee approval, endorsed an indoor
of payola, drugging, racialism, fossilized leader-
few other important athletes whom they have
waived rules in order that student-athletes might
track meet in New York City, and allowed it to be
ship and double standards of eligibility are often
use for in international competition to retain
tour with the prospective team as requested by the
called the U.S. Olympic Invitational Meet. The
all too true.
Concerned athletes want to help
their eligibility. So it is a pretty clear case of
AAU.
meet seemed to benefit private promoters and did
save the games." (Pace Magazine, February 1969)
selectivity.
The U.S. Wrestling Federation was formed Au-
not fall within the USOC's chartered purposes.
He published a nine-point program by the Board
"The NCAA Council now has decided that
gust 1, 1968. In Mexico City at the FILA Con-
At the USOC Executive Committee meeting on
of Consultants to rejuvenate U.S. athletics at the
it will resume the enforcement of Bylaw 7B
gress, it was passed that FILA (international gov-
December 1, 1968, a minute item reads:
Olympic level. His thoughts had merit, but the
starting in November 1968, and, in doing
erning body for wrestling) would recognize only
past 50 years' experience indicates one or two in-
this, the NCAA is simply reaffirming the col-
single-purpose national governing bodies. The
"Mr. Buck touched on the subject of the
dividuals with fresh ideas will be ineffective unless
leges' traditional position that through their
USWF was authorized to sanction meets and
USOC 'standing up and being counted' re-
the USOC is uprooted and placed on a new basis.
selected agency they must satisfy themselves
foreign competition and combine with the AAU
garding its proprietary rights in the duties
of the conditions of competition.
in selection of national and junior teams.
and responsibilities of governing bodies and
Carl Cooper, executive director of the USTFF,
"At no time in the course of the dispute was
Also at the Olympic Games in Mexico City, the
their relationship with international sports
wrote a letter to Art Lentz, Olympic Committee
the NCAA obliged to refrain from enforcing
International Gymnastic Federation, FIG, through
governing organizations." (USOC Executive
executive director, objecting to the technical rul-
its president, persuaded the AAU and the U.S.
Committee Meetings, December 1, 1968)
ing again barring the USTFF from membership
this rule. The rule is not a restraint upon com-
in the USOC. Cooper was track coach on the Pan
petition. It does not prevent a student from
Gymnastics Federation to sign an agreement for
This represented an early move by the AAU,
American team in 1967 and worked five weeks at
participating in any proper competition con-
an equal commission to be the gymnastics govern-
which ultimately was successful, in persuading
the high-altitude camp, as well as serving on the
sistent with his educational program. In fact,
ing body in the United States. The AAU rejected
the USOC to bail out the AAU in its continuing
USOC Track Committee. He noted the extensive
it is a reasonable rule and a rule which is
the plan, but the AAU Convention approved it.
fight to hang on to its international franchises,
indoor track meets scheduled by the USTFF and
necessary to the internal operation of the
William R. Reed's report as chairman of the
particularly in the sports of basketball, gymnas-
wondered why the U.S. Olympic Committee failed
NCAA and its member institutions' programs.
NCAA Olympic Committee at the 1969 NCAA
tics, wrestling and track and field.
to recognize them as an asset. The reason, of
This rule stands in sharp contrast to a rule
Convention included these observations:
Everett D. Barnes, who substituted for the ail-
course, was never admitted. The AAU saw the
such as the AAU General Rule, which is
"The spectacular success of the United
ing Art Lentz as Olympic executive director at
USTFF as a major threat to its precarious posi-
an out-and-out boycott rule, which prevents
States team in the Olympic Games at Mexico
Mexico City, submitted an excellent report. In
tion as the so-called "governing body" for track
any meet operator from sanctioning or ac-
City was a source of gratification to all Ameri-
part, he said:
and field and was able to deny USOC acceptance
cepting a sanction of any organization other
cans, but especially to the NCAA Olympic
"Other problems that plagued us in the
to a qualified applicant.
than the AAU. That AAU rule, in our opinion,
Committee. Never has there been such a
United States migrated with the team to
The International Basketball Federation, FIBA,
is illegal because it constitutes a boycott and
graphic demonstration of the role of the
Mexico City
Although many athletes were
after sending a commission to the United States,
because boycotts are a per se violation of
school-college athletic system in providing the
involved in the early phases of Olympic train-
obtained an agreement that a board be established
antitrust laws." (NCAA Convention Proceed-
underpinning for international competition as
ing, the poor relationship that existed in this
to conduct international basketball, with 10 mem-
ings, January 1968)
there was in the host of medal winners who
country between coaches and teams carried
bers each from the AAU and the Basketball Fed-
On February 1, 1968, the NCAA, as well as
are currently students or who are the prod-
over into Mexico and resulted in lack of prop-
eration and with Ben Carnevale, then athletic di-
other parties, heard the Sports Arbitration Board
ucts of that system.
er discipline and control of team members and
rector at New York University and now in the
decision announced publicly. Both the NCAA and
"The team successes were a further grati-
their behavior.
The USOC was accused
same position at Wake Forest University, as
the USTFF submitted a list of questions request-
fication to the Committee in dispelling any
of lack of action in investigating monetary
chairman. This compromise was to remain in ef-
ing clarification and pointed out certain errors.
concerns that the controversies over amateur
payments to athletes for the wearing of cer-
fect until the 1972 Olympic Games.
The answers received were most disappointing.
sports administration in the United States, to
tain athletic equipment, which should have
The NCAA, cooperating with the federal gov-
Most of the key issues involved in the dispute were
which the NCAA is a party, might adversely
reverted to the AAU."
ernment, established the National Summer Youth
not settled but referred to a coordinating com-
affect the Olympic effort.
His list of recommendations should have been
Sports Program, whereby the NCAA institutions
mittee which was proposed.
"NCAA cooperation in the Olympic effort
followed before leaving for Munich.
in the large population centers contribute their
President Plant discussed the matter with a
was extended (as it always has been) freely,
The NCAA, despite its dissatisfaction with the
staff and facilities to operate an extensive sports
large number of track coaches and the NCAA
notwithstanding the serious concerns of the
administration of the U.S. Olympic Committee,
program for underprivileged youths, having long-
Council and Executive Committee. It was voted
NCAA regarding the Association's role with
continued to take measures to build strength for
range basic potential for the fitness and well-being
that the Association reject the Sports Arbitration
the U.S. Olympic Committee apparatus. There
our nation's Olympic teams. The NCAA gave a
of our young.
Board's decision; further, that the Congress be
is concern that maximum contributions of
push to three sports, water polo, volleyball and
The USOC quadrennial meeting in Denver on
urged to adopt appropriate legislation creating a
NCAA members and their personnel are de-
soccer, by establishing national championships;
1969, rejected the application of the
democratically structured single-purpose organi-
barred by the U.S. Olympic Committee itself;
and added decathlon to the track championships,
U.S. Wrestling Federation and tabled the appli-
24
25
cation of the U.S. Track and Field Federation un-
ing development camps each summer to train
status quo within those circles except for
NCAA executive Charles M. Neinas' letter to
til the biennial meeting in 1971. The application
young men in the Olympic international style. A
such assistance that Olympic recognition or
USOC basketball coach Henry Iba, August 11,
of the Women's Basketball Association was ob-
selected team from this source would engage in
Olympic money can give to them. Looking
1970, stated:
jected to by the AAU, so this was also tabled. Ad-
foreign trips following the session. Of course, this
back I think there is great significance in the
"The AAU took care of its own in connec-
ditions to the Board of Directors and Executive
move cut into the idea of other U.S. teams engag-
fact that the Sulger Amendment (control of
tion with the trip to Europe and, as you may
Committee were approved, including at-large ap-
ing in foreign schedules, and provided the AAU,
Games Committees), which is the thorn in
have noticed, the USOC received second bill-
pointments to athletes and former officials chosen
who had no top-level teams of its own, with a
our side constantly, originated with and is in
ing or none at all in the publicity surrounding
by the Board of Directors, and by adding women
representative to keep its European correspon-
fact an expression of the political thinking of
the tour."
representatives. The NCAA motion to include ath-
dents happy. Results to date show the program
independents, perhaps even more SO than
The FILA Congress at Edmonton, Canada, in
letes in a ratio of one to 15 committee members
has not developed a better basketball team for
the AAU."
July 1970, disaffiliated the AAU as the governing
was approved, but the proposal to change the com-
the U.S.
Reed, in his NCAA Olympic Committee report,
body for wrestling in the United States since it
position of the Games Committees by deleting the
President Orth of the USOC died suddenly, and
said:
did not conform to the FILA requirement that the
provision for a majority membership for the inter-
in January 1970 a long-time AAU worker, Clifford
"It is amusing now, however, to hear and
governing body should be a single purpose body.
nationally recognized sports governing body was
Buck of Denver, Colorado, was elected president.
to anticipate some of the arguments against
President Coulon of FILA asked that a commis-
defeated. The AAU, in an audacious move to se-
There was disappointment that the Pan Ameri-
forms of USOC reorganization called for as
sion be formed. The Board of Directors meeting
cure Olympic-contributed funds for its own pur-
can swimming team trials were conducted at the
poses, proposed the USOC authorize the sharing
a result of developments within international
of the USOC held a discussion on this matter, and
AAU indoor championships, even though the
federations.
Counselor Sullivan suggested the USOC serve as
of Olympic funds with national athletic organiza-
Olympic Swimming Committee expressed a desire
"The United States cannot accept dictation
the interim member. Wally Johnson, president of
tions which participated in the raising of the
funds. This would have allowed the AAU to use
to name the two NCAA College and University
on domestic matters from foreign bodies, it is
U.S. Wrestling Federation, supplied a revealing
the Olympic cause for its own purposes to a great-
championships as pre-qualifying meets.
said.
memo on the make-up of the U.S. Olympic Wrest-
er extent than it already was doing. The motion
R. E. Durland, Olympic Shooting Games Com-
ling Committee, which is also typical of the AAU
"The cry is reminiscent, although exactly
mittee, stated:
appointments to the Track and Field and Basket-
was defeated.
the opposite, of the protests of 'international
"I am very much aware also of the some-
ball Olympic Committees. He noted "of the officers
Beginning of the End (1969-1972)
obligations' which have been used to suppress
times cold climate that exists at the college
elected by the Olympic Wrestling Committee, all
Bill Reed invited new USOC President Franklin
the emergence of the U.S. sports federations,
level when shooting sports are mentioned. It
were from the AAU. The AAU had six active
Orth to a meeting of the NCAA Olympic Com-
which were the supposed rationale of the Sul-
is this climate that I would like to see warmed
coaches out of 22 (controlling majority) appoint-
mittee at the NCAA track meet in June 1969 and
ger Amendment, and, indeed, which are the
up to the point where colleges are producing
ed on the Olympic Wrestling Committee; all eight
unburdened himself of some of his doubts in a
heart of the anomalous character of the
NCAA members were active coaches."
the majority of the team potential right from
letter dated May 7. Chairman Reed urged the
USOC as it is built along organizational lines
the schools rather than the students having
FILA's decision to disaffiliate the AAU in wres-
NCAA Olympic Committee not to consider with-
(federations) rather than functional lines re-
to enter the service to get the kind of training
flecting actual participation in and contribu-
tling prompted the AAU to persist in having the
drawing from the USOC.
and recognition they deserve. The next few
USOC intervene in its behalf.
To illustrate the feeling toward the structure
tions to the U.S. Olympic effort.
years are going to see many of the finest
Bill Reed's letter of December 1 answered the
of the U.S. Olympic Committee, the following is
shooters retire from active military service.
"In final analysis the situation is not in fact
USOC doubletalk on this point:
quoted from a letter sent by Clifford B. Fagan,
Many of them are or could become the coaches
amusing. There is involved the effectiveness
of the National High School Federation, to USOC
we need SO badly at this level." (Durland let-
of the USOC to discharge its responsibility
"I am bothered by an implication that the
Executive Director Lentz:
ter, February 10, 1970)
for furtherance of the U.S. Olympic effort.
USOC must initiate affiliation with the in-
ternational member. I read nothing in the
"A recent edition of the USOC Newsletter
This is representative of traditional USOC dou-
"The root problem is historic. It is inherent
USOC Constitution that this is a USOC func-
failed to include the National Federation of
ble standards-seek the colleges' help in main-
in the virtual uniqueness of the United States
tion or within its authority. As I see it, the
State High School Athletic Associations on
taining and advancing a program, but continually
sports structure, where SO much is centered
USOC is passive in its relations with an in-
the list. We cannot but conclude that this is
reject their influence in the policy-making process.
in the educational system. This is unlike the
ternational federation until the latter acts
an overt act.
We accepted it as further
The USOC Board of Directors, meeting Febru-
prevailing circumstances in most other na-
either to affiliate or disaffiliate its own mem-
evidence of the influence of the AAU on the
ary 14, 1970, elected Buck president and set a goal
tions, where sports activity is centered in a
ber. The USOC then must act in accordance
USOC.
The organizations that have the
of $10,000,000 for the 1972 Olympiad.
state supported and regulated system or un-
with its constitutional qualifications for mem-
largest regularized competitive program in
An April 7, 1970, letter by Chairman Summers
der the aegis of organizations which identify
bership."
the United States, and which administer ath-
of the Olympic basketball team is an illustration
S0 completely with domestic programs they
On December 22, 1970, the U.S. Gymnastics
letics for over one and one-half million boys
lend themselves to the conduct of interna-
of the use of the Olympic training squad to repre-
Federation, now the international franchise hold-
and an increasing number of girls, are not
tional relations."
sent the AAU on foreign tour and give the AAU
er, filed the necessary material and was recog-
represented in the development program of
some semblance of having a basketball program to
"It remains a truism that the maximum
nized as the Group A member and governing body
the nation's Olympic Committee. This is, of
their foreign colleagues.
effectiveness of the USOC cannot be realized
in gymnastics in the United States.
course, ridiculous on its face. The school
Meanwhile, NCAA Olympic Committee Chair-
until the vast potential of the school-college
The U.S. Wrestling Federation applied as a
people know the reason why." (Fagan letter,
man Reed was becoming increasingly disillusioned.
community is fully, responsibly and equitably
Group B member. The AAU influence in the USOC
September 14, 1969)
He wrote:
integrated in the constitution and functions
showed at the January 20, 1971, Board meeting in
George Killian, executive director, National Ju-
"I am somewhat disenchanted with the in-
of the USOC." (NCAA Annual Reports, 1969-
Denver. The officers of the USOC proposed an
nior College Athletic Association, called to USOC
dependent federations and accordingly have
70)
amendment to the Constitution to give themselves
President Orth's attention the fact that no junior
less confidence in our original strategy than
Reed questioned President Buck concerning the
the authority to approve or deny an organization's
college representative was on the Olympic Devel-
I did. The problem is that the independents
authorization of the Olympic basketball tour to
application to become this country's representa-
opment Committee.
represent pretty provincial points of view,
pay off AAU debts to its international friends. He
tive in an international sports governing body.
The U.S. Olympic Basketball Committee, at its
limited to the circle of their own activities
noted such a tour was not proposed when the de-
The Board also voted to establish the USOC as
meeting October 5, 1969, voted to establish train-
and mainly concerned with protecting the
velopment camp was authorized.
the interim governing body for wrestling.
26
27
Dr. de Ferrari, FILA vice-president, called a
I note that they fit quite well together." (Gil-
come about only by a two-thirds majority,
AAU has controlled the U.S. Olympic organization
meeting of the commission involving the Wres-
strap letter, June 8, 1971)
and (3) prior to acceptance of a Federation as
and insisted that it has the sole jurisdiction and
tling Federation and the AAU as directed by
Ed Steitz, athletic director at Springfield College
the international franchise holder, the USOC
registration rights in certain sports. Even though
FILA. This body sponsored two teams for the ju-
and a veteran international authority, took over
must give its prior approval as recognition
club athletic teams have long since ceased being
nior and senior world's championship. The AAU
as chairman of the NCAA Olympic Committee.
of that organization being the governing
supported by most of the private or publicly as-
reneged on accepting its half share of the costs,
Steitz summarized the year in his report, and
body.
sisted clubs, the AAU has insisted on maintaining
which it had planned to get from the U.S. Olympic
parts are quoted:
"NCAA members of the Olympic Commit-
the status quo of its voting power and control in
Development Fund.
"At Greenbrier at the USOC biennial meet-
tee are gravely concerned; in fact, quite pes-
the Olympic organization. The situation has been
The AAU sought and secured continuing help
ing, a motion was passed whereby a sports
simistic, to the point that they feel a radical
magnified by collusion of the AAU with the inde-
from two AAU stalwarts-USOC President Buck
body, such as a Federation, in order to be
change must take place within the structure
pendent franchise holders' voting bloc, which
and International Olympic Committee President
recognized by the USOC, must obtain a favor-
of the USOC itself before the school-college
exists for the same defensive protection of the
Avery Brundage-to persuade FILA to return the
able vote of two-thirds
system will ever receive its due identity and
power position of these governing bodies as the
international wrestling franchise to the AAU even
respect; i.e., having a voice and vote com-
AAU.
"This devisive legislation is interpreted by
though it was not a single-purpose organization.
NCAA representatives as a means of doing
mensurate with the contribution it makes in
Several of these governing bodies (other than
The biennial USOC meeting at Greenbrier, West
all that is possible to prevent one of the Fed-
various sports." (NCAA Annual Reports,
the AAU) are as inactive and decaying in their
Virginia, became known as the USOC "power
erations from being designated the govern-
1970-71)
sports as is the AAU in several of the sports over
grab." The USOC passed the amendment to the
ing body for that particular sport. In addition,
It was agreed among many of the NCAA com-
which it claims control.
USOC Constitution that a majority of the Board
before a sports body may apply to the inter-
mittee members and officers who considered the
The rules have been manipulated or interpreted
of Directors of the USOC would have to give ap-
national governing body for membership, it
problem that the NCAA, as an organization, and
at the will of this bloc to put the school-college
proval before any national organization in the
must have the approval and recognition of
the individuals who represented it should fulfill
athletic system, which represents the greatest
United States could seek affiliation with an inter-
the USOC.
their responsibilities and assignments through the
actual and potential source of United States ath-
national federation as a national sports governing
"This, in effect, places control of (all) inter-
1972 Olympic summer games at Munich, Germany.
letic talent, in a servile and now exiled status-
body; another amendment proposed without prior
national competition in the hands of the USOC
Serious and damaging mistakes in USOC manage-
exiled by the self-serving Sulger and Greenbrier
notice was adopted amending the required vote
Board of Directors which, in turn, is gov-
ment were evident previous to and during the
Amendments. The school-college community is
from a majority to two-thirds. Many questioned
erned by the organizations which hold inter-
Munich competition. On October 25, 1972, the
most willing to serve, and for many years has con-
the legality of the action.
national franchises at the present time. Be-
NCAA Council-the Association's 18-member pol-
tributed the greatest portion of the Olympic effort
A great loss was suffered on the death of Wil-
fore any change can be made in membership,
icy board-voted to withdraw from the U.S. Olym-
in many sports. But the AAU and its cronyism
liam R. Reed in 1971. His statement, distributed to
the change must be approved by two-thirds
pic Committee.
technique of maintaining control requires a new
many sports organizations on May 14, 1971, called
vote of the very people who hold present
Olympic structure.
Summary
for total USOC reorganization. The negotiator and
membership. Objections to their policies and
In 1921, General Pierce, NCAA president, said,
peace-maker realized that his efforts had been
An attempt has been made to consolidate from
procedures are passed upon by the same
"The attitude of the Committee on Reorganiza-
futile.
files and other materials a narrative of what has
people who make policies and administer the
tion, and the steps it has taken, are such that the
happened in the NCAA in its relationships with
Other observers experienced the same feelings.
procedures. At a time when due process is
NCAA feels that it is for the best interests of
the U. S. Olympic Committee, the AAU and the
C. R. Gilstrap, NCAA Olympic Committee mem-
emphasized in the schools and in the courts
amateur sports in the United States that it with-
new Federations. Also the most pertinent letters
ber, wrote:
of our land, this is a movement diametrically
draw from the present movement.
from the various files have been sorted by subject
"When I was first associated with the
opposed to such a concept. If Ralph Nader
He offered two solutions: "First, the organiza-
matter to provide a ready reference and bibliog-
Olympic movement, I carried with me the
believes General Motors is too much 'estab-
raphy. Hopefully, they may be useful in giving
tion of an American Olympic Association that
idea that the controversy between the NCAA
lishment,' he would be flabbergasted by the
some background for present assessment of the
would be really representative of all interests con-
and the AAU was in all probability the result
USOC's role in controlling international com-
cerned, or second, the taking over of the entire
position of the NCAA and other organizations on
of personality differences, poor communica-
petition.
these subjects currently.
responsibility for the proper conducting of the
tion and perhaps a somewhat exaggerated
"Oddly enough, the legislation prohibiting
Olympic Games by the Amateur Athletic Union."
The struggle going on in amateur sports today
presentation of the whole thing by the news
a Federation from being recognized without
In 1926 after the NAAF, the Navy, YMCA and
is the very same struggle that has gone on inter-
media
approval of the USOC Board of Directors is
NCAA withdrew from the Olympic Association,
mittently since 1889, flaring up when conditions
"Since that time, I have had an opportunity
a complete turnabout of the cry that we
General Pierce said, "Now that the AAU has as-
became intolerable in 1921, 1926, 1928, 1936, and
to watch the USOC hierarcy function at the
heard in former years. The previous argu-
sumed complete responsibility again, the outlook
from 1960 to 1972 when the NCAA finally with-
Denver meeting and at Greenbrier, and I
ment was that the Board could not recognize
drew from the USOC.
is far from promising. Since the NCAA is in such
am now convinced that I have been totally
a new sports governing body until the inter-
a helpless minority, it seems to me the part of
The basic issue is the self-assumed and con-
wrong. I have watched as these people ma-
national federation had done SO.
wisdom to withdraw entirely from administrative
tinued monopolistic control that the Amateur Ath-
nipulate the USOC Constitution to suit their
"In my view, the future membership of the
participation."
letic Union has claimed and tried to maintain
convenience. I have seen them interpret the
NCAA within the USOC should be contingent
On April 16, 1928, Commissioner Griffith sug-
over various amateur sports in the United States,
same IOC rule in diametrically opposite ways
upon repeal of three constitutional provi-
gested that a representative American Olympic
mainly through the U.S. Olympic organization.
to support different positions. I heard them
sions: (1) the notorious Sulger Amendment
Association be organized to take control of
preach patriotism and national sovereignty
which provides that international franchise
Perhaps in the first few Olympiads there was
America's Olympic effort "and end the domination
merely to justify the USOC position in the
holders must have majority representation
some reason for the athletic clubs to assume a
of the Amateur Athletic Union over American
FILA fight, and I have become convinced that
on U.S. Olympic sports committees; (2) the
leading role, although college athletes and Pro-
amateur athletics."
they can't be dealt with. Parenthetically, I
provision that the USOC may recognize only
fessor Sloan of Princeton were involved in al-
Following the 1936 Olympic Games, President
would also add that I have great difficulty
one national governing body in a sport, which
most equal numbers in the first Olympic Games,
John Griffith of the NCAA advocated and obtained
distinguishing between our 'friends' in the
body must be a member of the international
and were in a majority at the second.
an equal number of games committee members
AAU and some of the so-called independents.
sports federation and that recognition may
With persistent political maneuvering, the
for the NCAA and AAU in certain sports. The cur-
28
29
rent Olympic power bloc has repealed this 1936
thirds vote, and (3) the USOC must give its ap-
compromise solution.
proval before an organization is accepted by the
In 1961 and 1962, the NCAA made numerous
international federation in a sport."
attempts to get the Olympic Committee and the
All will agree that Bill Reed and his colleagues
AAU to agree within the structure for a re-
made as good an attempt as can be made to solve
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
organization, to no avail. When it was obvious the
the problem by winning over the other members
National Collegiate Athletic Association
AAU had no intention of modifying its position,
of the USOC. When they arrive at the same con-
the NCAA and other large athletic organizations
clusion as all the other NCAA delegates have pre-
Edward S. Steitz, director of athletics at Springfield
States Collegiate Sports Council and serves on its execu-
adopted the Federation concept in some sports to
viously over the long span of years, it rules out
(Massachusetts) College, has actively promoted U.S.
tive committee.
provide a way to bring progress in those sports.
for good the option of internal USOC restructur-
international competition as much as anyone in inter-
Claude R. Gilstrap, director of athletics at the University
collegiate athletics. He is president of the Basketball
The late William R. Reed, chairman of NCAA
ing.
of Texas, Arlington, was an NCAA representative to the
Federation of the U.S.A. and has been its official represen-
USOC from 1968 until the NCAA's withdrawal and was in
Olympic Committee, wrote in May, 1971: "During
The recent gross errors of USOC mismanage-
tative at the last four Olympiads. Last year he represented
attendance at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. A
my six years as a member of the USOC Board of
ment at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich
the U.S. State Department in India. He served on the
highly successful high school and college football coach
executive committee of the USOC's board of directors and
Directors and Executive Committee, I have
have focused public attention upon the problem.
for 26 years, he won six "Coach of the Year" awards and
the USOC's drug abuse and administrative committees
reached the conclusion that the USOC is a sick
is also the recipient of a Distinguished Service Award
History has repeated itself many times. Men
at the 1972 Alympiad.
from the Texas High School Coaches Association.
organization or one 80 anomalous in its composi-
in good faith have tried to obtain a suitable Olym-
Samuel E. Barnes, professor of physical education at Dis-
Stan Bates, commissioner of the Western Athletic Confer-
tion that I seriously doubt that it can serve USOC
pic organization which coincides with American
trict of Columbia Teachers College, was a member of the
USOC board of directors for the last Olympiad. He also
ence, was a member of the NCAA's Olympic Committee
interests adequately for the future, particularly
ideals. They have accepted compromises hopefully,
for six years. He served 17 years at Washington State Uni-
was on the USOC's administrative committee for the 1971
considering the advances in the level of world com-
but these have soon changed back to greater
versity, part of that time as director of athletics. He has
Pan American Games and the 1972 Olympiad. A former
petition." He suggested approaching Congress to
also coached football and basketball at the high school
monopolies. Action must be taken now, while the
athlete and college coach, he has teaching, coaching and
review the charter, eliminating all organizations
level and is a former president of both the state high school
last Olympics is still fresh in our minds and before
administrative experience.
principals association and the state high school coaches
in the USOC but the Federations with some modi-
the next one approaches.
Carl Maddox, director of athletics at Louisiana State Uni-
association in Washington.
fications, and possible withdrawal to support the
versity, has led that institution's intercollegiate athletic
THE SOLUTION: A new Olympic structure which
Jesse T. Hill, commissioner of the Pacific Coast Athletic
World University Games.
program in an expansion from six to eleven sports and a
Association, served on the USOC Board from 1964 through
abandons the present concept of organizational
50 per cent increase in number of participants in the past
Ed Steitz, his successor, said: "In my view,
1968. During his 15 years as director of athletics at the Uni-
the future membership of the NCAA within the
control-with its power bloc voting structure and
four and a half years. He was a highly successful football
versity of Southern California, USC teams won 29 national
and track coach and has been on the LSU staff since 1954.
jurisdictional disputes-and returns the United
championships and nearly twice as many conference
USOC should be contingent upon repeal of three
Donald B. Canham, director of athletics at the University
States Olympic movement to the American people
championships. A cum laude graduate and top athlete at
constitutional provisions: (1) the notorious Sul-
of Michigan, has coached six different foreign teams in
USC, he was highly successful as head coach in football
ger amendment; (2) recognition of only one na-
on a state basis.
Scandanavia, Africa and Europe. He was the first Olympic
and track at his alma mater.
The problem that won't go away can be solved!
team coach of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika in 1956 and
tional governing body by the USOC only by a two-
has conducted clinics and coaching schools throughout
CONSULTANT
Europe. He was a member of the Olympic Track and Field
Admiral T. J. Hamilton, USN, Ret., has served as research
Committee until 1968, when he resigned. A former NCAA
consultant for the International Relations Committee. Now
high jump champion, he coached Michigan's track and
living in La Jolla, California, Admiral Hamilton is one of
field teams to twelve Big Ten Conference championships.
the most knowledgeable men in the nation on the history
Charles M. Neinas, commissioner of the Big Eight Confer-
of the Olympic movement. He served on the USOC board
ence, was recently elected chairman of the NCAA's Inter-
of directors and executive committee, including a stint as
national Relations Committee. He has been active in
chairman of the Development Committee. He has been
international administration in several capacities. The
head football coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, director of
former NCAA assistant executive director was a member
athletics at the Naval Academy and the University of
of the USOC board of directors for the last two Olympiads.
Pittsburgh and executive director of the Pacific-8 Con-
He was instrumental in the organization of the United
ference.
FORD
31
30
may
THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
1221 Baltimore Avenue
Phone 816/474-4600
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
COPY
AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF U.S.
December 1, 1972
Representative Gerald R. Ford
Capitol Building, H-230
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Ford:
With some justification a call has recently gone out for an investigation
by Congress into certain aspects of amateur athletics. To the end that such
a probe is constructive and makes effective and cogent recommendations
for change, I concur with it. However, it seems to me that such scrutiny
by Congress falls somewhat short when it fails to view the activities of
this country's most powerful collegiate organization -- the National
Collegiate Association.
It has become something of a cliche to discuss the NCAA and the AAU in
one breath. Nevertheless, the differences between these two organizations
are at root cause of many of the problems that presently plague amateur
athletics. We turn, therefore, to you and the rest of Congress for
implementations of a solution to these problems.
And, such a pattern for resolution of this conflict exists: It is the
binding solution that the Congressionally-appointed Kheel Commission handed
down in 1968. However, in open contempt of Congress, the NCAA National
office notified the Nation that it refused to accept the decision of this
official arbitration body.
Moreover, as outlined in the attachments, the already arbitrary power of the
NCAA national office increases daily to the detriment of amateur sports,
the college community and our Nation's image internationally.
Therefore, I ask that Congress take action to compel the NCAA to abide by
previous Congressional directives. Further, I ask that a commission be
formed to investigate the workings of the NCAA, most particularly the
workings of its national offices.
The AAU stands ready and willing to abide by Congressional fiat and to
assist in implementing Congressional will.
Most sincerely,
JOHN B. KELLY, JR.
President
JBKJR/kr
cc: Frank Meyer, Administrative Assistant
ADVIDENTE INRECTORS 30 OF
November 9, 1972
NATURAL
NACDA
1893
THINK
FORD
OFFICERS
PRESIDENT
CECIL COLEMEN
1st VICE PRESIDENT
JOHN WINKIN
GERALD
LIBRARY
University of Illinois
Colby College
2nd VICE PRESIDENT
HARRY FOUKE
University of Houston
VICE PRESIDENT
BILL ROHR
Ohio University
Congressman Gerald R. Ford
SECRETARY
HOWARD.GEN
Tennessee State University
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Ford:
UNIVERSITY DIVISION REPRESENTATIVES
BARRAT
Earlier this week I directed a télegram, which was
Deversity
followed by a letter, to President Nixon requesting con-
ERNIE BARRENT
riansas State University
sideration for a White House Congress on Amateur Athletics.
to COPPEDGE
The telegram, as well as the letter, was sent in the name
"rave Academy
of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of
ED KRAUSE
uniyersit Notre-Dame
Athletics, an organization of over 1,000 collegiate ath-
MCDAVID
letic directors in this country. W. have specifically
of run Menco
quested the use of White House offices for a congress 01
TERS
College
the leaders of all amateur sports bodies which are any
WORDRUFT
way related to
or responsible for
international
Indnessee
competition. Our concern is not only for the present image
MAYARD
University
of U. S. athletics internationally, but also for the wel-
COLLEGE DIVISION REPRESENTATIVES
fare of the competitors and, therefore, doem it manda-
tory that all bodies involved sit down together and dis-
Northridg
cuss mutual areas of concern.
Inversity
FRITZ NNEGRE
For as long as any of us can remember the United States
Solorade of Mines
Olympic Committee has been embroiled in various controversies
rgo, ROBINSON
with other organizations such as the National Collegiate
Starating Coliege
CARNIE SMITH
Athletic Association (N.C.A.A.) and the Amateur Athletic
Kansas State Chliege Pittsburg
Union (A.A.U.). We firmly believe that only through a White:
TRIMER
Uhis Wesleyan University
House Congress on Amateur Athletics, where there is free and
SIA LIVAN
open dialogue between the heads of these and all sports.
Busion state College
bodies having international competition, can the differences
RAY WHISPELL
Whitenberg College
which have existed for so many years be settled. From this
JUNIOR AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
meeting, we would hope that a new super-structure could
REPRESENTATIVES
emerge to coordinate all international competition, in
TERFIELD
cluding our Olympic program.
Junior College
DEMIE MAINIERI
Hinior College North Campús
HAL SHERRECK
Fulterion terms oilege
NOF 211 CHAK
Middlessis County College
Executive Director
MICHAEL I CLEARY
annual convention
Executive Club West Bldg
21330 Center.Ridge Road
denver. colo.
Cleveland Ohio 44116
N.A.C.D.A. JUNE 26: 26 27,1973
(216) 331 5773
Page 2
November 9, 1972
It is our firm belief that within this super-structure,
equitable representation from all sports whose constituencies
are affected would be mandatory. Going back to our basic as-
sumption that all parties are deeply interested in what is best
for the participant and our country, we have not been encouraged
by reports that other organizations are planning to request Con-
gressional investigations. We believe that the White House Con-
gress on Amateur Athletics would be more efficient
more
objective
and more expedient, thus getting to the heart
of the matter quicker than possible legislative action could
accomplish.
Should you be in agreement with this proposal, we urge
you to make this known to President Nixon. We are prepared to
assist in any way which would serve the best interest of our
country.
We thank you in advance for your consideration and send
our best wishes for your continued success in all areas.
Sincerely,
Cecil n. Coloman
Cecil N. Coleman
President
CNC:1c
cc: M. J. Cleary
A. W. Twitchell
GERALD
University of Illinois
Athletic Association
Office of the Director
112 Assembly Hall
Champaign, Illinois 61820
58 District Associations Serving
AAU
AMATEUR
Amateur Athletics in Nineteen Sports
A.A.U. HOUSE
3400 WEST 86th STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46268
ATHLETIC
Telephone: (317) 297-2900
Cable Address: "AMATHLETIC" Indianapolis
UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC.
NATIONAL OFFICERS
President, JOHN B. KELLY, JR.
November 15, 1971
1720 Cherry St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
First Vice President, DAVID G. RIVENES
203 N. Custer, Miles City, Montana 59301
Second Vice President, JOSEPH R. SCALZO
1925 Mt. Vernon Dr., Toledo, Ohio 43607
The Honorable Warren G. Magnuson
Secretary, RICHARD E. HARKINS
201 East Armour Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64111
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
Treasurer, CLARENCE JOHNSON
United States Senate
P.O. Box 427, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Magnuson:
AAU president Jack Kelly has referred your letter of October 22, 1971 to our
respective offices for reply. We are sure that Mr. Kelly explained that because
of the function of our committee as a virtually autonomous body within the AAU,
it might be more relevant for us to review the successes and failures with regard
to the implementation of the Sports Arbitration Board's report to the United
States Senate Commerce Committee. We think it pertinent, in this regard, to
briefly trace the history of the dispute between the Amateur Athletic Union
(AAU) of the United States and the other sports bodies to which you referred.
In the early and mid-1960's, the feuding between the bodies involved in the
conduct of the sport of track and field in this country became so bitter as to
threaten the very survival of that sport. At the specific request of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and the United States Track and Field Federation,
the Senate of the United States appointed an Arbitration Panel known as the Sports
Arbitration Board and chaired by the eminent Mr. Theodore H. Kheel.
Following twenty-five (25) months deliberation, the Sports Arbitration Board arrived
at a settlement which Mr. Kheel felt was more than generous to the NCAA and its
track group. He was quoted as having said at the time that he was fearful "the
AAU would object to the extent to which we had permitted the NCAA to force its
way into the domain the AAU had governed for the better part of the century."
(New York Times, Friday, November 8, 1968).
We did object; we did feel that it "constituted a signal victory for the NCAA and
arbitrarily stripped the AAU of many of its traditional and legal prerogatives."
(Robert Giegengack, Re-statement of Position and Projection of Policy by the Men's
Track and Field Committee of the Amateur Athletic Union of the U.S. vis-a-vis the
NCAA). For some eighty-one (81) years, since its founding in 1888, the AAU had
made as a requisite for any sanction the agreement that AAU sanction, and AAU
sanction alone, would be used for athletic event. However, in order to implement
the Kheel Agreement, the AAU for the first time agreed to permit dual sanctioning
in order to facilitate cooperation between itself and the other groups interested
in the sport of track and field. This policy decision has been in effect, without
interruption, since February, 1968.
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
November 15, 1971
Page two
It was not the AAU that announced the demand for governmental intervention in this
dispute; it was not the AAU that threatened the total disruption of our national
athletic program; it was not the AAU that called upon the gentlemen of the Arbi-
tration Panel to sacrifice twenty-five (25) months of deliberation.
It was the United States Track and Field Federation.
And, having made these demands and threats the federation has, to this date, refused
to abide by the decision of the Sports Arbitration Board, despite the fact that Mr.
Kheel stated upon the completion of the report, "This is a final decision in an
arbitration matter which is final and binding
"
(Sports Arbitration Board
Report, Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce United States Senate 90th Congress
Second Session on the opinion and decision of the Board of Arbitration on Track
and Field)
And, you yourself stated, Senator, as the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee,
when it became apparent that the USTFF was stalling in the acceptance of the
report that, "It is the feeling of my committee, in light of all the circumstances
involved, that we must consider the decision of the board to be in full force and
effect
(Associated Press story) While the nation's press and other interested
parties to this dispute condemned the USTFF for its failure to accept the report,
it does not change the fact that the solution upon which we had based our hopes
for peace in this matter has fallen short of its promise, solely because the USTFF
has steadfastly refused to accept any solution which does not give it complete
control over track and field in this country.
We at the AAU charge that the real intent then, and now, behind this federation is
to usurp the power and prerogatives of the AAU domestically and internationally.
The USTFF was prepared then, and is obviously prepared now, to use any method possible
to achieve this end. They have tried to use the athlete, the spectator, the Senate
of the United States and the designated Sports Arbitration Board to achieve this end.
They have been openly contemptuous of the findings of this Board, of the Board itself
and of the Congress and Senate of the United States of America which authorized that
some decision be made regarding this matter.
We do not wish now to restate our stand on the issues that confronted the Sports
Arbitration Board. We felt that the make-up of the panel was such as to render
a fair decision based upon the facts. The NCAA, too, was quite explicit about its
satisfaction with the make-up of the Board. On the occasion of the appointment of
this Board, the president of the NCAA, Mr. Everett Barnes, stated, "Our group had
complete confidence that the vice-president would select a distinguished, unbiased
and competent arbitration board. These selections confirm that confidence and
completely satisfy us." (Stenographic Transcript, Press Conference of Vice-President
Hubert H. Humphrey, Washington, DC, December 14, 1965)
The question remains, of course, why did the USTFF refuse to accept the binding
decision of the Board?
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
November 15, 1971
Page three
We would like to review briefly the decisions of the Sports Arbitration Board.
You will recall that one of the major areas of disagreement between the AAU and
the federation was over the question of sanctioning. Your Board made the decision
that in strictly "closed" competition, the USTFF would be allowed to conduct
competition without AAU sanction; but that in meets declared "open", that is
involving other than "students" as defined by the Sports Arbitration Board, the
federation would be required to apply for sanction from the AAU, based upon the
AAU's position as the governing body for the sport in the United States for
international purposes. We did not agree entirely, but as we said at the time,
"Neither pride nor selfish interest has prevented us from this generous solution",
and we permitted dual sanctioning. (Robert Giegengack, op. cit.)
What has happened, as a result, is this: The USTFF has continued, in open defiance
of the findings of the Board, to conduct "open" competitions without application
for AAU sanction. Thus, not only have they exhibited contempt for the arbitration
agreement, but they have placed in jeopardy the amateur standing of those "open"
athletes competing in their illegal meets. Already they have been responsible
for the possible loss of one world record for an athlete for whom they purported
to speak. (Syndicated column by Red Smith, attached)
Additionally, rather than openly announce to athletes entering their meets that
they were in conflict with international rules, the federation used subterfuge
and deceit. Many athletes entered the federation meets under the belief, implicit
in the entry blanks for the federation meets which ask for an AAU registration
number or card as proof of amateur standing, that the meet was sanctioned by
the IAAF representative (the AAU of the U.S.) and was therefore a legitimate meet.
(See attached entry blank for 1971, USTFF meet). Subsequently, many wrote to the
AAU expressing surprise that the sanctioning dispute had once again broken out,
since they went under the impression that the decision of the Sports Arbitration
Board had settled the issue in 1968. (See attached letter from Oklahoma athlete
Darl Locke, September 1, 1971)
There are pertinent adjuncts to this question of sanctioning. Rarely in the course
of its short existence has the USTFF applied to the AAU for sanction, even after
they were formally bound to do so as a result of the decision of the Sports Arbi-
tration Board. Therefore, all such meets involving "open" athletes -- including
the many indoor, outdoor and cross country meets sponsored by the USTFF since the
Sports Arbitration Board decision was handed down in 1968 -- are in violation of
the spirit and law of the IAAF and as such, the AAU, as the member-representative
in the United States, would be well within its legal bounds to suspend athletes
involved in such meets.
Since the decision was passed down by the Sports Arbitration Board, we have refrained
from any such action, feeling that it is the USTFF that deserves the criticism for
its total disregard of the athletes welfare. We do not wish to become a party to
the oft-used USTFF tactic of hiding behind the athlete and allowing him to take
the blunt of the punishment.
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
November 15, 1971
Page four
Another related point in sanctioning -- the AAU was never required to permit dual
sanctioning of its meets by the USTFF. However, over the past two years we have
applied and used the sanction of this federation to avoid further internal injuries
to the nation's track and field program. We realize that, despite the inflated
costs of the sanction, we would better preserve the peace by utilizing their
arbitrary approval.
Additionally, with regard to the question of sanctioning, the USTFF is the only
track group in this country that refuses to apply for AAU sanctioning of "open"
meets or events. Even the NCAA, with whom this dispute originally started, complies
with these provisions as they relate to AAU sanction. (See attached material on
1970 NCAA Indoor Meet, Detroit, Michigan)
The pervasive attitude of distrust that exists between the AAU and the USTFF is
due, in part, to the latter's disregard of reality in its relations with us. In
the December 1970 NCAA Newsletter, an article entitled "The Federation Movement"
stated, "The USTFF sponsored three international tours to Latin America and the
Caribbean without AAU sanction being applied." (NCAA Newsletter, December 1970)
Prime facie, of course, it is untrue, because no member-representative of the
IAAF would allow a foreign team in its country which was not authorized by that
team's home governing body. Notwithstanding that, the Executive Director of
the federation, Carl Cooper, wrote on May 21, 1970 to the AAU saying, "Your
office grants permission to the Brigham Young University track and field team
to take a tour every other year to the Scandinavian countries. The tours out-
lined above (to the Caribbean and Central America) will be very similar in nature
and we would like to have similar permission from your office." (Emphasis ours)
Following this, correspondence was received from the president of the federation,
Wayne Cooley, complying with all the information needed before AAU permission
could be granted to them for such a tour.
We might point out, parenthetically, that the AAU, were it intent upon diminishing
or destroying this federation, might easily have refused permission for any tour.
We did not, since we felt that such a move would not contribute to a resolution
of this conflict.
Perhaps the most offensive disregard of reality with which the federation amuses
itself is the myth that the USTFF "has" 90% of the athletes and "owns" 90% of
the track and field facilities in this country. (For the Record
A Statement
from the United States Track and Field Federation, page 7) At the outset, the
federation can no more lay claim to an athlete than can our organization or
any organization. The athlete belongs to no one but himself. He may compete
under the auspices of the AAU one day, the NAIA (National Association of Inter-
collegiate Athletics, a group of 537 colleges and universities which are allied
with the AAU) another and the NCAA on a third, but surely he is not bound to any
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
November 15, 1971
Page five
one organization. If the USTFF wishes to claim athletes as their property, they
are free to make such a claim. But as for us, we relinquish any claim to the
remaining 10% that the federation ceded to us. We do not wish to claim property
rights to athletes, be it with USTFF blessing or not.
The claim to ownership by the federation of 90% of the track and field facilities
in this country is incredible. The vast majority of these facilities obviously
belong not to the USTFF, but to the taxpayers of the state, county or city where
they are located. How audacious of this federation to usurp that ownership.
Throughout the period following the decision of the Sports Arbitration Board,
the AAU has sought not only to abide by the Agreement, but to encourage the USTFF
to abide by that agreement. Only recently the president of the AAU appealed to
USTFF president Cooley, urging him to meet with members of the virtually autonomous
national track and field committee of the AAU. Mr. Cooley coldly declined to do
so, saying, "I will not be available as president of the USTFF for meetings with
Messers. Cassell, Giegengack and/or Wright. It is pointless to pursue this any
further
11 In the most recent editorial of the AAU Newsletter, we asked
that the USTFF join with the AAU by signing the Articles of Alliance in order to
end this internecine strife (Amateur Athlete Newsletter, October 1971) We have
received no response.
We have been supported in our position not only by the decision of the Sports
Arbitration Board, but also by the United States Olympic Committee, which refuses
to recognize the federation, by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF),
by the member national governing track and field bodies throughout the world, who
refuse uniformly to deal with the Federation (See attached letter from Arthur Gold
of the British Amateur Athletic Association) and by the United States Department
of State which recently informed the USTFF, "We require an authorized letter from
the governing sports body (the AAU) before consideration can be given to co-sponsorship
of any overseas tour.' (See attached)
With respect to this federated organization, we are not out to destroy it. It may
well be that the federation could make a contribution to domestic track and field
in this country. Certainly the AAU would support any organization that strengthens
the sport of track and field in the United States. What we will not support, cannot
support and will not tolerate is an organization that is set upon a course of des-
truction with respect to the AAU, and without respect for any of the millions of
others -- athletes, fans, volunteers and coaches -- who are being irreparably harmed
by the federation's actions.
We think that, in the main, these are men of good will. We think that they are
genuinely interested in furthering the sport. But we equally feel that there are
those whose motives are dictated by the imperatives of raw power. In this respect,
it is illucidating to refer to a recent incident regarding the submission of an
application for world record for a young hurdler named Tom Hill. His pending
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
November 15, 1971
Page six
record was set at the USTFF Championships at Wichita, Kansas, June 1970. Despite
the fact that the AAU urged the federation to apply for sanction, that such a
sanction would not have been given immediately under the terms of the Sports
Arbitration Board and that the AAU, after the fact, offered to issue a retro-
active sanction for the meet "Without fanfare" so that this athlete would receive
world recognition, the USTFF refused to make application.
In a letter from the track coach at Duke University (an institution affiliated
with the NCAA), Al Buehler, is one of the AAU representatives to the USOC and
president of the United States Track and Field Coaches Association, he stated,
"Carl Cooper (Executive Director of the USTFF) said in effect
that he
could not and would not request a 'retro-active' sanction from the Missouri Valley
AAU
Carl said he had been given these instructions by his Executive Council
composed of Cooley, Crowley, Byers, etc. and if 'he would request said Missouri
Valley AAU sanction he would be fired tomorrow'
In summary, we would like to reiterate briefly the areas in which the USTFF has
failed to abide by the Sports Arbitration Board decision we have discussed:
(1) the USTFF has failed to accept the Sports Arbitration Board
definition of "open" competition as that competition where
other than students participate.
(2) despite repeated AAU offers to supply immediate sanction for
USTFF "open" events, that body has failed to apply to the AAU
for sanction of its "open" meets as it is specifically bound
to do under the Sports Arbitration Board agreement.
(3) the USTFF has deliberately attempted to disguise the fact
that its meets are unsanctioned and hence, under the terms
of the Sports Arbitration Board, illegal, from various athletes
who therefore unknowingly compete in these events.
(4) the USTFF has, we feel, misrepresented the truth and subverted
the best interests of the sport of track and field to its own
ambitions.
(5) finally, the USTFF has constantly and arbitrarily refused to
meet with the AAU in order to discuss solutions to the problems
that plague the sport of track and field in this country. They
have done so, we contend, maliciously and without thought of the
consequences to all parties involved in our sport.
Wel feel, and we cannot but hope that you will agree, that we have done more than
our share to end this strife. We have done so in the interests of preserving
the place of the United States at the pinnacle of track and field competition in
the world, of providing proper developmental programs and of creating an atmosphere
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
November 15, 1971
Page seven
in which the sport can prosper in this country. We have done so at the cost of
some of our traditional authority, but, we thought, the price for peace was not
too great to pay. We have received neither response nor support from the USTFF.
We do not wish to climb down the evolutionary scale and revert to the threats
and intemperate statements that characterize their communications with us. But
this cannot long continue. We ask, Senator Magnuson, that you make known your
views on the subject so that we may clarify this situation to all concerned and
bring some harmony to track and field in the United States.
Most sincerely,
Stanley STANLEY V. WRIGHT 11. wight
ROBERT GIEGENGACK
Chairman,
AAU Liaison to the
National AAU Track and Field Committee
Sports Arbitration Board
cc: Theodore Kheel
Jack Kelly
Harry Hainsworth
Ollan Cassell
Rich Harkins
Rich McArthur
Remarks of AAU President John B. Kelly, Jr.
November 1, 1972
Philadelphia, PA
Last month the NCAA announced its intention of withdrawing from this nation's Olympic
Movement. At that time I directed myself to what I supposed was the rationale behind
this move: namely that the NCAA's Executive Director, Walter Byers, had been thwarted
in his attempt to gain control of the USOC and had, in a characteristic fit of pique,
decided to remove the organization he so tightly controls from further cooperation.
Let me say that I have not wavered in my belief that this is the primary impetus
behind the move of the NCAA. But in the interim, such action raises far more ominous
questions about the structure and conduct of the NCAA -- particularly as it concerns
that body's national operation in Kansas City, Missouri.
Among these questions are:
By what authority does this one individual control the destinies of so many athletes,
coaches, institutions and athletic programs?
If such authority exists, how and by what machinations did it accrue to this one
individual?
If the NCAA (and we are talking here about an office in Kansas City and the individual
who controls it) is charged with protection of the student-athlete, why is so much of
that office's time spent in harassing, threatening and otherwise intimidating not only
the athletes, but the institutions comprising the membership of the NCAA?
While Mr. Byers, through his lieutenants, calls for an investigation of the USOC's
financial status (comprised of a quadrennial sum of $10 million) who investigates the
financial status of the more than $15 million per year that flows into NCAA coffers
from television revenues?
What imperatives motivate Walter Byers, who at best is involved with a fraction of
the male, college-level athletes in this country, to seek hegemony over all amateur
sports in this country?
How has the NCAA, under Byers' leadership, been successful in an open contempt and
disdain of a congressional decision?
I think that the answers to these and other questions regarding the NCAA and its
Executive Director are justly asked and demand answers. At the root of them all
is the question of the direction a portion of collegiate athletics in this country
will take in the coming years.
During the past year, one Charles Neinas, now Commissioner of the Big-8 and for
many years Mr. Byers' assistant, told a group of USOC officials, "I am going to
recommend to the NCAA that it put all of its facilities 'off-limits' to AAU programs;
and I will personally insure that this is done in the Big-8." By what unmitigated
effrontary does this fellow usurp the publicly owned facilities in the six states
represented in the Big-8? How, by any reasonable interpretation of law, does an
individual in an office in Kansas City presume to control the facilities of tax-
supported institutions throughout this country. How does an individual, neither
duly lected nor residing in that sovereign state, wrest such control from its
citizenry?
The answer, of course, is that he does not. But this cavalier disregard for the
truth and these pompous pronounceent's must not go unchallenged. For, in fact, by
such audacious assumptions they have successfully intimidated member-schools and
denied use of these public facilities to the very persons who own them -- the
taxpayers.
This, at the very least, borders on criminal collusion.
Last summer, under the auspices of the AAU, a dual track and field meet was scheduled
between juniors (ie. athletes under 20 years of age) of the Soviet Union and the
United States. One week before the meet was to take place, and nearly one month
after the United States squad had been selected and publicly announced, Mr. Byers'
office notified the schools and coaches of all athletes from NCAA institutions that
unless the NCAA certified this meet these athletes would be liable to reprisals.
We have yet to hear any conceivable explanation of how the welfare of student-
athletes is affected by the opportunity to compete internationally. Moreover, such
interference by the NCAA is forbidden by the terms of the Kheel Commission, a body
called together by the Senate at the specific request of the NCAA. The NCAA, in
open contempt of the United States Senate, has, since the report was issued in 1968,
consistently refused to abide by the binding decision of the Kheel Commission.
Beyond all this, though, there is an intrinsic evil in the conduct of Mr. Byers and
his lieutenants: it is the blatant intimidation and harrassment of these athletes
and their schools that strikes at the very core of their personal freedoms. Not
too long ago the track coach at Harvard University, Bill McCurdy, said, "The NCAA
should realize that there is no greater right held by a college student in athletics
than his right to compete. Nobody can abridge that right, and I don't care what
rules they use. When rules and decisions stop kids from competing in legitimate
competitions, then I have very, very little respect for the decision-makers."
I find that many coaches and athletic directors at NCAA institutions share that opinion.
What is most revealing about that statement, and the action taken by the NCAA last
summer, is the sense of futility the coaches and athletes feel under the Kansas City
office's pervasive domination. If the coach balks, he endangers his job; if the
administration balks, the school faces probation; and if the athlete competes, Mr.
Byers and crew take away his scholarship. And if none of this occured last summer,
it was only because the AAU refused to allow these athletes, coaches and institutions
to be punished as a result of Walter's lust for more power.
I submit to you, and to all those involved, that it is a very, very unhealthy
situation for sport when one man casually dictates the destinies of thousands of
athletes and several hundred athletic departments.
Walter Byers has been called a petty tyrant. Tyrant? Yes. But when one man has
the total allegiance of the commissioners of some of the largest athletic conferences,
when he supervises annual television receipts of $15 million and when he is the sole
dispenser of his own perverse kind of justice to a large segment of this nation's
college athletic community, then this is far from petty. Byers himself may be
petty and venal; the power he weilds is considerable and should be challenged.
There is, too, something ominous about the dual role the NCAA offices play. At
the same time that they are making the critical decisions about which events will
be televised -- a decision which can mean nearly $100 thousands in revenues to an
institution -- they are also making critical decisions about which institutions
will be penalized for violations of NCAA rules. At the very least there looms
the distinct possibility of a conflict of interest. In this regard, it is quite
clear by events of recent occurance that Mr. Byers has used the loss of television
receipts as a form of selective reprisal against an institution which has incurred
his private and prolific enmity.
Mr. Byers has a virtually insatiable appetite for power. Not content with control
of domestic amateur athletics, he's now branched out into the international field.
With the creation of a series of federations founded and funded by the NCAA, he's
attempted to usurp control of the legitimate sports governing bodies in the United
States. Beyond the very legitimate objection that international amateur athletics
is well beyond the scope of a domestic collegiate organization is the objection that
the NCAA office has diverted funds intended for use in pursuit of domestic collegiate
athletic goals for the furtherance of Walter's ambitions. He has, I contend, exceeded
the scope of his organizations legitimate aspirations, deluded his membership as to his
true intentions and sought to embarrass this country in the eyes of the international
sporting community.
It is possible that this type of meglomania will eventually run its course and
cease to exist because of itself. It is also possible that the member institutions
of the NCAA will, as certain recent events suggest, realize that Byers and his
lieutenants are paid servants of theirs and begin to give him some much needed
direction in his activities.
However, too much is at stake to depend upon time or resolve for a solution to this
intolemable situation. I have, therefore, sent letters to every member of the United
States Senate, the House of Representatives and appropriate governmental and private
citizens calling for a congressional investigation into the activities of the functions
of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. I have asked that a special
commission be formed to determine the legitimate scope of the NCAA's activities
and that as an integral part of that investigation they examine the methods of
enforcement employed by the NCAA Executive Offices under Mr. Byers, that they examine
the method of distribution of television receipts, that they examine the procedures
for punishment of tax-supported institutions and that they clearly define the limits
of the NCAA's legitimate goals and methods of implementing such goals.
Further, I have asked that such congressional action as is recommended be binding
upon the NCAA and that the NCAA not be permitted to ignore Congress as they have
in the past.
SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD REPORT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETIETH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
OPINION AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION
ON TRACK AND FIELD
FEBRUARY 1, 1968
Serial No. 90-46
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-295 0
WASHINGTON : 1968
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
CONTENTS
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman
JOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island
NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
A.S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma
THRUSTON B. MORTON, Kentucky
Page
FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Ohio
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
Opening statement of the chairman
1
E.L. BARTLETT, Alaska
WINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont
VANCE HARTKE, Indiana
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
STATEMENTS
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan
ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada
Cox, Archibald, member, Sports Arbitration Board
5
DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland
Kheel, Theodore W., chairman, Sports Arbitration Board
2
RUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana
Metcalfe, Ralph, member, Sports Arbitration Board
6
FRANK E. MOSS, Utah
Vail, Thomas, member, Sports Arbitration Board
6
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
FREDERICK J. LORDAN, Staff Director
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
JAMES J. BARRY, Assistant Staff Director
MICHAEL PERTSCHUK, General Counsel
Senate Resolution 147, text of bill
12
RAYMOND D. HURLEY, Minority Staff Counsel
Sports Arbitration Board report
15
(II)
(m)
SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD REPORT
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1968
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 3:55 p.m. in room S-207, Capitol Building,
Hon. Warren G. Magnuson (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Magnuson, Cotton, Cannon, Pearson, and Griffin,
and Theodore W. Kheel, Chairman of the Sports Arbitration Panel,
Archibald Cox, member, Ralph H. Metcalfe, member, and Thomas
Vail, member; from the National Collegiate Athletic Association:
Marcus L. Plant, president, Walter Byers, executive director, Charles
Neinas, assistant executive director, and Philip Brown, attorney;
from the Amateur Athletic Union: Col. Donald Hull, executive direc-
tor, and Richard Kline, chairman of AAU junior olympic program;
from the U.S. Track & Field Federation: Rev. Wilfred Crowley,
president; from the National Athletic Inter-Collegiate Association;
Al Buckingham, immediate past president.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN
The CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President has been
delayed in a meeting with the President himself at the White House.
He thought at first it would end in sufficient time to come to this
meeting, and we even waited, as you know, almost an hour. But it
looks like it is not going to break up in time for the Vice President to
be here.
The purpose of calling this meeting was that the Commission
appointed by the Vice President under the law passed by Congress
has completed its report on this longstanding matter, and the members
are all here today to present this report, its conclusions, and recom-
mendations.
I am sure if the Vice President were here, Mr. Kheel and members
of the Panel, that he would join with me in commending the work of
the Commission. It has been long, tedious work and a most sensitive
and difficult problem on which to reach any conclusions and arrive at
some decisions.
I am not going to comment until later on the report which has been
submitted to us. Incidentally, it will be made into a Senate document,
so there will be many copies available for people who are interested.
The Commission went ahead and did their own work of publishing,
but they were a little short on the wherewithal to publish too many
copies
But this is of great interest to everyone, every citizen interested in
athletics-amateur athletics-in this country.
1 The report appears on p. 15 of this hearing.
(1)
3
2
say that it was a great pleasure to have been associated with them
So without further ado, because it is getting late and many of you
also. They are all very fine gentlemen. I have no doubt at all about
have been here a long time waiting-and we do appreciate that-1
the sincerity of their concern for track and field and amateur athletics.
want to introduce the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Theodore
even though at various times we felt a little exasperated with our
Kheel, who will give you a briefing, as I understand it, on the report
inability to bring them around to an agreed upon point of view.
itself.
We did set out to bring about an agreement, although we were
If there are any questions about the report, I am sure Ted or other
acting pursuant to a Senate resolution which designated us as arbi-
members of the Commission would be glad to answer them.
trators empowered to make a final and binding decision. We felt-and
So if you will take over, we will appreciate it.
we still feel-that the acquiescence of the parties to an arrangement,
whatever that arrangement may be, is essential, and we do say that
STATEMENT OF THEODORE W. KHEEL, CHAIRMAN, SPORTS
while our decision is final and it is not negotiable and not subject to
ARBITRATION PANEL
change, and it is the end of the work of the Sports Arbitration Board
in the area of track and field, that if the parties that are involved and
Mr. KHEEL. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.
covered by it set out deliberately-and I don't believe they will-to
We can only surmise what it is the Vice President and the President
frustrate our decision, they probably will succeed.
are discussing which has delayed the Vice President, but if it is
But if they do, they will be doing a great disservice to the sport of
another dispute which has attracted worldwide attention, I can merely
track and field and to all athletes who wish to take part in amateur
say that while that dispute may be more important, it is not any more
competition. But I would be very much surprised if this turns out to
difficult than the dispute we have been dealing with the last two and a
be the circumstance.
half years.
As we say in the report, we tried to bring about a single organization
We were appointed in December of 1965 by the Vice President
that would govern track and field in the United States. Efforts were
pursuant to a resolution of the Senate, No. 147, that came through
made to establish such a single organization within the AAU or
Senator Magnuson's committee, the Senate Committee on Commerce.
without-that is, outside of the AAU-but our efforts in this respect
We consisted at that time of five members: myself as the Chairman,
proved unavailing, and we concluded in the decision we have made
General Shoup, who subsequently resigned from our Board, and my
today that it was not possible to direct the creation of an organization.
colleagues who have persisted with me throughout and to this con-
You cannot create an organization in the field of private endeavor by
clusion of our work.
an order. You would have to provide methods for financing it. You
I must say to the Vice President-to Julius Cahn to convey to
would have to provide people to run it. And we saw no way in which
him-that I could not have been more delighted with the quality
we could order the creation of a single organization in any shape, form,
and caliber of the colleagues with whom I was associated, and with
or manner.
the opportunity to work together with them. And I would like to
We then had to decide on a modus operandi for the various organi-
present them to you:
zations which we considered to be fair to them, which we considered
On my far right is Prof. Archibald Cox of the Harvard Law School,
to be in furtherance of their legitimate purposes and legitimate
the former Solicitor General of the United States-and I did observe
aspirations, and which would enable them to work together
to him that I thought that our report, whether or not you agree with
harmoniously.
it, at least was as good as any brief that had been submitted to the
We concluded that it was not possible to anticipate every single
Supreme Court of the United States from the Solicitor General's
Office.
item of controversy that might possibly arise between now and when
our award prescribes that there should be an end and it renegotiation;
Seated next to him is Ralph Metcalfe, a former great American
namely, in 5 years. So we specified that there should be a coordinating
Olympic star, whom I am sure all of you know.
committee and I might say this was discussed during our hearings
Next to him is the publisher of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, one of
and generally agreed upon by the parties-to act in the case of specific
America's leading publishers and a great public servant as well.
controversies, subject to a statement of principles which we laid down
Tom Vail.
in this decision. And further that if in any instance the coordinating
The dispute that we were given in December of 1965 proved SO
committee which is 10 consist of equal representatives from both
very difficult because we were dealing with relationships of many
sides- if the coordinating committee could not resolve IL particular
organizations, not only the AAU and the NCAA, but also the United
dispute, that there should be an impartial chairman of this board or
States Track & Field Federation, which was not formally a party to
of this committee to be selected by agreement of the parties or named
the proceedings at the outset but was made a party as we went along.
by the Vice President of the United States.
and the NAIA. which is also an association. like NCAA. of colleges
Now with regard to the decision itself-which is summarized in
and universities.
two and 11 half pages beginning on page 41 of our decision what we
We were dealing with a relationship. a very complex relationship.
have basically set out to do is to render unto each of these organizations
and with responsibilities that the organizations have that were not
the things that are "each's." if I may use that word, by specifying
coextensive and not identical.
that the AAU is the sole sanctioning and governing authority for
I must say that while we have been critical from time to time of
international competition, and indicating what additional respon-
the representatives of all of the organizations. I wish at this point to
sibilities it should have in carrying out that function.
5
4
I would ask for a few remarks from the other distinguished Americans
We have specified the responsibilities of the National Collegiate
who gave time and energies to this work, which has been long, tedious,
Athletic Association, which obviously is concerned with, and properly
and difficult.
so, and confined to students who attend colleges or universities.
I thought maybe Archibald Cox might give us a little brief descrip-
And we have spelled out what we think is the proper function
tion, possibly of some of the legal aspects of this, if you would.
and responsibilities of USTFF, an organization which came into being
in 1962 for the purpose of conducting and promoting track and field.
STATEMENT OF ARCHIBALD COX, MEMBER, SPORTS
The most important aspect, I suppose, or at least one of the most
ARBITRATION PANEL
important aspects of this effort on our part to spell out the proper
jurisdiction of the parties and how they should relate to each other is
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Senator Magnuson.
the portion having to do with what is closed competition and what is
I would stress, I think, four points.
open competition. And we have said that domestic meets confined
First, to the best of our judgment this decision secures to each of
among full-time students whose athletic activities are based upon the
the organizations its central concerns; to the AAU its central concern
coaching and facilities of a bona fide educational institution are to
for the international aspects of track and field; to the NCAA its
be considered closed competition. And we have defined "students" to
central concerns both for the welfare of undergraduate athletes and
include undergraduate students, graduate students, students between
for expanding its track and field meets and closed meets to include
terms or on vacation or in the summer between school and college.
graduate students, students between terms, and in vacations, whose
We have said that all other meets are open meets for which the
activities are based on college facilities and college coaching. And
sanction of the AAU is required.
third, it secures to the United States Track & Field Federation and
We have said further that since the purpose of such a sanction is
its affiliates the opportunity to conduct domestic meets without
to enable the AAU to carry out its responsibilities over international
interference by the AAU. except where there is a question of the
competition, since it is evident and was evident to us that the USTFF
international implications.
is a bona fide organization running meets that are proper meets, that
The second point I would emphasize is that there are also in the
its sanction should be considered presumptive evidence that the meets
decision provisions that would check any one of these organizations
it will conduct will be carried out in accordance with the requirements
from abusing its power so as to attempt to use the jurisdiction it
of international competition. This does not mean that a sanction is
is given as à handle for expanding into somebody else's area: and any
not required, but it does mean that upon being sought, it must be
disputes of that kind could be taken to the coordinating committee.
granted unless there is some indication or belief by the AAU that there
The third point I would emphasize is that in our sincere judgment
is not compliance with the requirements of international competition,
we have studied this carefully. There is nothing by way of legal
in which event the dispute can be taken to the coordinating committee
obstacles, Senator. to all four of these organizations accepting this
and, if necessary, to the impartial chairman.
decision in the manner stated.
We have also said that the coordinating committee should seek to
And finally I would emphasize the very great importance that
work out such sanctioning of USTFF meets on an annual basis, since
Mr. Kheel has already mentioned to tens of thousands of young
for the most part the meets that USTFF will conduct are known in
men and women. and also to the public and to the country of there
advance, and there can be an advance agreement with regard to such
being an end to this dispute.
meets.
We have also dealt with NCAA's concern with the students and its
Perhaps this isn't the only possible solution, but it is a solution.
And it would seem really incumbent at this point to have an end to
responsibility for their welfare, and have spelled out a procedure with
the warfare and a concentration on the important job of getting
regard to its legitimate concerns in that area for the protection of the
welfare of the students much the same as the procedures we have set
together and fielding the best teams we can and conducting competi-
forth for the AAU.
tion under the best possible conditions for the young men and women
Now I have no doubt that there will be some bugs in this, some
who engage in it.
problems that we haven't anticipated. We have tried to cover the
Thank you, Senator.
major matters that were brought to our attention during the last
The CHAIRMAN. Another distinguished member of the Commission.
Mr. Metcalfe-as mentioned here earlier today-was one of America's
two and a half years, and we have provided a method whereby addi-
tional or new problems as they arise can be dealt with.
great athletes, and I would suspect he would know more about the
We think to the extent of our ability-and nobody can accuse us of
feelings of amateur athletes who participate in these athletics than
any other one man I know of.
undue haste-that we have set forth a way in which these organiza-
tions can live happily ever after-or at least for the next 5 years-to
Ralph, we would be glad if you had a statement to make here on
the benefit of the United States, our Olympic aspirations, and par-
your work in this Commission.
ticularly the athletes who are participating in the games.
You call it a Board. I call it a Commission: but it is the same
Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.
thing.
The CHAIRMAN. Before I let you ask some questions of the Chair-
man of the Commission-who has had a distinguished record in dealing
with disputes over the years, and I hope this one will be as successful-
6
7
STATEMENT OF RALPH METCALFE, MEMBER, SPORTS
ous job on this matter, as have all the other members of this panel. I
ARBITRATION PANEL
hope that we have done a complete job and that now we will get on
with the task of implementing it.
Mr. METCALFE. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.
Thank you, Senator. very much.
I do feel as though my representation on the Board has been one
The CHAIRMAN. Before we get to some of the questions you may
of complete objectivity, because it would be extremely difficult for
have, I think most of you know the Senate Commerce Committee
me to say out of my own experience whether or not I competed in
spent a great deal of time on this dispute. We had long, lengthy hear-
more NCAA meets or more AAU competitions.
ings, in which many of you participated. We had sportswriters, ath-
I have been and I am presently very interested in the youth, and
letes, educators, and pretty near everyone you could think of inter-
I am concerned that we do not provide sufficient facilities, sufficient
ested in this come and testify before us. They all came.
coaching and all that in order to field the best teams in the Olympics.
Of course, all came to the same conclusion-that something had to
I welcomed the opportunity to work with this very distinguished
be done and should be done as soon as possible.
group of men on this very important question.
We attempted to resolve it in our own way, but finally had to resort
You have already heard from two of our distinguished arbitrators.
to the passage of the legislation and establishment of this Board.
I simply would like to conclude my remarks by saying that we have
hoping that they would come up with a fair and lasting decision, which
had our own discussions, and this document that you have before you
it is, in the judgment of those of us who have read it, and I think we
reflects the thoughts of each and every one of us, and we have had an
are pretty much in agreement, although I haven't spoken to every
opportunity on SO many occasions to compare notes, and I think that
member of the Commerce Committee.
our chairman has conducted these hearings in a very democratic
We have here Senator Griffin, from Michigan, who has taken a
manner. And certainly he has given cognizance to the contribution of
great interest in it, and Senator Cotton of New Hampshire. Senator
each and every one of the members of the committee to this particular
Cannon and Senator Pearson had to leave for exactly the same reason
problem.
that is keeping the Vice President from being here.
Thank you very much, Senator.
But I want to say in behalf of the committee-and I am sure
The CHAIRMAN. The other member of the Board is a man who has
Senator Cotton will join me-that we deeply appreciate the work you
devoted a great deal of time and energy to many, many government
have done in this field and also the cooperation extended by the parties
and civic problems. And when you talk about objectivity, we in
involved.
politics sometimes think it is impossible for a newspaper to be objec-
I know you want to ask the chairman some questions, and he is
tive, but he surely has in all the work he has done, and as many times
available for any answers you wish.
as he has been called to service in these jobs, he has been about as
I have a short message from the Vice President which I will read
objective a person as I have encountered.
after you are through.
Thomas Vail is, as you know, the publisher of the Cleveland Plain-
Mr. KHEEL. Are there any questions?
Dealer. Tom, I hope you might have something to add here.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM. A. W. Buckingham, representing the NAIA.
First I want to compliment the committee on this work. It really
STATEMENT OF THOMAS VAIL, MEMBER, SPORTS ARBITRATION
looks like an excellent job.
PANEL
But I was wondering about the time-February 10. Our executive
committee meets in March. Could that be extended until March 9.
Mr. VAIL. Thank you, Senator Magnuson.
for instance?
I don't know-when you say that I was the most objective, I
Mr. KHEEL. The date of February 10 pertains only to the president
don't know if you mean I started knowing the least about this dis-
of the organization. We recognize that the executive councils-or
pute-but I would only add this to what my distinguished colleagues
whatever they may be called-of the organizations might not be
have said: I think that we have exhausted the field thoroughly.
able to meet immediately.
And as the chairman said somewhat facetionsly. we haven't come to
We propose-it is on page 39-that the president of each organiza-
this conclusion in u hurry.
tion indicate whether he accepts the statement to the extent of his
I would add that from the public standpoint I get the feeling that
power to do SO and will recommend unconditional acceptance to the
we have come to the end of the road as far as further examination
appropriate governing bodies of his organization. So that it will not
of the problem is concerned. I believe it is incumbent upon not just
be necessary for your organization as such to respond by February 10.
all of us and the parties involved. but I believe under public pressure.
I might say that the responses are to go to the chairman of the
the time has come when something must be done. because the public
Senate Committee on Commerce, from whom we originally derived
is focusing on the well-being of the athletes rather than on the situa-
our authority, and to whom we return this dispute at this time.
tion of the individual organizations. although we have tried to give
Question. Should this be rejected by the four presidents, or any
the fairest possible hearing to both sides. and I hope that they feel
one of the four presidents. what alternative course would there be?
that we have done this.
Mr. KHEEL. 1 would refer the question to Senator Magnuson.
I would also underline. as Ralph Metcalfe has. my great pleasure in
serving with Chairman Kheel. He has done his usual fair and marvel-
8
9
The CHAIRMAN. There are several pieces of legislation pending,
and the Commerce Committee would be prone to take them up if
And we have provided time in which to do this. As I explained in
they didn't agree.
answer to the question from the representative of the NAIA, we have
Question. What would they do? What would the other bills do
provided time for them to have a meeting of their organizational
that you are considering?
bodies, SO that they will tell us that they will cooperate with the
The CHAIRMAN. The details of the bills are all different. I suggest
decision.
that this report itself might be the basis for a bill.
Now this is not the simple sort of an arbitration award that Archie
Question. Senator, the report calls for an ideal solution, which
Cox or I might have made in a dispute where the union says, "We
would be to form a new single unit to govern athletics. a completely
want a $10 increase." And the employer says, "We won't give any
different unit from what we now have. Would this possibly be a
increase." And our decision after deliberation is for a $5 increase.
legislative aim if this is rejected?
Now, that type of award can be enforced very easily and very read-
The CHAIRMAN. That would depend on what we decide in the
ily. We are saying that lots of people in at least four organizations
committee-whether this is the method of getting at it, yes.
have to work together. And in the final analysis, their ability to live
Question. Would you go for something ideal rather than something
together under this formula will depend upon their good sense and
as a compromise?
the demands of the people of the United States as expressed by the
The CHAIRMAN. We will do anything that will settle this thing
Senate Commerce Committee-that they do conform to this decision:
and get it on the road. I don't think that the Japanese Diet, or the
that they do make is possible notwithstanding their ancient rivalries
Politburo in Moscow or the French Parliament or the Parliament in
for young athletes to engage in track and field.
Great Britain have any argument ahead of time before they field
Question. They meet in New York on February 9, and from the
athletes for the Olympic teams, and we better get to it.
terms of this it would appear to me that no sanction by the AAU
Mr. KHEEL. I may presume to say I do not believe that it is likely
would be required since that would be largely or entirely including
that the Senate or the Congress would seek to create a private organiza-
graduates, undergraduates, and people who are otherwise affected.
tion to govern track and field. And I doubt very much whether they
Mr. KHEEL. I do not wish to make n determination since I don't
would create a public organization which would introduce government
have all the facts, but if in fact it is confined exclusively to students
into what is essentially, and should be, a private sport.
as we have defined the term "students," whose athletic activities are
Question. Do you have any idea what the responses of these groups
based on the coaching and facilities of a bona fide university or
might be? Do they know about the report?
educational institution, your statement is correct.
Mr. KHEEL. We don't have any idea, and we hope they would not
I do not know at this moment the full scope of the athletes that
respond today. They received this report this morning at 10 o'clock.
may participate in that meet, SO I do not wish to make an interpreta-
It is, we think, a deliberate document which took a long time in
tion of our decision as applied to that meet.
preparation, and we would hope that they would study it very care-
Incidentally, that is a good example of the type of thing that the
fully and not respond off the top of their heads, because this is very
coordinating committee and the impartial chairman would resolve in
serious business for them. This is the end of the line.
particular instances, in particular meets where there may be a dispute
Question. Why do you say it is the end of the line?
as to whether or not it is closed. The coordinating committee and the
Question. Did you say this was binding upon them?
impartial chairman can resolve that dispute in accordance with the
Mr. KHEEL. This is a final decision in an arbitration proceeding,
principles we have set forth here.
which is final and binding-
Question. Would you serve as the impartial chairman?
Question. To whom
Mr. KHEEL. No, sir.
Mr. KHEEL. Let me finish-according to the laws of arbitration.
Question. Do you have any recommendations?
I said in my opening remarks that if any of these organizations set
Mr. KHEEL. No, sir. We have provided that the parties should
out deliberately to frustrate the award which we have made, they would
agree themselves, which is preferable, or that the Vice President should
succeed. I will acknowledge that.
name the impartial chairman.
I also said that that would be a very sorry day for the athletes of
Question. Just one more. What would be the next step from here if
this country. I do not anticipate-I would be very disappointed if
by February 10 the four presidents involved give you assurance that
what is and should be essentially It voluntary matter by private
they can live by this? Then would the Senator go into motion to set
organizations, not run by government, not directed by government.
up this committee and start making appointments?
could not make arrangements with and among each other whereby
Mr. KHEEL. I think that we as a board. while we consider this to
young men and women and boys and girls could run in track and field.
be the end of the responsibilities we were asked to perform pursuant
Question. Mr. Kheel, would you clarify the point about any rejection?
to Senate Resolution 147. would be available in connection with the
Mr. KHEEL. We have said, if you will turn to page 39, while we
housekeeping details and the tying up of the loose ends.
consider this to be a final decision, we have also said that we wish
What newspaper organization do you represent, Father Crowley?
these organizations to indicate that they will comply with the decision,
Father CROWLEY. I guess you have seen me before.
that they will accede and cooperate with the structure and the coordi-
What provisions have you set up for correcting the errors and the
nating committee which we say should be brought into existence.
ambiguities in the report?
11
10
My organization is a hit sensitive to a sharp misstatement of fact. a
Mr. KHEEL We believe the report contains the basic principles
complete misstatement of fact that reflects badly upon my organiza-
pursuant to which, Father Crowley, your organization as well as the
tion.
others can live in harmony. And we also have provided, as I have
And without debating the question, I would like to know whene
said, a coordinating committee with an impartial chairman to resolve
procedure He go to to have those errors corrected before the Senate
questions that may arise.
prints the document.
Obviously this document of 29 pages cannot cover the whole gamut
Mr. KHEEL. First of all, I believe Senator Magnuson said it would
of human relationships in track and field. This sort of thing is quite
be printed as n Senate document as a matter of courtesy and conven-
typical in other areas. I am most specifically familiar with labor-
ience in distribution.
management contracts, which are a lot more complex than these today.
The CHAIRMAN. We do print lots of documents for distribution.
The General Motors contract with the United Automobile Workers
and there will be great numbers-hundreds of people-who want to
covers some 300 to 350 pages, with supplements, and they have an
look at this. It is just for distribution, merely the printing of it. It is
impartial chairman. And so-called ambiguities or matters of omission
an extension of the Senate Commerce Committee's business. (See P. 15.)
or, more particularly, disputes that arise in the administration of the
Mr. KHEEL We would be very pleased to sit down with you and
contract, are covered by the impartial chairman in a manner that has
discuss any matter of that sort. If there is something that we have
proved satisfactory in this area of human relationships, and it has
inadvertently said that might reflect unfairly on your organization.
been a pretty extensive and successful experience.
if we can correct that, we will correct it. What we won't do is to change
Father CROWLEY. Where is the impartial chairman at this present
the basic principles and conclusions we have reached. But we will be
moment?
available for that purpose.
Mr. KHEEL. He does not exist at the present moment. This decision
Thank you very much.
came down today, and it doesn't suddenly create everything and spring
The CHAIRMAN. If I may, the Vice President did have a message
it into existence. We are available to assist in this interim period.
for you which he would deliver were he here, and I quote:
Father CROWLEY. If we have to agree to something, we should
This is a final report. It is not, I repeat not, presented for further negotiation.
understand what we are agreeing to.
Mr. KHEEL. You are agreeing to the creation of a coordinating
He is talking about the guidelines.
committee whose representatives your side will designate to the extent
I believe I interpret the temper of the American people correctly in stating to
of your representation, and you are going to try to agree on an im-
the disputants very emphatically: Gentlemen, America will not tolerate arbitrary
partial chairman, or to have the Vice President name him.
destruction of the careers of our amateur athletes. The best interest of the athlete
Father CROWLEY. That is an essential part of the report, SO we
comes first. That is where the national interest lies, In our young men and women
being able to compete at their peak performance. Our athletes must not be sacri-
can't agree to that unless we know and understand what the report
ficed in a cruel cross-fire. I earnestly request the cooperation of the disputants in
says. It is a matter of interpretation. Many of the paragraphs I find
accepting and implementing the report. I ask the assistance of this Arbitration
unclear and needing clarification and explanation.
Board in helping me, as pointed out by Mr. Kheel, follow through on that imple-
I don't think it is proper to go to a piece of machinery that is sup-
mentation.
posed to be set up by the Board that doesn't exist.
.KHEEL. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.
Mr. KHEEL. Father, we want to be very helpful and patient. We
The CHAIRMAN. We all thank you for your patience, and we thank
have been patient with you and your association and the other organi-
you for coming.
zations for the last two and a half years.
(Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the conference was adjourned.)
Father CROWLEY. This I have admired, but not other things.
Mr. KHEEL. And we are not dropping this in the middle of the
stream. We are prepared to assist in this changeover period. But we
have set up, in our judgment, a structure pursuant to which you can
live and conduct the work of your organization. And if there is any
assistance you need in this interim period, we will be glad to supply it.
But I want to make this clear: We are not about to undertake to
renegotiate this decision with you or anybody else.
Father CROWLEY. We are not asking this.
Mr. KHEEL. If there is a matter of clarification, we would be glad
to supply it.
Mr. BYERS. Chairman Kheel, with reference to Father Crowley's
earlier question and your response, it seems to me this takes on a bit
different complexion when Senator Magnuson, if I understand him
correctly, has said that this document will be printed as a Senate
document. And Father Crowley's question was of procedure, taking
the first part to insert corrections.
13
12
2
Calendar No. 738
individual amateur athlete, will achieve the broadest possible
participation by amateur athletes in competitive sports, and
89TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S.RES. 147
will maintain a harmonions and cooperative relationship
among all amateur athletic organizations: and
[Report No. 753]
Whereas it is essential that means be provided whereby such
disputes can he equitably and finally resolved: Now, there-
fore. be it
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
SEPTEMBER 16 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 15), 1965
1
Resolved, That the President of the Senate is hereby
Mr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee on Commerce, reported the following
2
authorized to appoint an independent board of arbitration
resolution; which was ordered to be placed on the calendar
3 composed of five members, one of whom he shall designate
4 as Chairman, for the purpose of considering disputes relat-
RESOLUTION
5 ing to the conduct, development. and protection of amateur
6 athletics, which are submitted to it by the parties to such
Whereas disputes have existed for many years between the
Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, the National
7 disputes. and rendering decisions determining such disputes
Collegiate Athletic Association, other amateur athletic or-
8 which shall be consistent with the purposes of this resolution
ganizations, and their affiliates or associates; and
9 and shall be final and binding on such parties.
Whereas these disputes have discouraged the full development
10
SEC. 2. In the consideration of disputes submitted to
of amateur athletics in the United States and the maximum
11 the Board appointed under this resolution the members of
performance by athletes representing the United States in
international competition; and
12 such board should consider and determine all relevant facts
Whereas the parties have not been able to resolve their differ-
13 and issues necessary to the attainment of the goals set out
ences through their own efforts or through previous arbitra-
14 in the preamble to this resolution.
tion efforts: and
15
SEC. 3: Until such time as the Board appointed pur-
Whereas it is necessary and desirable for the United States to
16 suant to this resolution renders its decision in the current
maintain a vigorous anateur athletic program that will field
the best possible teams in domestic and international com-
17 dispute between the Amateur Athletic Union of the United
petition, will protect and provide for the welfare of the
18 States and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the
V
89-295 0-68-2
15
14
3
BEFORE THE SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD
1 interested and affected parties should be governed by the
2 following principles:
IN THE MATTER
3
(a) An immediate and general amnesty shall be granted
OF THE
4 to all individuals, institutions, and organizations affected by
ARBITRATION PROVIDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT
5 this dispute in any amateur sport.
OF
DISPUTES INVOLVING AMATEUR ATHLETICS
6
(b) Any disciplinary action proposed or pending against
Pursuant to Senate Resolution 147
7 individuals, institutions, and organizations for reasons related
8 to such dispute shall be vacated.
OPINION AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION
9
(c) Any discrimination against the full use of all avail-
ON TRACK AND FIELD
10 able facilities for scheduled meets and tournaments shall be
This is a proceeding before the Board of Arbitration appointed
11 discontinued.
by the Vice President of the United States pursuant to S. Res. 147,
89th Cong., 1st Sess., to determine "disputes relating to the conduct,
12
(d) Any restraints against participation by any athlete
development and protection of amateur athletics." The original mem-
13 in scheduled meets and tournaments shall be discontinued.
bers of the Board were Theodore W. Kheel, Chairman, Archibald
Cox, Ralph H. Metcalfe, David M. Shoup and Thomas Vail. General
14
SEC. 4. The Board appointed pursuant to this resolution
Shoup retired on February 5, 1967, and was not replaced.
15 shall report to the Senate not later than February 15, 1966,
Formal hearings were held on January 18, February 28, March 1,
May 2, 3 and 23, June 15 and 16, July 21 and 22, September 19 and 20,
16 and from time to time thereafter as it may deem necessary,
and November 15 and 16, 1966, and on May 1 and 2, and November 9
and 10, 1967. In addition, there were many conferences and informal
17 with respect to its activities under this resolution.
meetings, and countless briefs, letters and memoranda were filed with
the Board. The history of this proceeding is more fully described
in a report this Board submitted to the Senate Committee on Com-
merce on August 17, 1967.
The Board of Arbitration concluded that it should first concen-
trate upon track and field sports because the establishment of peace
in that area would furnish a basis for the adjustment of other dis-
putes. The Board earnestly sought to induce the parties to reach the
voluntary settlement SO plainly required by the welfare of the athletes
16
17
and the national as well as their own interest. Although some minor
by the I.A.A.F. or by a member of the Federation." Rule 11 provides
concessions were offered, none of the parties were willing to subordi-
that, "The I.A.A.F. alone shall have the right to organize or sanction
nate self-interest to the general good to the extent necessary to
World, European, Far East, Latin American and other area champion-
compromise the issues. Accordingly, the Board must render a deci-
ships for track and field events." Rule 54 bans from IAAF competi-
sion upon the track and field aspects of the controversy.
tion any person who is ineligible "to compete in competitions under
Upon the whole record, the Board of Arbirtation makes the fol-
the jurisdiction of his national governing body." IAAF does, in fact,
lowing findings of fact and decision for the settlement of the dispute:
sponsor the major international competition, and it has generally
been successful in asserting its jurisdictional claims.
National Collegiate Athletic Association is the largest athletic
A. THE PARTIES
federation of colleges and universities in the United States. Its
Amateur Athletic Union of the United States (hereafter "AAU")
activities encompass all-or nearly all-intercollegiate sports. It pro-
was organized in 1888 as a union of athletic clubs promoting amateur
motes, sanctions, and conducts intercollegiate competition in track
sports. It claims "jurisdiction" over thirteen sports including basket-
and field sports as well as other sports. Its rules cover virtually
hall, gymnastics, swimming and track and field. For many years
every aspect of competition, including eligibility and financial aid.
AAU was the plainly-dominant, if not the only, body asserting nation-
NCAA claims the right to sanetion open track and field meets
wide supervision over amateur track and field competition.
in which collegiate athletes participate. The claim is based upon
AAU conducts a number of open track and field meets, including
NCAA's responsibility for the welfare of college athletes. The greatest
the national AAU championships, and it sanctions meets conducted
proportion of athletes in major track and field competition today
by other promoters. "Open" meets are those in which all amateurs
are students at colleges and universities.
in good standing may participate, as distinguished from "closed"
National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics is also an
meets, which are restricted to specific classes, such as collegiate
association of colleges and universities engaged in the development
athletes, members of the Armed Forces, or another particular group.
of athletics as a sound part of the educational offering of member
The terms are defined more precisely in the context of this dispute
institutions. NAIA is geared primarily to the needs of institutions
in a subsequent portion of this decision.
having enrollment of moderate size.
AAU took an early part in the formation of International
United States Track and Field Federation was chartered in
Amateur Athletic Federation (hereafter IAAF), which was founded
1962 at the same time as organizations claiming jurisdiction over
to promote international track and field competition; to establish an
basketball and gymnastics. The major impetus came from NCAA
authentic register of World and Olympic records; and to promulgate
and college coaches at NCAA institutions, who had been engaged in
a universal code of rules and regulations and a common definition of
running conflict with AAU. USTFF is primarily a federation of
"amateur." IAAF is composed of "national governing associations
college, junior college and high school associations. but its member-
or federations of countries, in control of amateur track and field
ship includes the National Track and Field Association, an associa-
athletics
which agree to abide by the rules and regulations of
tion of clubs engaged in conducting and promoting track and field
the IAAF." The IAAF Constitution states, "Only one member for
sports. Although the Senate Resolution stated that NCAA estab-
each country can be affiliated." and the IAAF rules and regulations
lished USTFF and that "for all practical purposes" they "may he
frequently describe the member as "the national governing body."
regarded as the same organization", USTFF has been recognized in
Rule 10 stipulates that, "All international meetings must be sanctioned
18
19
these proceedings as an independent sports organization providing
(i) It requires promoters to maintain the standards estab-
domestic track and field competition for male and female amateur
lished by AAU for the preservation of amateurism, the protection
athletes. It has promoted, conducted and sanctioned this open track
of athletes, and the proper conduct of competition;
and field competition, in some instances without sanction from AAU.
(ii) It satisfies IAAF requirements for international com-
petition and thus protects potential competitors in international
B. THE ISSUES
competition;
NCAA and AAU have been in intermittent disagreement for more
(iii) It provides revenue for AAU; and
than half a century. See Flath, Á History of Relations between the
(iv) It is a method of enforcing AAU's claim to be the sole
National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Amateur Athletic
governing body for track and field sports.
Union of the United States (1964). The issues between them vary
from time to time. Their differences have extended at one time or
In aid of the last objective the promoter who accepts an AAU
another to almost every aspect of track and field sports. Thus, during
sanction is required to agree that-
the hearing before us differences were aired over such diverse matters
the AAU is the sole governing body in the sport for which
as the selection of coaches and competitors for international meets,
sanction is applied
travel permits, receipts from television rights, the scheduling of meets,
expense allowances and prizes, and the definition of amateur.
that he-
The central issue, however is one of "jurisdiction" and "sanction-
will neither seek nor accept sanction from any other group or
ing." The basic contest is one for power, and "jurisdiction" and
body claiming jurisdiction in such sport
"sanctioning" are the boundaries and tools of power. Each side
and that he will not-
claims with evident sincerity that it would use the power more wisely
than the other, but the protestations cannot be allowed to obscure the
permit athletes not eligible to compete under A.A.U. rules to
essential character of the contest. It is-we repeat-a struggle for
compete in such sanctioned event.
power in which the athletes are being used by both sides as pawns
SO long as the contest continues.
To be eligible for AAU sanctioned meets, an athlete must be
The formal arguments are highly conceptual. One must under-
registered or certified with AAU and pay the required fee. Further-
stand the concepts, but it is important not to become enmeshed in
more, AAU Rule VII stipulates that any athlete who participates in
them and thus lose sight of the underlying realities, including the
any meet not sanctioned by AAU shall be disqualified from further
practical interests that the concepts are being made to serve.
AAU competition; and also that any athlete who competes against a
AAU claims to be the "sole governing body" for track and field
disqualified athlete forfeits his own qualification.
sports in the United States. Its General Rule I-1-a provides that all
IAAF rules bar an athlete disqualified by AAU from international
track and field meets "must be sanctioned" by AAU. The term
competition.
"sanction" means simply approval for AAU athletes to compete, but
The literal and effective enforcement of these AAU and IAAF
by accepting a sanction the promoter binds himself to a number of
rules concerning membership, sanctioning and registration would
conditions, the acceptance of which makes the sanctioning procedure
require all U. S. track and field athletes in open competition to be
serve four main purposes:
AAU members. The rules would give AAU and its affiliated organi-
20
21
zations a monopoly of the administration of all track and field meets
IMMEDIATE BACKGROUND
in the United States. This is undoubtedly one of their purposes, and
also one of AAU's objections to USTFF.
In 1962 the AAU-NCCA feuding became so bitter as to threaten
In fact, this theoretical monopoly is subject to three significant
the quality of U. S. representation in the 1964 Olympiad. President
groups of exceptions.
Kennedy induced the parties to accept arbitration before General
First, AAU itself excepts several categories of what it calls
Douglas MacArthur. General MacArthur's award called for an imme-
"closed competition." The most important category is competition
diate amnesty, cessation of discrimination in the use of available
confined to undergraduate students representing educational institut-
)
facilities, and the establishment of an Olympic eligibility committee.
tions. A second category is members of the Armed Forces competing
The award included the following implementing agreement:
among themselves. A third is playground competition.
)
The members of the USTFF will restrict their activities to
Second, USTFF, NTFA and affiliated clubs, in fact, have con-
enrolled students and the organization will be classified as closed.
ducted some major open track and field meets without AAU sanction.
This includes graduate students, students in vacation periods
Third, in parts of the country where AAU is not equipped to
between terms and students in the summer periods between high
enforce its rules, there is probably a considerable amount of unsanc-
schools, junior colleges, colleges or universities.
An athlete
tioned competition mostly involving athletes who have not achieved
not in the foregoing classification shall be required to have an
national or regional recognition.
AAU card to compete in USTFF open meets sanctioned by the
NCAA's rules require an NCAA sanction for all meets in which
AAU and must in addition comply with any USTFF requirement
college athletes compete, including open meets sanctioned by AAU.
to compete in such events.
The promoter of a meet, in order to obtain an NCAA sanction, must
meet NCAA rules pertaining to many matters which AAU under-
The MacArthur plan preserved the necessary modicum of peace
takes to scrutinize. The NCAA rules also stipulate that a college
through the 1964 Olympiad. There was immediate dispute about its
athlete who participates in an open meet not sanctioned by NCAA
meaning, however, and after the Olympiad the parties returned to boy-
shall forfeit his collegiate eligibility. Obviously, these rules can be-
cotts and counter-boycotts in pursuit of selfish advantage.
and they have sometimes been- used as a means of controlling under-
In 1965, for example, AAU refused to allow NCAA sanction for
graduate athletes for NCAA's purposes, and thus as a weapon for
the San Diego tryouts for a U.S. team to compete in Russia. NCAA,
increasing NCAA's power.
in retaliation, banned student athletes from the meet, and threatened
USTFF also engages in sanctioning, but in this proceeding it
them with ineligibility for intercollegiate competion and loss of
has confined itself to the argument that the AAU sanctioning rules
athletic scholarships. AAU, on its part, threatened athletes with
attempt to create an illegal and undesirable monopoly. USTFF's
ineligibility for AAU and international competition if they took part
position is essentially that it and its affiliated organizations have the
)
in USTFF meets without AAU sanction. The result of the action of
right to conduct and sanction domestic competition without AAU
both organizations was injury to the individual atheletes they sought
sanction and without endangering the eligibility of the participating
)
to use as pawns, and interference with the effort to field successful
athletes for subsequent competition in AAU-sponsored and inter-
U. S. teams in international competition.
national meets.
On September 4, 1965, Senator Magnuson, Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Commerce arranged the following moratorium
until the Board of Arbitration rendered a decision:
22
23
(a) An immediate and general amnesty shall be granted to
NEED FOR A SINGLE ORGANIZATION
all individuals, institutions, and organizations affected by this
dispute in any amateur sport.
The members of the Sports Arbitration Board unanimously agree
that the formation of a single organization for the government and
(b) Any disciplinary action proposed or pending against
promotion of track and field sports would be of immeasurable benefit
individuals, institutions, and organizations for reasons related to
to millions of young men and women. Its formation would also
such dispute shall be suspended.
advance the national interest in the success of U. S. teams in inter-
(c) Any discrimination against the full use of all available
national competition. We were all impressed by the fact that the
facilities and athletes for scheduled meets and tournaments shall
opportunities for development of track and field sports are SO great
be discontinued.
as to leave more than enough vital work for all interested persons and
organizations, if they will stop fighting among themselves and turn
Unfortunately, the moratorium did not halt the aggression.
to the job to be done.
NCAA, USTFF and AAU have each read the moratorium in the way
Such an organization, combining warring factions, could be estab-
that would promote its selfish interest. Each has acted upon its
lished in a number of ways. AAU could serve the purpose, if it
unilateral interpretation and then charged the other party with
were reorganized to give NCAA and other collegiate organizations
violating the moratorium by following a contrary view. Each party
a much larger voice in the government of AAU-merited by their
thus deliberately pursued a course which it knew constituted con-
major contribution of athletes and facilities-and if provisions were
tinuance of the warfare the moratorium was intended to stop. The
made for the representation of NFTA clubs. USTFF could be recon-
Board of Arbitration sought to arrange a modus vivendi for meeting
stituted as the vehicle. An entirely new federation could be estab-
the problem of sanctioning pending a final decision: USTFF, without
lished, either as an independent organization or as an affiliate of AAU
prejudice to its claim that no AAU sanctions are required, was to
with guaranteed autonomy.
make a purely formal request for AAU sanction; AAU would be
The Sports Arbitration Board explored some of these alternatives
required, without prejudice to any claim of a right to supervision,
with the parties, but the effort to work out such an agreement was
to grant the sanction automatically without any conditions. USTFF
invariably blocked by either AAU or NCAA and USTFF. AAU
persisted in proceeding unilaterally in deliberate disregard of the
would not consider any organization outside AAU on any terms.
Board's request. As a result, AAU never had occasion to acknowl-
NCAA and USTFF would not consider any solution within AAU
edge whether a purely formal request for a sanction would be suffi-
on any terms. In consequence of this organizational pride, millions
cient. Both sides often took unilateral action which they knew the
of athletes are the losers.
other would regard as a violation of the moratorium without giving
It is impossible to set up a new organization by decision of this
notice of the problem far enough in advance to solve it, and without
Board-or by legislation-unless the parties are willing to cooperate
trying to carry out the spirit of the moratorium by finding a tempor-
in making the organization a success. Cooperation is indispensable in
ary compromise accommodation.
setting up the organization because the arrangements must reach down
to the regional and local level throughout the nation. No board could
work out all the local details without the active assistance of all
parties. That kind of cooperation cannot be commanded. Nor could
this board provide a method of financing such an organization. With-
25
24
out money obviously it could not operate. Furthermore, whatever
the appropriate U.S. governing body, therefore, for all international
blueprints were drawn, any of the major parties could easily prevent
purposes.
There is no difficulty in identifying what is international whenever
them from operating successfully.
Until the parties change their attitude, therefore, an interim
athletes from two or more countries are involved. Plainly, any entry
of U. S. athletes in foreign meets is international. So is any U. S.
method of accommodation must be found.
meet in which one or more foreign athletes participates, unless he is
representing a U. S. college at which he is a student, subject also to
DECISION
the existing practice under which a single event may be sanctioned
We find that a fair and equitable framework would have three
instead of the entire meet.
These considerations require acceptance of the following prin-
parts:
ciples:
-A statement of fundamental principles defining the jurisdiction
of each of the major parties and imposing safeguards against
(a) AAU is the sole sanctioning and governing authority for
international competition.
abuse.
(b) AAU sanction is therefore required for meets in which
-Machinery for final and binding decisions upon all questions
athletes from other countries participate.
concerning the interpretation, application, or alleged violation
of the principles, in advance of reprisals.
(c) U. S. athletes participating in such meets must therefor
be registered or certified under AAU rules.
-A forum for discussing and resolving by agreement between the
organizations other matters of mutual concern.
2. Open Domestic Competition
There are aspects of domestic competition in which AAU, as the
A. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
sole governing authority for international competition, has a legiti-
mate interest. Practically every athlete at the least aspires to be and,
1. International Competition
if still young, may well become an international competitor. The
There is clear need for U.S. interests to speak with one voice in
conditions under which any athlete runs and the competitors against
the international aspects of track and field competition. None of the
whom he ru... in meets long prior to becoming an international com-
rival U. S. organizations really questions the need. International
petitor may have important bearing upon his eligibility, especially his
bodies and foreign organizations on their part naturally look to a
amateur status. Practically every meet, therefore, contains some
single U. S. organization to handle our part in all international com-
competitor of potential international status; and this makes it neces-
petition, and also to be ultimately responsible for matters of actual
sary, with respect to the entire meet, to have assurance that interna-
or potential international significance in the conduct of U. S. com-
tional requirements for protecting eligibility are satisfied. There is
petition.
also need for a continuous central record showing that the conditions
AAU is presently the sole sanctioning and governing body for the
under which open meets were conducted, were checked at the time and
international aspects of U. S. track and field sports, under the rules
actually did satisfy international requirements. Only thus, if a ques-
of the IAAF. Its status. as such, is not in dispute in this proceeding,
tion is raised later, can satisfactory assurances be made.
although the scope of its legitimate international concern was debated.
Since AAU is the governing body for these international purposes,
AAU is a member of the U. S. Olympic Committee. AAU is plainly
it must also have the responsibility for validating world records set
26
27
in domestic meets. This function also entitles AAU to assurance
about the conditions under which the claimed record was set. In addi-
Accordingly, the resolution of the controversy requires drawing a
tion, it is obviously desirable* to have a single organization serve as
workable line between the international and "record-keeping" functions
the "keeper" of standards and records for domestic as well as inter-
of AAU, on the one hand, and the domestic freedom of NCAA, USTFF
national competition. Since AAU must perform these functions for
and other organizations, on the other hand. Next, there must be a work-
international purposes, it should also perform them for domestic
able delegation enabling AAU to assure itself on the standards essen-
records.
tial to its limited responsibilities but also giving other domestic organi-
AAU is not entitled for this reason to be, or to claim to be, the
zations dignity and freedom of operation. The exact boundary between
sole governing body for domestic competition. No law grants AAU
what has potential significance for international purposes and what is
that authority. Neither IAAF nor any other international body could
purely domestic may have to be worked out by the process of case by
confer it, even if one tried.
case decision by the Coordinating Committee described below, but the
From a purely domestic standpoint, no organization is entitled,
essential points are clear:
legally or morally, to a monopoly of track and field athletes, of their
(1) Matters pertaining to amateurism have international sig-
dues, or of the conduct of the administration of track and field meets.
nificance in the case not only of athletes who are already of inter-
Congress has granted no monopoly. Monopoly is against the spirit
national stature but of athletes who may rise to that level.
of our institutions. There is more to be done in promoting track and
field competition than all the organizations now active are able to
(2) Matters pertaining to qualification as a world record have
accomplish. The opportunities are vividly illustrated by the rapid
international significance.
growth of track and field clubs not affiliated with AAU and based upon
(3) The restrictions on the use of the word "Olympic" serve
academic facilities.
international purposes.
For AAU to attempt to use its international position in order to
(4) The existing AAU requirement that the promoter recog-
boost its control over purely domestic aspects of competition would,
nize AAU as the "sole governing body" goes beyond any legitimate
therefore, be an abuse of power.
international purpose unless qualified by the words "for interna-
AAU is not required, in carrying out its international functions,
tional purposes," as does the requirement against accepting any
to run or supervise every track and field meet in the United States.
Indeed, AAU has recognized this for years. It permits closed meets
other sanction, because those conditions might be taken to apply
to purely domestic matters.
to be run without any sanetion because presumably it is satisfied that
the organization that will run or supervise the meet will make sure
(5) Acceptance of an AAU sanction for international and
that the appropriate standards of international competition will be
record-keeping purposes should not bind the promoter to confine
maintained. In effect, AAU thereby delegates to such organization
a domestic meet to AAU members.
its responsibility for maintaining international standards of competi-
(6) Although athletes participating in international meets (or
tion subject, of course, to its right to review any action it believes
international events) may be required to join AAU as heretofore,
improper.
and to subject themselves to AAU discipline for international pur-
Delegation, with appropriate safeguards, is entirely practicable,
poses, the necessity of applying for, or acceptance of, membership,
therefore, in the case of open domestic meets; and it would reduce any
would not bar membership in other domestic organizations.
risk of AAU's undertaking to supervise the total conduct of domestic
meets.
(7) No fee may be charged for the sanction required for inter-
national and record-keeping purposes beyond that necessary to
cover the cost.
28
29
The foregoing considerations lead to the principles stated imme-
meets in which an undergraduate competes, his educational welfare
diately below and to part of the delegation of functions described in
may also be affected by some of the conditions of competition. So may
section 4.
his future eligibility for intercollegiate competition.
(a) USTFF may supervise and conduct purely domestic
Many colleges and universities have established NCAA to exer-
open track and field meets without interference, except as AAU
cise this function on their behalf. The need is far from clear, since
sanction is required to protect the interests of the U. S. and its
the individual college and coach must always approve a student's par-
athletes in present and future eligibility for international competi-
ticipation; and surely they know much more about an individual
tion and to validate international and domestic records.
student's situation than NCAA officials. Still, if the colleges and uni-
(b) Athletes shall not be declared ineligible for AAU member-
versities desire this further check, we see no reason why their wish
ship or AAU competition by reason of membership in a USTFF
should not be respected, provided that NCAA sincerely confines itself
affiliated organization or participation in USTFF meets conducted
to educational functions.
in accordance with this Statement of Principles.
What NCAA has occasion to approve is not the open meet,
which may be held without students, but the participation of under-
(e) Athletes shall not be declared ineligible for membership
graduate athletes. This was the ruling of General MacArthur. We
in a USTFF affiliated organization or for USTFF competition by
find it eminently sound. For this reason, and also because it pro-
reason of AAU membership or participation in AAU meets con-
motes confusion, the use of the term "sanction" is to be avoided.
ducted in accordance with this Statement of Principles.
NCAA's function in this respect is roughly parallel to the function
(d) The interests of U. S. athletes and the United States re-
of AAU in respect to the international aspects of domestic competi-
quire general recognition of the ultimate responsibility of AAU
tion: it is valuable within its sphere, but it must be confined to its
for all those aspects of domestic competition which have substantial
sphere and not be used as a weapon for enhancing NCAA's power or
international significance, either actual or potential.
the power of other organizations outside the educational area. Here,
too, the line between the aspects of meets with which NCAA has a
(c) An AAU sanction for international purposes and to pro-
vide for the validation of records is required for all open meets.
justifiable educational concern and the aspects outside its proper pur-
view must be left to case by case decision by the Coordinating Com-
(f) The AAU sanction required for international purposes
mittee.
shall be granted, without conditions other than the pay of a fee
Accordingly, we lay down the following principles:
covering cost, for any domestic meet conducted by a responsible
(a) The interest of colleges and universities in the educa-
organization, including USTFF, if the meet satisfies the require-
ments necessary to validate records and protect the eligibility of
tional welfare of students and their eligibility for intercollegiate
sports requires recognition of the responsibility of NCAA to its
the participants for future international competition.
members for assuring them that the open domestic meets in which
3. Undergraduate Athletes in Open Meets
their students participate are conducted under conditions con-
sistent with their educational welfare and the protection of eligi-
The demand for student athletes to participate in open track and
bility for intercollegiate sports.
field competition could easily overwhelm their educational welfare. Al-
though the problem would seem to be primarily one of the number of
(b) NCAA may require a meet promoter to obtain its
approval of the participation of undergraduate athletes before
permitting any such athletes to participate therein.
30
31
(c) The use of the power to withhold approval as a lever for
It is also appropriate for AAU to request full reports concerning
exercising supervision over other aspects of meets, or as a means
the conduct of meets for which its sanction for international purposes
of reprisal against any organization, is prohibted.
is obtained, in substantially the form in which AAU-sanctioned meets
4. Mutual Delegation of Operating Responsibility
presently report. This would enable AAU to verify the manner in
which USTFF was performing its operative duties.
Under the IAAF rules AAU is responsible for the international
The situation of NCAA and AAU in relation to the educational
aspects of track and field competition in the United States. We do
welfare of undergraduate students is similar to that of AAU and
not believe that IAAF would wish to dictate the manner in which
USTFF in respect to the international aspects of domestic meets.
AAU carries out the responsibility-against the wishes of AAU and
AAU has presumptive capability to see that any meets which it holds
other U. S. organizations-provided that AAU retains the final
or to which it gives a general sanction, are properly conducted from
responsibility. The present practice of defining some meets as
the standpoint of undergraduates' educational welfare and intercol-
"closed" even though athletes of international calibre compete therein
legiate eligibility, if undergraduates are to compete. Accordingly,
-intercollegiate meets, for example-is actually a form of delegation
AAU should be understood to undertake this operative responsibility,
of operative responsibility. Accordingly, we see no reason why AAU
whenever it requests NCAA to grant its approval for undergraduates
may not delegate to a reliable organization the power to act for it
to compete; and NCAA should grant the approval immediately unless
with respect to the international aspects of domestic meets, provided
it has specific reason to believe that educational requirements will not
that AAU retains the ultimate responsibility.
be met. In the latter event it should take the matter up with the
The ability of USTFF to conduct track and field meets in accord-
Coordinating Committee as provided below.
ance with all requirements necessary to protect the eligibility of
It is appropriate for NCAA to request relevant reports concern-
competitors for future international competition and to qualify per-
ing the conduct of meets for which its educational approval has been
formances for world and U. S. records cannot be seriously questioned
obtained.
once the idea is abandoned that no one can be eligible who takes part
In making these two related determinations we are not unmindful
in any open domestic meet, held under USTFF sanction, with some
that AAU has argued that it could not trust the capacity and reliabil-
competitors who are not members of AAU. USTFF is equally able
ity of USTFF to see that IAAF standards were maintained, just as
to hold up to international standards the promoters of any domestic
NCAA has said that it could not in good conscience rely upon the
meets it undertakes to sanction.
competence of AAU to protect the educational welfare of students.
Accordingly, we conclude that a USTFF request for AAU to
Each side has gone too far to be persuasive in casting aspersions upon
sanction a domestic meet for international purposes would import
the other, while protesting its own absolute innocence and altruism.
USTFF's promise to see that all international requirements are met,
The procedure we establish allows both NCAA and AAU to take the
including protection of the amateur status of the athletes and also all
matter up in the Coordinating Committee if either has specific reason
standards necessary to validate a record if approval of a record may
to believe that any meet may not satisfy the appropriate standards.
be sought. AAU should grant its sanction upon such a request from
The failure of USTFF or AAU to carry out its obligations in respect
USTFF unless it has specific reason to believe that the international
to any meet would also be an appropriate subject for action of the
or "record-keeping" requirements will be violated. If AAU has
Coordinating Committee. The reports that are required would pro-
reason for such a belief, it should take the matter np with the Co-
vide a further check. These safeguards give goth AAU and NCAA
ordinating Committee as provided below.
ample assurance that the requirements they are respectively charged
with policing will actually be observed.
33
32
Today, an increasing number of undergraduate athletes go on to
The Coordinating Committee should also consider whether
graduate school. There, they continue to look to university or college
arrangements cannot be worked out for granting USTFF national
coaches and facilities for continuing their athletic activities. An
meets the AAU sanctions on an annual basis, and AAU national meets
increasing proportion of the facilities available for training. and com-
annual NCAA approval of student participation.
petition are educational. Under these circumstances it is reasonable
Thus, we arrive at the following additional principles:
to extend the "closed" concept to the fringe groups mentioned below,
(a) AAU, while retaining ultimate responsibility, should rec-
when they are training and competing under substantially the same
ognize the presumptive competence of USTFF to ensure that any
conditions and supervision as prior to graduation and during the
open domestic meets USTFF conducts, or sanctions for domestic
school year. If the coaches and athletic directors can be trusted to
purposes, will be conducted in such a manner as to satisfy any
act responsibly in relation to undergraduate competition, they can be
requirements of international significance including those relevant
expected to be equally responsible in relation to graduate students.
to amateur status and other requirements of eligibility or the
The MacArthur ruling is direct precedent for this conclusion.
validation of records, if approval of a record may be sought. In
We have carefully considered whether this extension of the cate-
such cases, AAU should promptly either grant its sanction upon
gory of closed meets should be limited to students at educational
request or else take the matter up with the Coordinating Com-
institutions which certify their willingness to assume responsibility
mittee.
for the amateurism and conduct of graduate students and students in
the summer or between terms. At this stage the requirement seems
(b) NCAA, while retaining ultimate responsibility, should
likely to produce a volume of paper-work and confusion quite dispro-
recognize the presumptive competence of AAU to ensure that
portionate to its value. Should evidence of carelessness or deliberate
any mect AAU conducts, or sanctions for domestic as well as
abuse should develop, the Coordinating Committee can impose the
international purposes, will be conducted in such a manner as to
condition as a method of applying the requirement that the meets, in
safeguard the educational interests of undergraduates with which
order to be closed, must be "conducted in accordance with the rules of
NCAA is charged and to protect their eligibility for intercollegiate
amateurism and other proper standards."
competition. In such cases, NCAA should promptly either grant
In refusing to expand the definition of closed competition to
its approval for the participation of undergraduates or else take
include all USTFF meets we are influenced by two considerations:
the matter up with the Coordinating Committee.
First, USTFF opens its meets to all amateurs without regard to class
or category. Second, as a leading college coach and executive of
5. Closed Competition
the U. S. Track Coaches Association wrote the Arbitration Board,
The principle of treating certain kinds of competition as "closed"
"it seems logical" that there should be "some method of restriction of
(i.e. as not requiring AAU sanction). is well established. Competition
out-of-school athletes." Although he proposed that "when a boy gradu-
confined to the Armed Forces is one example. Undergraduate inter-
ates from an institution he be allowed to run with the Federation
collegiate competition is another.
[USTFF] for one more year", we believe it more logical to draw the
The willingness of AAU to treat intercollegiate competition as
line in terms of full time study and athletic activities based on the
closed very properly acknowledges the ability of the coaches and
coaching and facilities of a bona fide educational institution.
athletic directors to conduct competition in accordance with the high
We express these points in the following principles:
standards set by AAU.
(a) Domestic meets confined to "students" whose athletic
activities are based upon the coaching and facilities of a bona
34
35
fide educational institution, when conducted in accordance with
partisan members. If they disagree, the Vice President of the
the rules of amateurism and other proper standards shall be
United States would be requested to make the designation.
treated as "closed" Imeets in accordance with present AAU rules
The expenses should be divided evenly between the two sides.
and practices.
The use of grievance and arbitration machinery such as we pro-
(b) The term "students" means full-time undergraduate
pose is a thoroughly-tested method of resolving differences between
students, full-time graduate students, full-time students between
rival organizations as they arise under on-going agreements. Notable
terms and in vacation or summer recess, and full-time students
examples are the "no raiding" agreement between international labor
in the summer between high school and college, regardless of
organizations and also the construction industry's National Joint
whether the student is representing the institution.
Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. Experience
shows that a very high percentage of the problems that arise between
organizations operating in the same areas can be amicably settled
B. COORDINATING COMMITTEE
between the parties' own representatives if they commit themselves
Honest adherence to the Statement of Principles should be enough
to a rational discussion without unilateral action or reprisals. The
to avoid any major conflicts between the parties, but minor differences
problems of third party decision are no more difficult here than under
are bound to arise involving questions of interpretation and applica-
countless successful arbitration agreements.
tion, alleged violations, and details of implementation. Such disputes,
There can be no serious doubt of the power of any of the organi-
if left unresolved, could easily produce a new outbreak of controversy.
zations to enter into an arbitration agreement covering only disputes
The first requirement, therefore, is that such differences be taken
concerning the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of basic
up promptly between the organizations affected in advance of action.
principles which it has already accepted. Under such circumstances,
There should be a regular forum and procedure for the settle-
the agreement to arbitrate merely substitutes a prompter, more flex-
ment of such disputes. We propose the establishment of a Coordinat-
ible and less formal remedy for the cumbersome process of enforce-
ing Committee for this purpose, with equal representation of AAU
ment by litigation in the courts. If there is any impediment in IAAF
and NAIA, on one side, and NCAA and USTFF, on the other. In
rules, we have not the slightest doubt that it would be waived upon the
fact, the parties agreed to this during the hearings. The membership
earnest request of AAU accompanied by the explanation that the
ought to be as constant as possible in order to preserve continuity of
arrangement was necessary to terminate damaging warfare between
understanding but recognizing the difficulties of ensuring regular
sports organizations in the United States.
attendance we provide that members may be changed from time to
These arrangements should be incorporated in the following rules:
time by designation of the organizations.
1. Any difference or dispute between the parties involving
Decisions would be taken by majority vote, but since the partisan
the interpretation, application, or violation of the foregoing State-
members may be evenly divided, there should be a neutral chairman
ment of Principles shall be referred to a Coordinating Committee
with power to cast the deciding vote on all questions concerning the
for a final and binding decision.
interpretation, application, or alleged violation of the Statement of
Principles. The neutral chairman should be permanent so that he may
2. (a) The Coordinating 'Committee shall consist of eight
gain familiarity with the problems of track and field sports organiza-
partisan members and an impartial permanent chairman.
tion; and also so that he may be quickly available whenever a differ-
(b) The partisan members may be changed from time to time.
ence arises. Preferrably he would be chosen by agreement of the
Four shall be designated by AAU and NAIA. Four shall be desig-
nated by NCAA and USTFF.
36
37
(c) The permanent chairman shall be named by a majority
The permanent chairman should preside and participate in the
of the eight partisan members or, if there is no majority, by the
discussions but should not have power to decide disputes unless they
Vice President of the United States.
involve the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of the
3. Decisions of the Coordinating Committee shall be taken
Statement of Principles-or unless the parties agree, in the particular
by a majority of the partisan members present and voting but, if
instance, to be bound by his decision. It would be unfair, now, to give
the partisan members are evenly divided, the permanent chairman
the permanent chairman the power legally to bind any party over
shall render the decision.
some unknown future dispute whose character is uncertain and for
which no governing standards like those in the Statement of Principles
4. A decision of the Coordinating Committee shall be final
can be established in advance.
and binding, and enforcible by judicial action to the fullest extent
There is no serious risk to any party, however, in giving the per-
permitted by law.
manent chairman power to break a tie vote upon any question con-
5. There shall be no resort to unilateral action or other self-
cerning the committee's own procedure. Indeed, this is necessary to
help against alleged violations of obligations under the Statement
obviate the risk that the partisan members may become SO deadlocked
of Principles without prior sanction of the Coordinating Com-
upon their own procedure as never to get to the merits.
mittee.
In addition, the permanent chairman should be authorized to par-
ticipate in the discussion and make recommendations for the disposi-
tion of any matter upon which the partisan members are equally
C. OTHER DISPUTES
divided. This procedure has several advantages. It puts pressure on
the parties to support their positions by fact and reason. It brings a
Although the Statement of Principles covers the critical issues on
fresh mind, and possibly constructive suggestions, to the disposition
which the parties focussed the discussion before the Board of Arbitra-
of the matter. It provides a focus for public opinion, which may then
tion, there are many other differences: for example, the scheduling of
force settlement of a controversy injurious to individual athletes and
meets, the selection of coaches for U. S. teams, the issuance of invita-
the national interest. At the same time, the parties would retain the
tions to participate in international competition, the promotion of
protection against egregious error in a legally-binding disposition of
medical studies, etc. Such matters cannot be resolved by a single
their rights.
determination, nor can general principles be found to govern their
Accordingly, there should be acceptance of the following commit-
decision.
ments:
Such problems have festered in the past because of the basic lack
of cooperation between the organizations, and also because the lack of
1. The organizations will make an earnest effort to adjust
a regular forum in which to discuss and resolve operating differences.
any other difference or disagreement of any character in the
Acceptance of the principles stated above will limit the jurisdictional
Coordinating Committee without aggression or reprisals.
warfare. The Coordinating Committee would provide a continuing
2. The Coordinating Committee may render a final and bind-
forum for the discussion and resolution of differences upon any matter
ing decision by vote of a majority of the partisan members.
pertaining to track and field sports which any of the parties wishes to
discuss with the others. Most of the differences can be resolved, as
3. The permanent chairman may preside at such meetings,
they arise, by a sincere effort to find mutually acceptable accommoda-
participate in the discussion, and vote on questions concerning
tions.
procedure in the Committee. The permanent chairman, in his
38
39
discretion, may make public recommendations on substantive ques-
tions but, unless they arise under the Statement of Principles, he
G. CONCLUSION
may not vote.
The welfare of millions of fine young athletes demands an imme-
diate end of the mutual aggressions and reprisals of NCAA-USTFF
D. DURATION
and AAU. Each has been treating fine young athletes as pawns in a
Our decision supplies a modus vivendi designed to enable rival
struggle for power, and then blaming the fault on the other.
organizations to operate in peace. Circumstances may change. One
The national interest of the United States also requires an end of
may hope that, after a period of peace, the parties will join into an
the warfare. Our national prestige is damaged when quarrels, uni-
unified organization needed for the fullest development of track and
lateral aggression, and boyeotts prevent our entering our finest
field competition. Accordingly, these determinations should not be
athletes in international competition. An Olympic year is now begin-
ning. It would be intolerable for the internecine warfare to continue.
binding into the indefinite future.
At the same time, the track and field athletes of the United States
In this decision we have stated principles and proposed the estab-
must be given relief against the early renewal of this dispute and the
lishment of disputes procedures which would halt the aggression and
principles and disputes machinery should be followed long enough to
reprisals. Changes and alternatives might be proposed. Possibly
test their validity. An Olympic year is just beginning. A five year
another plan would be better. But the time for argument has ended-
period would carry through the next Olympiad in 1972. Accordingly,
like the time for organizational warfare that injures the athletes and
the principles and disputes machinery are made binding through
the national interest. The plan here proposed is fair to both sides.
December 31, 1972, and from year to year thereafter, unless notice of
It does not interfere with the vital functions of any organization. It
can be carried out without sacrificing any legitimate aspirations.
a desire to terminate is given prior to November 1.
Accordingly, WC call upon NCAA. USTFF. AAU and NAIA to
Accordingly, we decide that:
accede to the Statement of Principles and Disputes Procedure herein
1. The foregoing Statement of Principles and disputes procedure
set forth. Ratification by the appropriate governing bodies may take
are to be effective immediately upon notification by AAU, NCAA,
some weeks. The President of each organization. therefore, should
USTFF and NAIA to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
notify the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, on or
of the United States Senate, and shall continue in force through
before February 10. 1968-
December 31, 1972, and from year to year thereafter unless one of the
(a) whether he unconditionally accepts the statement of
four organizations gives notice prior to November 1 of a desire to
Principles and Disputes Procedure to the extent of his power. and
terminate at the end of that calendar year.
will recommend unconditional acceptance to the appropriate gov-
erning bodies. and
E. AMNESTY
(b) whether his organization will comply therewith pending
1. Complete amnesty shall be granted individuals affected by this
action by its governing bodies. provided the other organizations
give the same undertaking.
dispute.
2. The Coordinating Committee, with the permanent chairman
There can be no doubt of the power of all four organizations to
voting to break any tie, shall have power to resolve disputes over
accede to this program. We perceive no problem under IAAF rules;
amnesty.
40
41
but, even if there were a technical difficulty, no one can seriously doubt
SUMMARY OF DECISION OF SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD
the power of AAU to have it removed by sincere effort, or even to go
forward independently. No.do we see any impediment for NCAA
The following six point program is the core of the decision of the
or AAU.
Sports Arbitration Board on the AAU-NCAA dispute:
The only question, therefore, is whether the men ultimately
responsible for these organizations-including the Presidents of the
1. International Competition
colleges and universities-are ready to see that the welfare of the
(a) AAU is the sole sanetioning and governing authority for
individuals who engage in athletics is put ahead of organizational
international competition.
ambitions.
(b) AAU sanction is therefore required for meets in which ath-
SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD by
letes from other countries participate.
THEODORE W. KHEEL
(c) U. S. athletes participating in such meets must therefore be
Theodore W. Kheel
registered or certified under AAU rules.
Chairman
2. Closed Competition
ARCHIBALD Cox
(a) Domestic meets confined among full-time students, whose
Archibald Cox
athletic activities are based upon the coaching and facilities of a bona
Member
fide educational institution, are to be considered closed competition.
"Students" includes undergraduate students, graduate students, and
RALPH H. METCALFE
students between terms or in vacation or the summer between school
and college.
Ralph H. Metcalfe
Member
(b) Other meets conducted by USTFF are open meets.
THOMAS VAIL
3. Open Domestic Competition
Thomas Vail
(a) AAU's status as the sole governing body for international
Member
purposes cammins ultimate responsibility for the international aspects
of domestic competition. Since every open domestic meet has aspects
of potential international significance (such as the maintenance of
conditions necessary to protect the future amateur status and eligibil-
ity of competitors for international competition and to validate
international records). open domestic meets require an AAU sanetion
under carefully limited and confined conditions.
(b) Since AAU has the responsibility for international records,
it should also have the responsibility for maintaining and validating
domestic records.
42
43
(c) An AAU sanction, for these purposes, must be granted, with-
6. Other Disputes
out further conditions, where the promoter satisfies requirements
necessary: (i) to protect the amateur status and eligibility of athletes
(a) Other disagreements among the organizations will be referred
for international competition; (ii) to validate international and
to the Coordinating Committee, which may render a final and binding
domestic records; and (iii) to satisfy other international requirements.
decision by majority vote of the partisan members.
(d) A USTFF sanction is to be accepted as presumptive evidence
(b) The impartial chairman will preside and may make recom-
that a meet will be so conducted.
mendations to the parties upon such matters, but may not vote except
upon a question of procedure.
(e) AAU is not entitled to be, or claim to be, sole governing body
for domestic purposes. Both AAU and USTFF may conduct and
7. Duration
sanction open domestic meets subject to the rules set forth above.
(a) The arrangement is to be binding for five years.
4. Undergraduate Athletes in Open Meets
(a) NCAA's approval of those aspects of an open meet which
are directly relevant to the educational welfare of undergraduate
students may be required for the participation of undergraduate
students enrolled at member institutions.
THEODORE W. KHEEL
(b) NCAA's approval of the participation of students must be
Chairman
granted, without further conditions, where the promoter satisfies the
requirements necessary to the welfare of undergraduate students.
ARCHIBALD Cox
Member
(c) An AAU sanction is to be accepted as presumptive evidence
RALPH H. METCALFE
that a meet will be SO conducted.
Member
THOMAS VAIL
5. Coordinating Committee-Disputes over Interpretation
Member
(a) A Coordinating Committee is established with equal numbers
of AAU-NAIA and NCAA-USTFF members, and an impartial per-
Sports Arbitration Panel
manent chairman.
(b) The Coordinating Committee will have power, by majority
vote, to render a final and binding decision in disputes over the
interpretation, application, or alleged violation of these rules. If the
partisan members are equally divided, the permanent chairman will
cast the deciding vote.