Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1686713",
    "label": "Olympics",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1686713"
}

{
    "id": "1686713",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1686713",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Olympics",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1686713",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Vice Presidential Papers",
        "Paul Miltich's Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Olympics",
        "Recreation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0023/578918/1686713.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0023/578918/1686713.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0023/578918/1686713.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1686713",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0023/578918/1686713.pdf",
    "mediaId": "e653181c7d8d75f9",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 154, folder \"Paul Miltich Subject File,\n1973-74. Olympics\" of the Gerald R. Ford Vice Presidential Papers at the Gerald R.\nFord Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 154 of the Gerald R. Ford Vice Presidential Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nThe National Collegiate Athletic Association\nExecutive Offices\nMidland Building\nKansas City, Missouri 64105\n(816) 474-4600\nPresident\nExecutive Director\nSecretary-Treasurer\nEARL M. RAMER\nWALTER BYERS\nSAMUEL E. BARNES\nUniversity of Tennessee\nDistrict of Columbia Teachers College\nKnoxville, Tennessee 37916\nWashington, D.C. 20009\nDecember 4, 1972\nThe Honorable Gerald R. Ford\nRoom H-230\nCannon House Office Building\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nDear Congressman Ford:\nThe NCAA recently withdrew from the United States Olympic\nCommittee, calling for a restructuring of a new Olympic\norganization under the mandate of a Federal charter.\nWe thought you might be interested in the enclosed history.\nThe chronology focuses on several of the problems at issue.\nWe are forwarding the report to you so you may have readily\navailable the information contained therein if Congress\ndecides to take an active interest in this matter.\nBest wishes.\nSincerely,\nCarl Mama\nEarl M. Ramer\nEMR:11\nEnclosure\nUNITED STATES\nOLYMPIC\nCRISIS\ne\nTHE PROBLEM\nTHAT WON'T\nGO AWAY\nCOLUMBIATE\nNATIONAL\nA HISTORICAL OVERVIEW\nof\nThe United States Olympic Committee\nby\nThe National Collegiate Athletic Association's\nInternational Relations Committee\nNovember 24, 1972\nKansas City, Missouri\nA HISTORICAL OVERVIEW\nIt is impractical to record herein the entire his-\npart in games open to amateurs sponsored by the\ntory of sport in the United States. Dr. A. W. Flath\nUniversity of Pennsylvania under NAAAA rules,\nPREFACE\ndid an excellent job in his doctoral dissertation,\ncharging that the colleges should control their\nbacked by extensive research. His work can be re-\nown athletics, but when they planned to hold\nferred to as a primary source for the early history.\nopen meets, these should be held under the rules\nThe Council of the National Collegiate Athletic\nteur sports and our nation.\nParts are summarized to give background for the\nof those who control other than the colleges.\"\nAssociation voted October 25, 1972, to withdraw\nA surprising amount of information on this\npresent evaluation.\n(Ibid.)\nas a member of the United States Olympic Com-\ngeneral subject has been written by a multitude of\nqualified experts in the field of sports. Only a brief\nEarly History of Amateur Athletics (to 1869)\nThe ICAAAA resigned from the NAAAA and\nmittee, effective immediately. Its action was based\njoined the AAU. Ineligible athletes' penalties were\nupon the unanimous recommendation of the NCAA\nsummary can be useful in this assessment, but a\nIn the struggle for survival and statehood,\nremitted, and by the summ er of 1889, being\nInternational Relations Committee.\nsubstantial bibliography is available to confirm the\nthere was little opportunity for sport when our\nstripped of its power and support, the NAAAA\nThis decision was the result of more than 10\nstatements contained herein.\nnation was being settled. In the early 1800s,\ndisbanded.\nyears of intensive effort to obtain a reorganization\nThrough all the information, patterns of action\npublic education was extended from elementary\nof the U.S. Olympic apparatus because of the\nand the positions of the various parties clearly\nand secondary education to the establishment of\nOn March 19, 1891, a reorganization changed\nemerge. These should be carefully considered in\nstate universities by federal assistance of grants\nthe AAU from a union of individual clubs to a\nNCAA's conviction that the present U.S. Olympic\nof land. However, private institutions provided the\nunion of district associations. The AAU claimed\norganization does not serve the needs of the ath-\ndetermining the future methods of obtaining the\nlete, amateur sports or the national interest.\nfirst trace of athletics. Forms of football, basket-\njurisdiction over 23 sports.\nvalid and necessary goals we seek.\nA similar proposal to withdraw was before the\nball, boat racing and footracing appeared on cam-\nDuring its early years, the AAU claimed juris-\nThe following fundamental truths serve as the\npuses, with the first intercollegiate boat race be-\ndiction over all college sports, but by 1899 it\n1965-66 NCAA Council, but at that time the\nbasis of our goals:\nCouncil decided to continue to pursue negotiations\ntween Yale and Harvard in 1852.\nhad dropped claim to jurisdiction over football,\nwithin the U.S. Olympic framework in seeking ap-\n1. We believe that participation in sports com-\nThe development of amateur athletics took\nsoccer, basketball and rowing while retaining\npropriate restructuring and reorganization. Such\npetition to attain and inspire excellence in hu-\nplace rapidly following the Civil War with the\ncontrol over track and field, lacrosse and basket-\nnegotiations not only have proved fruitless; the in-\nman skill and performance is highly beneficial\norganization of many athletic clubs. Purses and\nball. This list of sports has changed many times\nterests of the NCAA and the school-college com-\nto individuals and society.\nbetting soon evolved. The clubs defined \"amateurs\"\nthrough the years, but track and field has re-\nmunity have been further subjugated to the point\n2. Olympic competition represents a worth-\nand tried to control their contests by establishing\nmained the flagship of AAU activities.\nthat recent USOC legislation, in effect, has been\nwhile opportunity in certain sports to create a\nrules to restrict professionals from their competi-\nExpansion of College Sports (1894)\nan invitation for the NCAA not to participate\npeak of achievement, good both for individual\ntion. The date of April 22, 1879, marked the origin\nCollegiate sports changed rapidly from inter-\nfurther in USOC proceedings.\nand for national incentives.\nof the National Association of Amateur Athletics\nclass rivalries and challenge games to inter-\nThis pointed USOC rejection of the colleges' in-\n3. Each citizen should be willing to assist the\nof America and the collapse of the National Ath-\ncollege competition. Following student control,\nterests is difficult to understand, but the issue is\nUnited States in attaining the best possible Olym-\nletic Association following the defection of the\nalumni came prominently into positions of spon-\nclear and we will not accept membership in the\nNew York Athletic Club. (Kowgaard, \"A History\npic showing and performance, within the rules.\nsorship and control. Abuses developed so faculty\nUSOC as it is now constituted. As an organization,\nof the Amateur Athletic Union of the United\n4. Organizations and individuals in the United\nand administrations took interest, resulting in in-\nthe NCAA will not contribute to or support the\nStates,\" unpublished dissertation. Teachers Col-\nStates should subordinate their jurisdictional am-\nstitutional and conference controls being applied.\nprogram of the USOC. Each member of the NCAA\nlege, Columbia.) A college Rowing Association was\nand the staff members and student-athletes of\nbitions and personal self-interests to the overall\nformed in 1870 and the Intercollegiate Association\nThe Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Confer-\neach member, of course, are free to determine\ninterest of our national Olympic movement. They\nof Amateur Athletes of America was formed in\nence started in 1894; the Intercollegiate Confer-\ntheir own policies and positions in light of the\nshould be willing to contribute at all appropriate\n1875 by 10 colleges to conduct a track and field\nence (Big Ten) in 1895. New emphasis was\nrecord of the United States Olympic organization.\nlevels available, for the overall benefit of the\nmeet. \"The beginning of amateur athletic control\nplaced on identifying and defining amateurism.\nUnited States achievement.\nhad been established.\" (Ibid.)\nIn measuring the wisdom of the NCAA's posi-\nThe Revival of the Olympic Games (1896)\ntion, and in determining their own future policies\n5. Persons with policy-making and administra-\nThe Establishment of the Amateur\nTo counteract the professionalism and com-\nin these matters, NCAA members, other institu-\ntive responsibilities in amateur sports should ful-\nAthletic Union (1888)\nmercialism that threatened to dominate athletic\ntions and organizations, former and current ama-\nfill their obligation to obtain for the United States\nThe New York Athletic Club withdrew its\ncompetition, Baron Coubertin was able to organ-\nteur athletes and other concerned individuals gen-\nthe best possible organization to produce competi-\ntors who will properly represent our country in a\nsupport of the NAAAA in 1886 and joined other\nize the revival of the Olympic games for Athens,\nerally are invited to review this record.\nclubs to form the Amateur Athletic Union of the\nGreece, in 1896.\nHistory is important for purposes of making a\nmanner befitting United States prestige.\nUnited States on January 21, 1888. A struggle\nThe first United States Olympic team of 1896\nvalid assessment, of measuring progress or re-\n6. None of these aims should be sought by un-\nfor control ensued, marked by \"the AAU Board\nwas organized largely through the efforts of Pro-\ntardation. It seems appropriate at this time to\nethical or unsportsmanlike conduct and all should\nof Governors passing a resolution that barred\nfessor William B. Sloane, a Princeton historian;\nappraise the past, consider current developments\nbe attained in accordance with the fairest moral\nany amateur athlete from competition in any\nJames E. Sullivan of the AAU, and Arthur Burn-\nand determine anew the course of action which is\nprinciples of our democracy and sports traditions.\ngames under the rules of the AAU if they com-\nham of the Boston Athletic Association. The\nmost desirable in advancing the worthwhile and\nNCAA COUNCIL\npeted in open games in the United States not\nteam was made up of athletic club and collegiate\nlegitimate interests of the student-athlete, ama-\nEarl m. Ramer\ngoverned by the rules of the AAU. These actions\nathletes. The BAA sent five participants, four\nby the AAU were designed to create a boycott\nPrinceton athletes led by Robert Garrett financed\nNovember 24, 1972\nEarl M. Ramer, President\nof the NAAAA and other organizations by the\ntheir own trip and the Suffolk Athletic Club sent\nathletes who had to choose between competition\none athlete, James B. Connelly. The U.S. was\nunder AAU or under 'outlaw' rules.\" (Ibid.)\nsuccessful in track and field.\n\"Early in 1889 the Amateur Athletic Union de-\nIn 1900 at Paris, the 55-member U.S. team that\nclared athletes under their control would not take\nwon was mostly from colleges, with a few un-\n5\nattached athletes. The winning team at St. Louis\nground management, YMCAs, Boy's Clubs, Turn-\nmal schools, high schools, turners, Young\nof Athletic Research Society,\" 1914)\nin 1904 was composed of athletic club members,\nvereins, Rural Boy Scouts, Foundations in Play)\nMen's Christian Associations, etc., have gone\nThe AAU and the NCAA agreed on a definition\nmostly from New York, Chicago and Milwaukee.\nformed the National Federated Committee to im-\nthroughout\nthe land carrying with them\nof an amateur, but the opposition of the AAU\nThe first team selected by the American Olympic\nplement the solutions of the Research Society.\nthe principles of amateurism and clean sports\ncurtailed the forming of a National Federation,\nCommittee was in 1906 and financed by its solicita-\nH. F. Kallenberg, in the American Physical\nFurthermore, these organizations are\nand World War I stopped consideration of it.\ntions. The 35 members were concentrated in the\nEducation Review of June 1912, summarized the\ngrappling with problems in the administra-\ntrack and field competition where they were suc-\nfeelings of those who formed the new federation.\ntion of athletics, working out their own sal-\nAAU Control of U.S. Olympic Committees\ncessful, but the U.S. was not diversified in the\nHe felt there was need for cooperation among\nvation and setting up new and high standards\n(1908-1922)\nother sports, and France won the most medals.\nthe various sports bodies but that this coopera-\nwithout any help from the Amateur Athletic\nThe 1908 Olympic games were marked by bitter\nThe AAU had been the only athletic body in ex-\ntion could not be brought about under the leader-\nUnion. Therefore, when these organizations\ndisputes between the AAU and the British Olym-\nistence to play the major part in planning and\nship of the Amateur Athletic Union:\nare requested to become members of, or affili-\npic officials, causing Baron de Coubertin to make a\nconducting United States participation.\nated with, the Union, they naturally ask,\nspecial plea for efficient administration of the\n\"First, the Amateur Athletic Union in-\nThe Formation of the National Collegiate\n'Why should we become members or regis-\n1912 games in Sweden. The 1912 games were suc-\nsists it is the only national controlling body\nAthletic Association (1905)\nter with the Amateur Athletic Union?'\ncessful in this respect except for the AAU officials'\nfor athletics in this country in spite of the\nThe necessity for change in the football rules\n\"Fourth, practically 85 per cent of the gym-\nmistake in permitting Jim Thorpe to be eligible.\nfact it has a membership of only 538 clubs\n\"On December 12, 1918, a meeting was held of\nrecognized by President Theodore Roosevelt in\nand a registration of only 18,861 individuals\nnasiums, athletic fields and swimming pools\n1905 brought about a meeting of interested col-\n(the Federation in Chicago, Philadelphia,\nare controlled by the organizations that are\nthe former members of the Olympic Committee,\nleges, and 38 colleges and universities initially\nand North Eastern Pennsylvania alone have\nindependent of the Amateur Athletic Union.\nwhose members had originally been appointed to\nratified the constitution of the Intercollegiate\nbetween 400 and 500 units representing\nWith these same organizations are many\nmembership and offices entirely at the discretion\nAthletic Association, whose name was changed\nmore than 20,000 individuals). The Amateur\ntrained physical directors and teachers, giv-\nof James E. Sullivan, who served as Secretary\nto the National Collegiate Athletic Association in\nAthletic Union therefore declares that every\ning much time and thought to educational\nuntil his death in 1914. They had operated with\n1910. Faculty control was emphasized, and the\n'open' meet (one in which a college and a\nathletics. The large bulk of men and boys of\nno constitution, by-laws or rules of procedure.\"\nfirst President, Palmer E. Pierce of the U.S. Mili-\nYMCA or turner, etc., compete) must be\nathletic age are also connected with organiza-\n(Dr. Flath, \"History of Relations Between NCAA\ntary Academy, stated at the first convention, De-\nsanctioned by the Union, otherwise every\ntions outside the Amateur Athletic Union.\"\nand AAU, 1905-1963\")\ncember 28, 1907:\nathlete who takes part will lose his amateur\nAt this meeting, it was decided to form a con-\nKallenberg concluded his summation by saying\nstanding\ntinuing committee representative of the various\n\"The purpose of this association is, as set\nthat \"for the colleges, turners, playgrounds, etc.,\n\"This unfortunate autocratic position of\norganizations interested in Olympic games, and\nforth in its constitution, the regulation and\nto accept the Amateur Athletic Union as the na-\nthe Amateur Athletic Union will never bring\ninvitations were tendered to chosen groups. The\nsupervision of college athletics throughout\ntional controlling body would mean the adoption of\nthe athletic forces together under its banner.\n1920 U.S. Olympic team was nominated and se-\nthe United States, in order that the athletic\na viewpoint wholly out of sympathy with the gen-\nWhile the Union's system of registrations\nlected by the same few men appointed by this\nactivities in the colleges and universities\neral policy and objectives of these organizations.\"\nand sanctions may do for the unattached\norganization.\nmay be maintained on an ethical plane in\nThe Cook County Amateur Athletic Federation\nathletes and athletic clubs, clubs organized\nCharges and complaints concerning the manage-\nkeeping with the dignity and the high pur-\nwas formed in 1911 allowing various organizations\nprimarily for some one branch of athletics,\nment and arrangements for the 1920 games were\npose of education. All institutions enrolled\nto have representation for mutual administration\nit is a system which will not be accepted by\nSO damaging that a \"complete reorganization\" was\nas members agree to take control of student\nbut responsible for its own athletics. The AAU\npermanent organizations\nwhich\nconduct\ncalled for, and the NCAA, on December 29, 1920,\nathletic sport SO far as may be necessary to\nreferred to the Cook County Federation members\nathletics as one of many other activities. It\nadopted \"a resolution favoring the organization of\nmaintain in them a high standard of per-\nas \"outlaws\" (Henry Kallenberg, \"Who is to Con-\nmust be remembered that the Amateur Ath-\nan Olympic Association, to be made up of bodies\nsonal honor, eligibility and fair play, and\ntract Athletes,\" American Physical Education Re-\nletic Union's system was developed to meet\nlike this that have to do with participation in the\nto remedy whatever abuses may exist.\"\nview, 1912), and threatened to suspend any indi-\nthe problems presented by athletic clubs and\nOlympic games,\" and requested President Pierce\n(NCAA Proceedings, January, 1909)\nvidual who participated in a Federation meet as\nunattached athletes.\nto use his influence to carry this resolution\nan official or as an athlete.\nEarly Attempts at a Federation for Amateur\n\"Second, we do know that the average\nthrough. (Proceedings of the 15th annual NCAA\nIn his presidential address before the Athletic\nAthletics (1906-1920)\nathletic club does little or nothing in the way\nConvention)\nResearch Society in 1914, W. P. Bowen said:\nAfter formation in 1906, the Intercollegiate\nof promoting the educational view of ath-\n\"A new organization for the control of sport is\nGeneral Pierce conscientiously followed this di-\nAthletic Association soon had problems in bas-\nletics. The prime object of these clubs seems\nmade necessary by its enormous growth in new\nrective.\nketball and baseball where the AAU claimed\nto be to corral all the 'star' athletes in order\nfields. In addition to the athletic clubs, which were\nOn February 5, 1921, the American Olympic\njurisdiction.\nto beat some other club, win a meet and fur-\nthe only promotors of sport when the AAU was\nCommittee accepted a report of its Reorganization\nDissatisfaction with the AAU's handling of\nnish a spectacle.\nformed, it is now being fostered and encouraged\nCommittee, drawn up in the home of President\nthe registration requirement led the colleges to\n\"This viewpoint of the Amateur Athletic\neverywhere\nand since unity is important in\nGustavus Kirby, giving a preponderance of votes\npublish their own basketball rules independent of\nUnion\nis wholly at variance with the\nsuch a field there is need for a democratic organi-\nto the AAU.\nAAU control.\ntrend in educational institutions, turners,\nzation in which all the interests will be repre-\n\"At a meeting of the Reorganization Committee\nIn 1907 and subsequent years, representatives\nYoung Men's Christian Associations, play-\nsented. Cooperation by all is essential; any at-\non May 4, 1921, a majority of the committee de-\nof various organizations met and formed the\ngrounds, etc., which is toward a scheme of\ntempt on the part of one interest to dictate to all\ncided to reduce the number of invited delegates\nAthletic Research Society to discuss problems in\nathletics which will not serve expert per-\nthe others or to monopolize control, is like all other\nof the NCAA to three from 16, over the protest\nathletic administration, difficulties encountered in\nformers, but will also interest and stimulate\nschemes in the interest of one class, distinctive\nof General Pierce that such action was beyond the\ninter-institutional competition and such changes\nevery man and boy of athletic age to take\nof best results, and in the end suicidal for the\npower of the Reorganization Committee.\" (Dr.\nin athletic control as might seem desirable.\npart in wholesome competition.\ngroup attempting it. The study thus far points to\nFlath, \"History of Relations Between NCAA and\nIn 1911, this group (composed principally of col-\n\"Third, during the past 15 years thousands\nsome form of federation as a kind of organization\nAAU, 1905-1963\")\nleges, public high schools, elementary schools,\nof individuals who have come in touch with\nsuited to American ideals of government and to\nExcerpts from a letter General Pierce sent to\nnormal schools, private secondary schools, play-\namateur sports in universities, colleges, nor-\nthe need of the situation.\" (Bower, \"Proceedings\nPresident Kirby of the American Olympic Com-\n6\n7\nmittee appeared in the New York Times on May\nform of management. Second, that this Associa-\ning and opposition came from the AAU delegates\n\"It is my belief that the AAU cannot suc-\n24, 1921:\ntion favors the idea of the organization of a Na-\nsince they felt the power of the AAU as governing\nceed in its efforts to perpetuate its system of\n\"The whole effort seems to bind all the or-\ntional Amateur Athletic Federation.\" (Dr. Flath,\nbody would thus be curbed.\ncontrol upon amateur sports. It is un-Ameri-\nganizations concerned to a constitution and\n\"History of Relations Between the NCAA and\nOn January 26, 1924, President Pierce of the\ncan and out-of-date. It places responsibility\nby-laws formulated for them by this subcom-\nAAU, 1905-1963\")\nNCAA renewed the charge that the AAU was\nfor amateurism on the individual instead of\nmittee, instead of calling together a confer-\nThe Army, Navy and YMCA also did not join\ntrying to use the Olympic Games as a means for\non the organization he may represent. The\nence and simply furnishing it with a basis\nthe American Olympic Association.\nthe arbitrary control of sports under its jurisdic-\nathletics of the United States have become\nfor work, the conference itself, after a full\nThe National Amateur Athletic Federation was\ntion, and that the AAU was making an effort to\ntoo well and completely organized to make it\nand free discussion, to come to a conclusion\nformed in 1922 (New York Times, Sept. 1, 1922)\ngain absolute control of all matters connected with\nnecessary or desirable that every athlete\nas to the best organization of an Olympic\nand expressed a willingness to join the Olympic\nAmerican participation in the Olympic Games.\nshould be required by the order of a foreign\nAssociation.\nAssociation, believing the Federation should have\n(New York Times, Jan. 27, 1924)\norganization (the IAAF) to sign a registra-\n\"The attitude of the Committee on Reorga-\nequal voting power with the Amateur Athletic\nHe brought out that the AAU engaged in foster-\ntion card and pay a fee to the AAU before\nnization, and the steps it has taken are such\nUnion and the principle of jurisdiction, which the\ning an international sports federation, which enun-\nhe can compete for the Olympic games\nthat the National Collegiate Athletic Asso-\nAAU claimed over sports in the United States,\nciated a rule that \"no amateur athlete can com-\n\"It is recommended that the National Col-\nciation feels that it is for the best interests\nshould be removed.\npete in any foreign country without a certificate\nlegiate Athletic Association resign from the\nof amateur sport in the United States, and\nIn answering the NAAF, President William\nfrom the sports-governing body of his own coun-\nAmerican Olympic Association, that a state-\nespecially for the best interests of intercol-\nProut of the Amateur Athletic Union replied that\ntry of that particular sport in which he wishes to\nment be prepared and published as to the rea-\nlegiate sport, that it withdraw from the pres-\n\"the NAAF proposals not only would eliminate\nengage.\" (Proceedings of 1925 NCAA Conven-\nsons for doing so, that a copy be forwarded\nent movement to organize an American Olym-\nthe Amateur Athletic Union as a sports governing\ntion)\nto the Amateur Athletic Union and that this\npic Association\nIf the National Collegiate\nbody, but would kill practically every similar or-\nUnder Colonel Thompson, the handling of the\nlatter organization be informed that the col-\nAthletic Association, the undergraduates of\nganization in the country.\"\n1924 Olympic Games was smooth and satisfactory.\nleges of this country once again deny its au-\nthe members of which number 350,000, is\nAt this point, the respected Colonel Robert\nMajor John L. Griffith, who became well known\nthority in any way to control the participation\nprevented from exerting an influence in the\nThompson, then president of the American Olym-\nas Big Ten Conference commissioner, pointed out\nof their undergraduates in intercollegiate\nselection of the contestants for the Olympic\npic Association, approved voting changes which al-\nthat 94 per cent of the points scored by the U.S.\nathletics, here or abroad.\"\ngames, their managers and trainers, and the\nlowed the NCAA, Army, Navy and YMCA to\nOlympic team were scored by athletes trained and\nMajor Griffith presented the reasons for with-\nconduct and control of the contests, and in-\nwithdraw their resignations and be represented\ndeveloped by the colleges.\ndrawal as follows:\nfluence commensurate with its position in\nwith more appropriate share.\nThere was a slight lull in the dispute in 1925,\n\"1. Because the constitution of the Olympic\namateur sport, it is much better that it should\nbut the struggle flared again in 1926, harder than\nremain independent.\"\nMore Differences (1924-26)\nAssociation was SO changed at the meeting in\never. The AAU refused to stop the athletic clubs\nSoon Charles Paddock, competing in University\nWashington last month as to deprive the na-\nPierce added that he hoped for one of two solu-\nfrom approaching undergraduates during the col-\ngames conducted by the YMCA in Paris without\ntional organization that composed the feder-\ntions to the problem:\nlege semesters to join their athletic teams, show-\napproval of the AAU, was declared ineligible with\nation of any influence in relation to America's\ning little, if any, regard for the educational pro-\n\"First, the organization of an American\nother competitors for the tryouts for the U.S.\npart in the Olympic games and place the con-\ngram. At the 1926 quadrennial meeting of the\nOlympic Association that would be really\nOlympic team in 1924.\nAmerican Olympic Association, the AAU bloc\ntrol in the hands of one member of the Olym-\nThe NCAA stated the case involved \"whether\npic Association, the Amateur Athletic Union.\nrepresentative of all interests concerned, or\nvoting dominated the issues and elected the for-\nsecond, the taking over of the entire responsi-\nor not the colleges have to request authority of\nmer President of the AAU, William Prout.\n\"2. Because the centralization of control in\nbility for the proper conducting of the Olym-\nany super-organization to enter the intercollegiate\nThe New York Times said, \"The AAU is right\nthe hands of the A.A.U. restored an unsatis-\npic Games by the Amateur Athletic Union.\"\nathletic competition in this or any other country\"\nback in the saddle where it was years ago when\nfactory situation that the American Olympic\nOf the two solutions suggested, Pierce felt the\nand \"whether or not all amateur athletes of good\nthe late James E. Sullivan ruled it (U.S. Olympic\nAssociation was organized to correct.\nfirst was the more desirable, but, if that couldn't\ncharacter who are citizens of the United States\norganization) with a firm hand.\" (Dr. Flath,\n\"3. Because the constitutional changes en-\nbe accomplished, then the Amateur Athletic Union\nand have never represented another country are\n\"History of Relations Between NCAA and AAU,\ngineered by the A.A.U. representatives\nshould be given charge of the American Olympic\neligible to enter our Olympic tryouts.\" (Dr. Flath,\n1905-1963\")\nchanged the basis of participation upon which\neffort.\n\"History of Relations Between the NCAA and\nThe NAAF, the Navy, YMCA, and the NCAA\nthe colleges, the Y.M.C.A. and the Army and\nAAU, 1905-1963\")\nwithdrew from the American Olympic Associa-\nNavy joined the Olympic Association in\nGeneral Pierce made strenuous attempts to\nbroaden the scope of the U.S. Olympic Committee,\nAt the December 28, 1923, NCAA meeting, the\ntion.\n1921.\" (Presented at 1926 NCAA Convention)\nNCAA stated its policy \"that American colleges\nGeneral MacArthur (1928)\nbut Secretary Rubien of the AAU opposed and re-\nGeneral Pierce said, in part:\nand universities reserve the right to determine the\n\"I agree with the expressed opinion that\nThe situation changed after the death of Presi-\nfused to attend a meeting. Subsequently, Secretary\neligibility of their students to compete in the in-\nof War John Weeks proposed a National Federa-\nthe only participants in Olympic games of\ndent Prout in 1927. General MacArthur was elect-\ntercollegiate athletic meets in this country and\ntion, which was first applauded by Olympic Presi-\nwhich the United States has reason to feel\ned President of the American Olympic Associa-\nelsewhere. The NCAA recognizes the American\ndent Kirby, but later was defeated at a meeting of\nproud were those of 1912 and 1924, both under\ntion. He was able to get the defected organizations\nOlympic Association as having complete jurisdic-\nthe Olympic Association, attributed to the voting\nthe fine leadership of Colonel Robert M.\nto rejoin in the interest of unity and amity for the\ntion over all matters pertaining to representatives\nThompson. Now that the AAU has assumed\n1928 Olympic games.\nen masse of the AAU opposing it. (New York\nof the United States in the Olympic Games.\" (Pro-\nTimes, Nov. 26, 1921)\ncomplete responsibility again, the outlook is\nOn April 16, 1928, Big Ten Commissioner Grif-\nceedings of NCAA Convention, January 1924)\nThe NCAA at its 16th annual meeting, Decem-\nfar from promising. Since the NCAA is in\nfith suggested that a representative American\nAt the subsequent American Olympic Associa-\nber 1921, passed the following resolution proposed\nsuch a helpless minority, it seems to me the\nOlympic Association be organized to take control\ntion meeting, the NCAA and NAAF failed in an\nin General Pierce's report:\npart of wisdom to withdraw entirely from ad-\nof America's Olympic effort \"and end the domina-\neffort to have certification of the amateur and\nministrative participation. Whether or not it\ntion of the Amateur Athletic Union over Ameri-\n\"First, that the National Collegiate Athletic As-\ncitizenship status of all athletes taken from the\nshould assume anything more than a 'watch-\ncan amateur athletics.\" (Dr. Flath, \"History of\nsociation does not accept the invitation to join the\nhands of the various governing bodies and placed\nful waiting' attitude depends upon develop-\nRelations Between NCAA and AAU, 1905-1963,\"\nAmerican Olympic Association under its present\nin the hands of the Olympic Committee. Bloc vot-\nments\np. 156)\n8\n9\nCommissioner Griffith went on to charge the\nand obtained an equal number of games commit-\ngeographical spread in reference to assign-\nwith certain countries regarding proposed in-\nAAU with being an organization of \"cheap poli-\ntee members for the NCAA and AAU in the sports\nment.\" (NCAA Yearbook, 1955-56)\nternational meets and has failed to develop\nticians\" who had gained control \"over the best ele-\nof men's track, men's swimming, boxing, wres-\nAt Melbourne, Australia, in 1956, the USSR\nexchange programs between the U.S. and\nments of our athletic public by intimidation.\" The\ntling, men's gymnastics, basketball, ice hockey and\nwon more medals than the U.S.\nother countries.\n\"intimidation\" Griffith claimed was the threat of\nfield handball, with an extra member appointed by\nAccumulated Grievances (1954-1960)\n6. AAU track meets often are poorly man-\ndisbarment of athletes competing in an amateur\nthe President of the U.S. Olympic Association.\n(New York Times, Nov. 18, 1937)\nAlthough not publicized, a number of incidents\naged and many times incompetent officials are\nevent not under an AAU sanction. He also char-\nand an accumulation of complaints were growing\nused.\nacterized Olympic managers, officials and com-\nAfter World War II, at the January 1946 con-\nmitteemen as \"henchmen of the AAU.\"\nduring the 1950s against the AAU's administra-\n7. Poor planning has been exhibited by the\nvention, NCAA President Wilbur C. Smith re-\ntion of amateur sports and its cavalier attitude in\nAAU in preparing teams for foreign competi-\nFollowing the 1928 Olympic Games, where Gen-\nported:\ndomineering Olympic matters.\ntion. Practice sites and schedules as well as\neral MacArthur put down all complaints, he stated\n\"The relations of the NCAA and the Olym-\nin his report:\nIn the frustrating sessions of the USOC Exe-\ntravel accommodations are open to criticism.\npics have evolved through a curious history\ncutive Board in 1958-59, the NCAA strongly ad-\n8. The AAU has shown no special regard\n\"The complicated chancellories of American\nresulting in a situation which saw the NCAA\nvocated rotation of Board members and members\nfor the welfare and treatment of foreign ath-\nsport-I may even say international sports\nin the sports under its cognizance, providing\nof Games Committees to obtain new ideas and pos-\nletes visiting the United States.\nas well-are even more intricate perhaps than\nU.S. Olympic personnel to as high as 90 per\nsibly relieve the situation of personal animosities.\n9. The AAU has failed to coordinate and\npolitical chancellories. To abstain from the\ncent as well as financial support to a large de-\nconflicting interests of various sports bodies\ngree, but with scarcely more than nominal\nThe only way rotation could be approved in 1958\nprocess efficiently applications for U.S. and\nand yet to demand of all support for the Olym-\nrepresentation on the Olympic Association\nwas by making an agreement that the rule would\nworld records.\npic movement has been a problem which at\nwhich governs American Olympic affairs.\"\nnot be retroactive, SO that the incumbent AAU\nIn January, 1960 the NCAA amended its defini-\nmembers would not rotate off for another eight\ntimes appeared insurmountable. It is my most\n(NCAA Yearbook, 1945)\ntion of an amateur to emphasize that scholarship-\nearnest recommendation that within a few\nyears. Seeing that this was the only way the ob-\naid granted to students, who were also athletes,\nAs a result of this agitation, Kenneth L. (Tug)\nmonths an athletic congress be called, under\njective could be attained, the NCAA members ac-\nwould not be misunderstood by Avery Brundage\nWilson, successor to Major Griffith as Big Ten\nthe auspice of the American Olympic Associ-\ncepted this AAU provision, and agreement was\nor his AAU colleagues. (NCAA Yearbook, 1959-\ncommissioner, was appointed Vice-President and\nation, of all amateur sports associations in the\nmade. (USOC Minutes, 1958) This rule was sub-\n60)\nAsa S. Bushnell, commissioner of the Eastern Col-\nUnited States, attended by the leading ath-\nsequently rescinded by an AAU-led clique before\nThe AAU wrecked the tour of the Swedish Na-\nlege Athletic Conference, was appointed Secretary\nletic figures of America, wherein the various\nit could affect any of the incumbents.\ntional Basketball team by threatening suspension\nof the U.S. Olympic Association.\nathletic problems that have been agitating the\nThe NCAA also proposed a development pro-\nof eligibility in the winter of 1959-60 if it played\nIn the 1948 Olympic Games, the U.S. was suc-\nnation during the immediate past shall be\ngram, and it was authorized under the Chairman-\na number of college teams. (AAU Magazine, Vol.\ncessful and relationships fairly harmonious except\nthoroughly discussed without crimination or\nship of Thomas J. Hamilton, with equal member-\n30, January 1960) This imposition of monopo-\nfor Avery Brundage, former AAU president who\nrecrimination and policies and standards fixed\nship from AAU and the NCAA, and one other\nlistic control over college activities was unaccept-\nhad taken over as president of the U.S. Olympic\nSO definitely as to thoroughly chart the course\nmember, General O'Donnell of the Air Force. The\nable.\nAssociation, expressing his belief that \"college ath-\nof American athletics for the immediate fu-\nprogram made progress, but was kept under con-\nFurther, the need for improvement of the Olym-\nletes who receive scholarships because of their\nture.\" (Dr. Flath, \"History of Relations Be-\nstant harassment, delays and opposition from\npic organization was felt keenly, SO the NCAA\nability in sports become, in fact, professionals.\"\ntween NCAA and AAU, 1905-1963\")\nAAU personnel.\ntook action. At the 1959 NCAA Convention, a\n(New York Times, Dec. 12, 1949)\nBasic grievances as compiled by the NCAA in-\nresolution was passed and transmitted to the\nPresident Pierce of the NCAA pointed out that\nThe 1952 Olympic Games in Finland were the\ncluded:\nOlympic Association President that the NCAA\nthe selection of competitors, coaches and managers\nfirst in which the Soviet Union competed. The\n1. The major point of dissension is the dic-\nrecommended and would support efforts to attain\nof the 1928 Olympic team was not conducted in\nRussians showed immediately that they would\ntatorial attitude of the AAU with reference to\nimproved Olympic teams.\naccordance with Article 2 of the American Olym-\nchallenge U.S. domination.\nestablished policy in sports in which it is the\nThe NCAA cancelled the Articles of Agreement\npic Association constitution. He said the Olympic\nWillis O. Hunter, athletic director of the Uni-\ninternational representative. The AAU ap-\nTrack and Field team had been selected as a part\nwith the AAU in April 1960 and announced it\nversity of Southern California and chairman of\npears to disregard the suggestion of others\nof the National Championship of the AAU con-\nwould not honor any suspensions imposed on col-\nthe NCAA Olympic Committee, told the 1956\nwithout considering the sport itself; its de-\nducted by the AAU Track and Field Committee.\nlege students by the AAU. (New York Times,\nNCAA convention:\ncisions too often have been based upon self-\nHe also pointed out AAU discrepancies in regis-\nApril 27, 1960)\n\"A large majority of participants of the\ninterests of the organization or the individ-\ntration.\nU.S. Olympic teams in the various sports\nNew Negotiations (1960-1961)\nuals involved.\nQuiet Period Before the Storm\nschedules are either undergraduates or gradu-\n2. Complaints registered with the AAU are\nThe NCAA Executive Committee made a formal\n(1929-1954)\nates training under their former collegiate\nnot investigated, whether they be justified or\nrequest to the President of the U.S. Olympic Com-\nPresident Avery Brundage of the AAU was suc-\ncoaches. A majority of the U.S. Olympic team\nunjustified. Requests by athletes for hearings\nmittee to undertake a complete review of the or-\ncessful, following the 1928 Olympics, in amending\ncoaches are also NCAA personnel. Therefore,\nhave been ignored; institutional requests for\nganization and operations. The NCAA asked the\nregistration procedures to the general satisfaction\nit is only fitting that the NCAA member in-\nhearings on suspensions have gone unan-\nUSOC to correct several weaknesses that were\nof both the NCAA and the AAU. Also, the Ameri-\nstitutions assume a large share in raising\nswered.\ndamaging to the Olympic movement and a deter-\ncan Olympic Association was reorganized in 1930\nfunds to finance our Olympic teams.\n3. Athletes and coaches have been denied\nrent to the U.S. fielding its best teams.\nwith votes assigned to organizations within five\n\"Bearing these facts in mind, the NCAA\nforeign trips when such denial would better\nA special committee for AAU and Olympic re-\nclassifications. An executive committee and games\nOlympic Committee feels that for future\nsuit the purpose of the AAU. Invitations to\nlations was appointed with Wilbur C. Johns, ath-\ncommittees with more equal representation\nOlympiads an important function of the\nathletes have been withheld when foreign\nletic director of UCLA, as chairman.\nbrought peace for a time. It was culminated in an\nNCAA Olympic Committee will be the fur-\nparticipation would have prevented the same\nThe Committee was organized to meet with a\nAlliance agreement being signed between the\ntherance of NCAA interest in the U.S. Olym-\nathletes from competing in an AAU event.\nsimilar committee of the AAU to resolve differ-\nNCAA and the AAU.\npic Games Committees and administrative\n4. The AAU has neglected the vital area of\nences and negotiate a new Articles of Alliance.\nFollowing the 1936 Olympic Games, John L.\nstaff, consistent with NCAA policy. It is our\nresearch.\nThe Committee met with the AAU group on June\nGriffith, then president of the NCAA, advocated\nthought that there should be rotation, and a\n5. The AAU has even failed to correspond\n4-5, 1960, and it was agreed the NCAA should\n10\n11\nwrite and transmit its proposals. This was done.\nleast equal representation in the organization\nSpecial NCAA Committee was as follows:\nOlympic administration and sports planning.\nUnrest among the gymnastics and basketball\nSO designated. (Development and support, as\n\"The NCAA Executive Committee be in-\nThis was accomplished by solid bloc voting\ncoaches was prevalent. With urging from the Na-\nused in this context, means specifically: teach-\nformed that (1) negotiations with the AAU\nof AAU for fear that the high schools would\ntional Association of Basketball Coaches, the Na-\ning, coaching, acquiring facilities, arranging\nrepresentatives are discontinued, (2) the\nside with the colleges and give us a few more\ntional Basketball Committee of the United States\ncompetition schedules, recruiting candidates,\nArticles of Alliance between NCAA and AAU\nvotes. Instead of getting into some of the\n(primarily a rules-making body) met and decided\nstimulating interest of participants and spec-\nhave been dissolved and no new articles have\npolitical overtones concerning all three amend-\nto seek recognition as the U.S. governing body in\ntators, promoting National and International\nbeen approved, (3) we recommend to the\nments, I think you should concentrate on the\nbasketball, supplanting the AAU. Edward Steitz,\ncompetition.)\nNCAA Executive Committee that the NCAA\nrejection of the amendment to give the high\nof Springfield College, NBC representative, made\n\"(d) That definite steps must be taken to\nlend all its effort to bring about the formation\nschools representation on the Olympic games\nthe presentation at Rome, but was preemptorily\nbreak the 'strangle hold' of the AAU, if the\nof new organizations to represent the U.S. in\ncommittees. It was proposed to give the high\ndismissed by Bill Greim, AAU representative, who\nNCAA is to acquire its rightful place in In-\nbasketball and gymnastics to the Interna-\nschools one representative on 15 Olympic\nwas president of FIBA, the international govern-\nternational representation, particularly in\ntional Federations, (4) the Committee be-\nGames committees, which ranged in size from\ning body for basketball.\nthose Olympic sports which are completely\nlieves the new organizations must be truly\nseven to 22 people, and to give the high\nAt this time, the AAU paid the Swedish Ama-\ndominated by NCAA athletes.\nrepresentative of the amateur sports inter-\nschools two representatives on one commit-\nteur Basketball Federation $7,000, and arranged\nests of the U.S. (historically these have been\ntee (swimming) composed of 20 people.\n\"(e) That the AAU has shamefully neg-\nanother tour in 1961-62 of eight to 10 games to al-\nlected to explore and foster International\nhigh schools, colleges, armed services, YMCA\n\"Statement: It seems tragic that the\nleviate its past error. FIBA appointed Lou Wilkie,\ncompetition in many Olympic sports, and as a\nand AAU), (5) the position of the NCAA is\nUnited States Olympic organization would\nAAU, to convene a meeting of all basketball in-\nresult of this neglect, our Olympic team repre-\nthat we need different representation in cer-\nreject the high schools' request to have token\nterests in the U.S. to solve the internal dispute.\nsentatives are at a great disadvantage.\ntain other sports in the International Federa-\nrepresentation on 16 Olympic sports com-\nTrack, basketball and gymnastics coaches be-\ntions, and we recommend a committee be\nmittees. This comes at an unfortunate time\ncame aroused and requested separate Federations\n\"(f) That one of the primary problems is\nappointed to study and determine those sports\nwhen President Kennedy's youth fitness pro-\nbe formed in their respective sports.\nthe self-serving interests of the AAU leader-\nneeding a revision of representation, and (6)\ngram is appealing to our school system to\nship and their unwillingness to evaluate the\nwe recommend that this committee be dis-\nWilbur Johns' Committee on AAU and Olympics\nstimulate and encourage sports participation.\nmerits of any suggested changes.\nmet with the officers of the USOC and the AAU\ncharged.\"\nThe Olympic movement, chartered by Act of\nCommittee on December 15-16, 1960. Proposals\n\"(g) That positive steps must be taken by\nOn a separate front, in mid-August 1961, the\nCongress, supposedly stands for all elements\nfor Articles of Alliance and changes in Olympic\nthe NCAA if we expect to bring about these\nU.S. Handball Association terminated its five-year\nof American amateur sports. Certainly the\norganization were discussed. The AAU promised\ndesired changes which we believe will result\nagreement with the AAU. (U.S. Handball Associa-\nhigh schools are an integral part of our sports\nto submit its suggestions in writing to the NCAA\nin general improvement of our competitive\ntion Bulletin, September 8, 1961)\nstructure and have a vital part to play not\nCommittee.\nstrength in International and Olympic com-\nNonetheless, the NCAA Executive Committee\nonly in the early training of potential Olym-\npetition.\nvoted for the Special Committee to meet on Sep-\npic athletes but furthering the basic objec-\nThe AAU did not submit its suggestions as\npromised on February 3, 1961, and was requested\n\"(h) That the U.S. Olympic Association\ntember 15, 1961, with Olympic and AAU repre-\ntives of the fitness movement. I fail to under-\nagain to do this by letter.\norganization is completely outmoded and\nsentatives for a final effort to resolve the ques-\nstand why the Olympic movement would\nJohns' Committee on AAU-Olympic matters met\ntions. This meeting ended in a stalemate with no\nreject, for example, the request that the high\nshould be reorganized SO as to create a vital\nschools have one man on the 22-man track\nagain on May 23-24, 1961, and stated its beliefs\ncontinuing structure. (Reorganization would\nprogress.\nand recommendations:\ninclude Constitution and Olympic Executive\nFormation of Federations (1961-1962)\nand field committee or one representative on\n\"In essence our Committee believes the fol-\nBoard Games Committees, and Coaches' se-\nthe 20-man wrestling committee. This narrow-\nIn Chicago on October 1, 1961, 88 representa-\nness cannot move America forward in the\nlowing:\nlection.)\ntives of many different organizations gathered to\narea of athletics.\"\n\"(i) That Constitutional provision should\nexplore the desirability and feasibility of forming\n\"(a) That the AAU of the United States,\nwhich claims to have been designated the\nbe made to insure a strong and continuing\nnew Federations in several different sports. There\nAnother so-called summit meeting was held in\ndevelopment program.\nwas much interest and approval. Subsequently,\nFebruary 1962, where the AAU again offered to\ngoverning body in nineteen (19) different\nseparate Federations were formed in basketball,\nplace more school and college representatives on\nsports (although their official publication lists\n\"During the February 3 meeting with the\ntrack and field, gymnastics, baseball and wrestling.\nAAU Foreign Relations and Sports Committees,\nonly 14 for which they hold membership in\nAAU officers and after lengthy and detailed\nLon Wilkie, long-time AAU official and FIBA\nbut all merely in a position of recommending to\nan International Federation) is no longer\ndiscussion of the most urgent problems, it be-\nconvener, unsuccessfully attempted to get the\nthe AAU Executive Committee, which would\ntruly representative of all interests in certain\ncame evident that the AAU people were not\nbasketball organizations to accept some new com-\nmaintain the same monopolistic control.\nsports, and is certainly not the best repre-\ninclined to agree to anything unless we were\npromises.\nThe AAU, on the other hand, was invited to at-\nsentative group for NCAA interests in specific\nwilling to 'deal.' They set forth certain pos-\nThe Olympic quadrennial meeting produced no\ntend a meeting of sports organizations to further\nsports.\nsibilities of conceding certain changes in the\nchanges, but track and field, basketball and gym-\nconsider formation of Federations on March 4-6,\n\"(b) That in these specific sports, basket-\narea of International representation, but only\nnastics coaches were further disturbed by the\n1962, in Chicago. The AAU declined.\nball, track and field, gymnastics and swim-\non the basis that the NCAA would immedi-\nfrustrations of politics in games committees. The\nHowever, the Federations came into being with\nming, new organizations are needed as Inter-\nately withdraw support of the National Bas-\nAAU voted down representation by the high\nthe strong support of the greatest participants in\nnational Federation representatives, if the\nketball Committee's effort to be recognized as\nschools in the Olympic organization. NCAA Exec-\nthe various sports. The Basketball Federation was\nbest interests of these sports are to be fur-\nthe United States membership in FIBA, the\nutive Director Walter Byers wired the White\nformed on July 1, 1962; Track and Field Federa-\nthered at home and abroad.\ninternational governing body for basketball.\nHouse, in light of then-President John F. Ken-\ntion on July 24, 1962, and the Gymnastics Federa-\n\"(c) That the organizations which contrib-\nAs chairman of your Committee, I told Mr.\nnedy's announced interest in promoting amateur\ntion on December 8, 1962.\nute most in the development and support of\nBarack that we were not in any position to\nsports, as follows:\nany sport in the United States should be the\nmake such a 'deal.' (Report of Special\nIt is significant that all the Federations urged\nofficially recognized representative to the In-\nNCAA Committee, May 21, 1961)\n\"Background: The U.S. Olympic quadren-\nthe AAU to join and fulfill its role, and suggested\nnial meeting rejected three amendments to\nthe AAU perform most of the administrative\nternational Federations, or should have at\nAction taken at the May 1961 meeting of the\ngive the high schools a voice and vote in\nfunctions for the Federations with adequate com-\n12\n13\npensation. Perhaps the AAU attitude was de-\n\"2. Member colleges should not enter ath-\nAt its January 1963 convention, the NCAA re-\nrotating chairmanship and be em-\nscribed best by Wilbur C. Johns, Chairman of the\nletes or teams in AAU competition unless the\nsolved:\npowered to pass upon the qualifications\nSpecial Committee at the 1962 NCAA Convention,\nevent is sanctioned by the appropriate feder-\n\"1. The members of the Association re-\nand eligibility of every candidate for the\nwhen the Federation concept was approved:\nation. In those AAU sports in which there is\naffirm their full support of the amateur sports\nUnited States Olympic Team of 1964\n\"This was not the Council's intention in\nnot an operating federation, member institu-\nFederations.\nand any matters directly related there-\nApril 1960. It was not your Committee's in-\ntions desiring to enter such AAU events\n\"2. The members of the NCAA will sup-\nto. Any matter on which the board can-\ntention in June 1960; but as time passed, it\nshould enter their athletes unattached.\nport only those meets and tournaments which\nnot reach an agreement shall be re-\nbecame evident to all those intimate with de-\n\"3. Staff personnel of member institutions\nhave obtained sanctions from the established\nferred to me, as arbitrator, with a full\nvelopments that a major reorganization was\nshould withdraw promptly from AAU com-\nsports federations in basketball, track and\nstatement of the divergent views, and\na necessity. In September 1961, during the\nmittees in the sports of basketball, gymnas-\nfield, baseball and gymnastics.\nmy decision shall be final; and\nfourth meeting, your representatives were\ntics and track and field.\n\"3. The member institutions of this associ-\n\"(d) That it be strongly recommended to the\nadvised that the AAU would never relinquish\n\"4. Institutional facilities and equipment\nation will contribute to and participate with\nPresident of the United States that, if\nits exclusive and, in effect, monopolistic con-\nshould be utilized to the maximum to further\nabsolute priority and to the fullest possible\ndesired, following the Olympic Games\ntrol of basketball or any other sport over\nfederation activities; the AAU may enjoy\nextent in the programs of the Federations and\nof 1964, an athletic congress be called\nwhich it held jurisdiction. This propelled the\nthese same privileges and support by entering\nthey will provide competition, coaching per-\nby him, composed of representatives of\nNCAA in the direction of seeking complete\ninto cooperative arrangements with the new\nsonnel and facilities for Federation meets and\nthe athletic groups and associations,\nreorganization.\nfederation.\"\nassist in the Federations' development pro-\nleading sportsmen and sportswomen of\n\"It was felt that new controlling bodies\nFederal Intervention (1962-1963)\ngrams.\" (NCAA Yearbook, 1962-63)\nthe country and such educators and\nshould be organized in the sports of basket-\nAt this time Attorney General Robert Kennedy\nWhereupon Executive Director Hull of the AAU\nwriters as may be engaged in the field\nball, gymnastics and track and field-and we\nexpressed the Federal government's concern and\nbitterly denounced the NCAA's policy program as\nof sports, to devise a permanent plan\ncommitted ourselves to the proposition that\ncalled a meeting in Washington on October 26,\n\"another in the series of the NCAA blackmail tac-\nunder which all organizations dedicated\nno one segment of amateur sports would have\n1962, with representatives of the USOC, AAU,\ntics to destroy the AAU.\" (Dr. Flath, \"History of\nto amateur athletics and all individual\ncontrol of the policy determining organization\nNCAA, Federations, NAIA, YMCA and govern-\nRelations Between NCAA and AAU, 1905-1963\")\nmen and women aspiring to represent\nin the United States.\" (NCAA Yearbook,\nment officials. An agreement was made, but the\nAlthough General MacArthur was not, in fact,\nour country in international games be\n1961-62)\nAAU renounced the \"Washington Alliance\" prior\naccorded arbitration power, he did work out an\nable to pool their resources SO that by a\nWhile dissenting with increasing feeling on the\nto a November 12 meeting called to implement it.\nagreement which he announced January 19, 1963,\nunited effort we may be able success-\nadministration of the Olympics, the NCAA con-\n(Ann Arbor News, Nov. 8, 1962)\nas follows:\nfully to meet the challenge from any\ntinued to fulfill the responsibility it felt for con-\nThe impending AAU-arranged tour of the Rus-\n\"Our purpose here is to devise a means\nnation in the field of athletics and sport.\ntributing as much as possible to the success of the\nsian National Basketball team also was discussed.\nwhereby the American people may be assured\n\"Implementing Agreement:\nUnited States athletic performance, and gave\nThe NCAA decided its athletes might participate\nof a team composed of the finest amateur ath-\n\"The members of the USTFF will restrict\nstrong support to many activities.\nif the Basketball Federation, to which it belonged,\nletic talent in the country to represent the\ntheir activities to enrolled students and the\nDevelopment work was undertaken by various\nwould approve. The AAU refused to request\nUnited States in the 1964 Olympic Games,\norganization will be classified as closed. This\nconferences and regional NCAA members with\nthe sanction, SO the players were not invited, and\nand I am sure that every individual at this\nincludes graduate students, students in the\njunior college and high school cooperation. NCAA\nfor the first time Russia won many of the games.\nconference is equally dedicated to the achieve-\nvacation period between terms, and students\nchampionships were established in soccer, water\nOn November 12, 1962, without a \"Washington\nment of that purpose. Time is of the essence.\nin the summer period between high schools,\npolo and volleyball. The Track and Field Rules\nAlliance\" to implement, negotiations continued.\nWe must accomplish our purpose with a mini-\njunior colleges, colleges or universities. Fur-\nCommittee installed the steeplechase, intermedi-\nThe Attorney General made a late evening appear-\nmum of delay to assure our country's victory\nthermore, on this basis an agreement will be\nate hurdles, six-mile run, triple jump and decath-\nance after 13 hours of meeting had failed to pro-\nin 1964.\ndeveloped by mutual consent between the\nlon into its events. Wrestling rules were adjusted\nduce agreement in New York City. The next day\n\"To such end I propose the following sam-\nAAU and the USTFF on a non-membership\nfor better liaison with international style, and the\nthe so-called Olympic House Coalition was agreed\nple plan:\nbasis. An athlete not in the foregoing classi-\ngymnastics rules were similarly altered. The num-\nto, and needed only ratification of the parent\n\"(a) That an immediate amnesty be granted\nfication shall be required to have an AAU card\nber of rowing colleges had more than doubled even\nbodies to go into effect. Later in the month at the\nto all athletes who have been disquali-\nto compete in USTFF open events sanctioned\nin this most expensive of sports. Canoeing and\nAAU convention in Detroit, this agreement was\nfied from selection for reason other than\nby the AAU and must in addition comply with\nbicycling have grown on the campus, and new\nrepudiated, although the U.S. Track and Field\nthose which are purely personal to the\nany USTFF requirements to compete in such\nregions introduced fencing. The NCAA has given\nFederation approved it.\nindividual;\nevents.\" (Detroit Free Press, Jan. 20, 1963)\nencouragement to responsible women's organiza-\nLouis Fisher, president of the AAU, and AAU\n\"(b) That any discrimination against the full\nA moratorium was thus established until after\ntions to foster competitive opportunities for de-\nExecutive Director Colonel Hull vilified the\nuse of available facilities and all athletes\nthe Olympic Games of 1964, although General\nvelopment of higher skilled female athletes.\nNCAA and coaches in vicious press statements at\nfor scheduled athletic meets and tourna-\nMacArthur was called upon to make a straddling\nIn October 1962, since the AAU refused to\nthe 1962 AAU Convention. The AAU ruled ath-\nments be lifted.\ndecision on sanctioning, which kept both sides\nrecognize the Federations and threatened \"to rule\nletes ineligible who participated in Track and\n\"(c) That a board be formed to be known as\n\"sullen but not mutinous.\"\nineligible any athlete who competes in a federation\nField and Gymnastics Federation open meets.\nthe 'Olympic Eligibility Board' com-\nA great portion of the NCAA Convention pro-\nevent sponsored by a high school or college\" (Dr.\nPresident Kennedy, following AAU rejection of\nposed of six members, three to be desig-\nceedings at the January 1963 meeting was de-\nFlath, \"History of Relations Between NCAA and\ntwo consecutive negotiation agreements worked\nnated by the Amateur Athletic Union,\nvoted to the subjects of AAU and Olympic rela-\nAAU, 1905-1963\"), the NCAA Council recom-\nout by its own AAU negotiating committee, re-\nand three by the United States Track\ntions and the Federation concept, with full reports\nmended:\nquested the sports leaders to submit their dispute\nand Field Federation as the duly con-\nbeing made by various people responsible for dif-\n\"1. Member colleges withdraw from mem-\nto arbitration. General Douglas MacArthur ac-\nstituted agent of the National Collegiate\nferent phases.\nbership in the AAU until such time as that\ncepted appointment as arbitrator. (Dr. Flath,\nAthletic Association and all other affili-\nTo sum up the situation at this point, it might\norganization indicates a cooperative attitude\n\"History of Relations Between NCAA and AAU,\nated members. That such board shall\nbe said the NCAA conducted serious negotiations\ntoward federation members.\n1905-1963\")\nmeet at the call of either group under\nfor a period of three years to try to solve the prob-\n14\n15\nlems. Rebuffed by delays, broken commitments\nPresident Kennedy, by Executive Order, estab-\ncomplete dominance of U. S. Olympic Committee\nPresident Mahoney and Executive Director\nand a refusal to face the issues by the AAU in its\nlished an Interagency Committee on International\nvoting by the AAU. However, subsequently, the\nHull, the matter of sanctions was carefully\ndesire to maintain the status quo, there was no\nAthletics, chaired by the Department of State\nU. S. Olympic Committee restored the eligibility\nreviewed. At that time, these officials did\nalternative but to proceed with new organizations\nRepresentative, on August 13, 1963. The Special\nof five standout Midwest gymnasts for the Pan\nstate that there is no international rule which\nin the form of Federations which offered the best\nAssistant for Athletic Programs of the State De-\nAmerican Games, and made meaningless the con-\ngoverns sanctioning policies within a coun-\npotential for improving the nation's athletic pos-\npartment was charged with collecting and dispens-\nvention action and AAU threats.\ntry for domestic competition. Thus, under in-\nture.\ning information on the subject.\nPersons attending the biennial meeting came\nternational rules, it is permissible for co-\nThe new Federations made rapid progress in set-\nThe NCAA Yearbook, covering 1963, reported\naway with a feeling of revulsion and disgust that\noperative sanctioning. However, the AAU's\nting up programs and operating meets, clinics and\nthat \"The NCAA Executive Committee, April 26,\nan operation SO related to their nation's interna-\nown rule specifically prohibits sanctioning by\nother events. Local and regional track meets were\n1963, approved a request submitted by Richard C.\n1\ntional standing could be operated so much for per-\nany other body but the AAU, and this rule\nconducted with mutual sanction by the AAU and\nLarkins, chairman of the Olympic Development\nsonal interests. Typical of this reaction was a tele-\nwas put into the AAU's book in the first part\nthe USTFF, but the AAU National Championships\nCommittee, to jointly sponsor with the Division\ngram sent to USOC President K. L. (Tug) Wil-\nof December 1962. Thus, gentlemen, the\nbecame a sore point when the AAU would not\nfor Girl's and Women's Sports of the American\n)\nson the day following the meeting, which said:\nAAU's persistent denial of the colleges' right\nrequest a sanction from the USTFF. The AAU\nAssociation for Health, Physical Education and\n\"Please accept my resignation as Chairman of the\nto sanction outside competition does not come\ncontended that a boycott was being placed on their\nRecreation and the Women's Board of Olympic\nOlympic Development Committee. The continued\nfrom any international rule-which so often\nmeet. Meanwhile, the gymnastics coaches were\nDevelopment a national institute for girl's sports,\ndomination of the U.S. Olympic Committee by the\nhas been implied and reported to the press-\nhighly indignant that the trials for the selection\nscheduled to take place at the University of Okla-\nAAU makes it distasteful to fulfill responsibilities\nrather it stems from the AAU's own hand-\nof the Pan American team had been scheduled to\nhoma in October 1963, and appropriated $9,500 to\nof this position. I see no hope for our country in\nbook, which was revised approximately a year\ndiscriminate against a number of college gym-\nunderwrite the costs of that institute.\" (NCAA\nfuture international competition under this mo-\nago for this specific purpose.\nnasts.\nYearbook, 1963-64, p. 144)\nnopoly.\" (Signed) Richard C. Larkins.\n\"I would call your attention to the very ex-\nAt the Pan American games in Rio de Janiero\nThe NCAA Executive Committee, August 25,\nStatements and letters from Gordon H. Chal-\ncellent report that Reverend W. H. Crowley\nin 1963, FIBA, the International Basketball Fed-\n1963, named Mr. Larkins chairman of a special\nmers, Wiles Hallock, Clifford B. Fagan and Don B.\nhas made on track and field. As he observes,\neration, authorized the Basketball Federation of\ncommittee for liaison on women's competition.\nCanham* further indicate the frustration of how\nthe right of educational institutions to sanc-\nthe USA as well as the AAU to sanction and\nThe Basketball, Baseball and Track and Field\nan organization which should enjoy the enthusi-\ntion outside competition put on by private\nschedule foreign competition. This caused an in-\nFederations reported progress, but the Gymnas-\nasm and devotion of almost any person, is SO con-\npromoters has been a cornerstone of intercol-\ncrease of about 600 foreign exchanges in the next\ntics Federation provided information about the\ntrolled by men obsessed with retention of their\nlegiate athletic regulations for years and is\nthree years by the action of BFUSA.\nown positions that it quenches this enthusiasm.\naccepted throughout the sports world. Spe-\nRichard C. Larkins, Ohio State University, then\ncircumstances of the AAU's actions which pro-\nClarence L. (Biggie) Munn, then athletic director,\ncifically, that is what we do in such matters\nchairman of the USOC Development Committee,\nhibited three U.S. Gymnastics Federation tram-\nMichigan State University, wrote, \"I think it\nas baseball and football, for example, at the\nreported the Olympic treasurer did not charge\npolinists from performing in an exhibition in\npresent time. In track and field, the AAU\nGermany.\nwould be un-American to stay with a situation\nmuch of the Olympic Winter Games training costs\nthat is impossible; therefore, it is my feeling that\nmerely states that the nation's colleges have\nagainst the Development Fund for this Olympics\nStorm Clouds Gather (1963-1965)\nthe NCAA representation should resign from the\nno rights.\" (NCAA Yearbook, 1963-64)\nas he had done in the previous Olympiad.\nThe biennial meeting of the United States Olym-\nOlympic Board after the 1964 Olympics.\"\nThe track and field report, stated that the\nThe minutes of the USOC Board of Directors\npic Committee was held November 10-11, 1963.\nAt this point in time, temporary enthusiasm\nUSTFF constituency provides track and field com-\nmeeting on September 17-18, 1963, stated that the\nThe motions to seat the U. S. Baseball Federation\nwas felt for a plan that would form a National\npetition for 682,926 boys and girls throughout the\nmotion to approve the U. S. Baseball Federation as\nas governing body or even to be admitted to USOC\nSports Foundation. It would be a private organiza-\nyear, employs 27,353 coaches, spends $31,653,784\na Class E member was tabled until the December\nmembership in Group E were defeated in a dis-\ntion with a top, impartial Board of Trustees, and\na year to support track, and, since World War II,\nmeeting of the entire organization. A motion to\ngraceful performance by the AAU representatives.\nwould raise money from private sectors to build a\n130 United States athletes have finished sixth or\nhave the Baseball Federation succeed the USOC as\nThey denied membership to a qualified organiza-\ntion, which was requested to be formed by the\ncomprehensive and efficient program to develop\nbetter in Olympic competition-129 of whom at-\nGoverning Body of Baseball in the United States\nUSOC itself.\nsports and fitness activities as a general crusade\ntended and competed for NCAA colleges.\npassed 17-11. The AAU objected to the Baseball\nfor excellence at home and internationally. Many\nMrs. Jernigan, Women's Olympic Advisory\nFederation even though it did not recognize the\nAt this meeting, the independent international\norganizations wished to play the lead role in this\nBoard, and Miss Marguerite Clifton, director of\nsport, and even though the USOC was seeking an\nfranchise holders were granted 40 votes each, giv-\nact, but the USOC was SO concerned that it would\nPhysical Education at Purdue, spoke of the eman-\norganization to assume this nation's international\ning this group with the AAU a majority of votes\ninterfere with its own fund raising, the idea never\ncipation of women in sports following World War\nresponsibilities. J. Lyman Bingham, then execu-\nin the USOC; as a matter of fact, 62 per cent at\ngot off the ground.\nII and made excellent recommendations for co-\ntive director of the USOC, wrote that the chances\nthat time. The National Junior College Association\nThe NCAA Convention in January 1964 de-\noperation and guidance regarding increasing op-\nof the Baseball Federation being recognized would\nwas admitted to Group B, and the National Fed-\nsit better with the AAU if the baseball group did\nvoted much attention to these subjects. The presi-\nportunities for higher skilled girl's athletic com-\neration of State High School Athletic Associations\ndent and executive director of the AAU met with\npetition and regulation. Dr. Mason Gross, presi-\nnot use the name \"Federation.\"\nchanged from Group E (with one vote) to Group\nIn considering proposed amendments, the AAU\nthe Executive Committee and Council the day be-\ndent of Rutgers University, spoke in part as fol-\nB (with 10 votes.) An amendment which would\ninitiated a motion which passed to eliminate a rep-\nfore the convention, and NCAA President Henry\nlows:\nhave allowed them each 50 votes and five delegates\nHardt reported to the Convention:\n\"It seems to me that just as we have oper-\nresentative of the National High School Federa-\nwas defeated by the AAU voting in a bloc.\nThus, two of the greatest contributors to the bene-\n\"Now keep this point in mind because it is\nated with football and basketball, SO with\ntion as a member of the USOC Executive Com-\nmittee.\nfit of the Olympic program were denied their ap-\nimportant-in the discussions yesterday with\ntrack and field affairs; that the college organi-\nzations are the proper ones to police the en-\nRoy Dath, soccer coach at Trinity College, pro-\npropriate position, and their representation on the\ntire program. There is going to be resentment\ntested that college players were eliminated from\nvarious Olympic Games committees was inade-\n*Mr. Chalmers is now athletic director, Indiana State Uni-\nat any change but I think we have to assert\ntrying out for the Olympic soccer team when the\nquate. In another voting action, a resolution to re-\nversity; Mr. Hallock is executive director, Pacific-8 Con-\ntrials were scheduled in St. Louis on October 12,\nference; Mr. Fagan is executive secretary, National Fed-\nour concern for the programs in which our\nstore the eligibility of more than 500 gymnasts\neration of State High School Associations; Mr. Canham is\nstudents take part.\" (NCAA Yearbook, 1963-\n1963.\nsuspended by the AAU was defeated, showing the\nathletic director, University of Michigan.\n64)\n16\n17\nRobert Kendler, president of the U.S. Handball\nthe moment, but not discouraging enough to\ndispute with the AAU; Dean Ernest B. McCoy,\nordinating the efforts of all organizations inter-\nAssociation, said:\nprevent us from keeping on working.\"\nPennsylvania State University, explained very\nested in amateur wrestling to improve America's\n\"I certainly can understand why any sport\n(NCAA Yearbook, 1963-64)\nclearly the topic of sanctioning, and Federation\ninternational record. (NCAA Yearbook, 1965-66)\nwould want to be free of AAU domination.\nWilbur C. Johns reported the Basketball Feder-\nspokesmen outlined the growth of their activities\nThe AAU steamroller was very much in evi-\nThe suspension of my national championship\nation is representative of more than 85 per cent\nand membership, which moved rapidly.\ndence at the USOC Board of Directors meeting\nhandball team, the persecution of my national\nof the organized basketball played in the United\nDean McCoy's conclusion is worthy of quota-\nand the Special USOC meeting on May 8-9 and\nchampionship swimming team, the slander of\nStates, and plans to sanction foreign competition\ntion:\nJune 12-13, respectively, augmented by the bloc\nmy club and the threats to me personally con-\nfor the next three years.\n\"Sanctioning authority is for one purpose\nvote of the independent international franchise\nstitute one of the blackest pages in AAU his-\nReverend Crowley, reporting for the Track and\nalone; to encourage well-managed competi-\nholders who caucused with the AAU. Some of the\ntory.\nField Federation, said:\ntion, not to inhibit it; to provide a broad base\nnon-controversial legislation suggested by Arthur\n\"Our entire controversy with the AAU re-\n\"One is forced to the inescapable conclu-\nof wholesome and constructive competitive\nLittle, Inc., was passed. The Baseball Federation\nvolved around one basic point-freedom.\nsion that if there is any illegality about the\nopportunity within the legitimate programs\nwas admitted as a Group E member, while the\nFreedom for the game and freedom for the\nFederation movement or any restriction of\nof all organizations, and that this authority\nother Federations' applications were tabled.\nplayer. I made a tremendous effort to obtain\ncompetition among our athletes, or any\ndoes not preclude sanctioning of meets and\nAn assessment of the meetings was supplied by\nthis freedom. A fortune in money and 14\nthreat of ineligibility for Olympic or interna-\ntournaments by other amateur sports bodies\nan NCAA delegate:\nyears in time have been required to give play-\ntional competition, it stems from a monopolis-\nhaving a legitimate interest therein.\"\ntic regulation which rejects co-sanctioning\nA motion passed which directed the NCAA to\n\"Unfortunately, as far as improving the\ners the right to play with anyone they chose\nand in any place they chose. In a nutshell,\nfor domestic open meets. The officers of the\nparticipate in direct negotiations with the AAU\nUnited States Olympic effort is concerned,\nFederation recognize the right of the AAU\nto again try to solve their differences, and to ob-\nthe USOC took a giant step backward. It\nthis tells you the story of handball's war for\nturned back the hands of time some 35 to 40\nindependence. It stems from the inability of\nto take a stand as a splinter group, if it so\ntain cooperative sanctioning.\nthe AAU to be a 'Jack of all Trades and Mas-\npleases, but they cannot recognize its claims\nCorrespondence between Asa S. Bushnell and\nyears. In short, the international franchise\nto interfere in the legitimate interest of the\nMax Ritter, USOC secretary and treasurer, re-\nholders have enslaved the school-college sys-\nter of None.' The slow decay that cost the\nAAU one sport after another is not good for\nspectively, brought out the fact that large sums of\ntem as far as the Olympics are concerned.\"\nmajor sports groups in this country.\" (NCAA\nthem, nor is it good for us. I would like to see\nYearbook, 1963-64)\nmoney were expended for training of Olympic\n\"Gentlemen, what our predecessors fought\nthe AAU do a good job in handball. We have\nWinter Games teams and charged to the Devel-\nfor SO determinedly has been cancelled and\nno fear of good clean competition. History will\n\"Biggie\" Munn, chairman of the NCAA Olym-\nopment Fund. Mr. Bushnell was insistent that a\ntaken away. The era of equal representation\nprove that the USHA and the NCAA took the\npic Committee, criticized the USOC voting struc-\nmeans be found to differentiate the two purposes.\non Olympic Games Committees has passed.\nture:\nhuman footsteps necessary to right a great\nThe USOC Board of Directors met March 22,\nThe nation's high schools and colleges, always\nwrong and thereby restore the dignity of the\n\"Consequently, the National High School\nFederation, representing more than 20,000\n1965. Arthur D. Little, Inc., had been paid $136,-\na minority voice in over-all Olympic policy,\nathlete. No longer need he fear suspension\n000 to that date. Some of its recommendations\nnow have lost their last vestige of equity.\nwithout trial. No longer need one sport suf-\nhigh schools, many thousands of coaches and\n\"At the recent meeting of the United\nhundreds of thousands of athletes, has a\nwere prepared for legislation, although the Olym-\nfer a secondary boycott because of contro-\npic Board did not have a copy of the report as yet.\nStates Olympic Committee in Chicago, the\nversy in another sport.\" (NCAA Yearbook,\nstaggering total of only 10 votes, or one-half\nof one per cent of the total votes of the United\nIt seemed to many that the material submitted\nAAU, together with the 17 other sports gov-\n1963-64)\nby the Little company reflected a desire by this\nerning bodies, relegated the high schools and\nThrough the years, Mr. Kendler said, it became\nStates Olympic Committee.\" (NCAA Year-\nbook, 1963-64)\nmanagement firm to please the voting majority of\ncolleges to a completely subservient role. The\napparent that most important to the AAU were\nThe USOC Board of Directors, at its May 1964\nthe organization which had authorized the survey,\nNCAA is no longer in the minority but now\nthe clubs and not the players; the money they\nand sustained the suspicion that the people inter-\nbecomes a segment of the minority.\ncould take in, not put out.\nmeeting, authorized Arthur D. Little, Inc., man-\nviewed did not embrace the full horizon of com-\n\"An amendment (Sulger) was adopted\nagement consultants, to conduct a study of the\nEverett D. Barnes, then athletic director of Col-\nOlympic Committee and its operations. Plans for\npetent people who could present the complete\nwhich provides that the majority of votes on\ngate University and later to become president of\nthe NCAA, reported to the 1964 NCAA Conven-\nthe 1964 Tokyo games were made.\npicture.\nall Olympic Games Committees must be re-\nThe NCAA offered amendments for the USOC\nserved for the governing body of that sport.\ntion for the Baseball Federation:\nThe Olympic Games at Tokyo, Japan, were well-\nConstitution, which would make officers and Board\n\"Example: The AAU has 23 votes of the\n\"I knew that the AAU did not sponsor base-\nmanaged and conducted by the Japanese. The\nmembers ineligible for the same office after two\n45-man basketball committee and the track\nball, they had no interest in baseball, they had\nUnited States had many superb performances\nOlympiads (eight years), and to have the games\nand field committee. Regardless of contribu-\nno facilities, no equipment, no personnel, no\nfrom its athletes, but again did not win as many\ncommittees appointed in numbers according to\ntion to the sport or what all other organiza-\nmedals as the Soviet Union. President Johnson\ncoaches. So in the development work of the\neach group's contribution to the sport.\ntions believe is right for this country's Olym-\nFederation we were requested by the United\ndid a splendid thing on the athletes' return by en-\nOn April 8, 1965, Myron Roderick, wrestling\npic teams in those sports, the AAU now is in\nStates Olympic Committee to make applica-\ntertaining them at dinner at the White House.\ncoach at Oklahoma State University, appeared be-\na position to dictate try-out arrangements,\ntion to represent the United States on the In-\nAn uneasy feeling grew in many sectors of the\nfore the NCAA Executive Committee stating that\nname the Olympic coach and manager and de-\nternational Baseball Federation. Many of you\ncollege community on the limited number of con-\nthe Wrestling Coaches and Officials Association\ntermine how the athletes will be selected.\nwill remember the Washington USOC meet-\ntacts and questions asked by the Arthur D. Little\nhad voted 60-4 to join a proposed U.S. Wrestling\n\"Why the change in games committee\ning. I think this was one of the darkest mo-\ninvestigators, which indicated that a superficial\nFederation. He stressed that the USWF was not\nstructure after 35 years? Probably because\nments for amateur sports in that the Baseball\nreport would be the result.\nintended to oppose the AAU, but that the AAU\nthe international franchise holders are just\nFederation had to become the political foot-\nThe NCAA Convention at Chicago in January\nand other organizations interested in wrestling\nplain scared. Why are they afraid? The an-\nball for all the Federation movement\nfor\n1965 again reaffirmed its support of the new Fed-\nwere urged to join to aid the sport of wrestling.\nswer in the case of the AAU, and probably\nthis one reason: If one Federation was rec-\nerations, and alloted a large segment of time to\nHe stated that the main reasons for the formation\nsome of the others as well, is that they have\nognized, they had nothing to do but recognize\nhaving speakers report to the membership on the\nof the USWF were (1) to provide leadership in\nnot performed in a manner equal to their re-\nthe remaining Federations. It had nothing to\nissues involved. Professor Earl M. Ramer, Univer-\npromoting one of the country's fastest growing\nsponsibilities in administering sports. They\ndo with athletics. This was discouraging for\nsity of Tennessee, gave an excellent history of the\nsports, and (2) the necessity of unifying and co-\nhave banded together in a self-protective\n18\n19\nunion to blunt the strong position of the col-\ninternational franchise holders was an emascula-\nSchool Athletic Associations, Minutes of June\ngarding our Olympic relations somewhat at odds\nleges and high schools.\ntion of the democratic process in the Olympic\n30, 1965)\nwith the feelings of other NCAA people. I am\n\"It is ironical that the sports governing\nmovement.\nNCAA delegates to the U.S. Olympic organiza-\ngratified that these views not only have been heard\nbodies should take such action at this time\nIn a post-meeting autopsy, NCAA delegates\ntion and members of the NCAA Olympic Com-\nby the policy councils of the NCAA but have\nwhen Arthur Little, Inc., calls for greater co-\nlisted three alternatives: One, remain in the\nmittee, including the chairman, Mr. Munn of\nbeen endorsed, as symbolized by my appointment\noperation between the educational community\nOlympic movement and adjust to a subservient\nMichigan State University, recommended to the\nas chairman of the NCAA Olympic Committee.\"\nand the franchise holders. They have defi-\nrole; two, withdraw from the Olympic Committee\nNCAA Council, at its meeting in conjunction with\n(Letter from Reed, February 9, 1966)\nnitely injured this country's Olympic efforts.\nand continue to provide the best possible athletic\nthe 1966 NCAA Convention, that the NCAA with-\nHis communications and dealings carried out\nprogram for America; three, the high schools and\ndraw from the Olympic organization. NCAA Pres-\n\"It is worthy of note that the President of\nhis intentions of attempting by logic, friendliness\ncolleges present a united front and carry the bat-\nident Barnes and William R. Reed, then commis-\nthe USOC excused himself from the chair to\nand persuasive discussion to obtain better results\ntle to higher authority.\nsioner of the Big Ten Conference and incoming\nspeak in opposition to the amendment, and\nfor the NCAA and sports in the U. S. through-\nchairman of the NCAA Olympic Committee, ar-\nthat the Armed Services, the YMCA, and the\nA majority of NCAA delegates offered the fol-\nout his term.\ngued against the recommendation. They contended\nAmerican Association of Health, Physical Ed-\nlowing:\nThe Secretary of the USOC, Robert J. Kane,\nlow-key, friendly negotiations within the USOC,\nucation and Recreation voted with the NCAA\n1. The NCAA and its allied and affiliated mem-\nwrote to the USTFF that their application for\nparticularly with the groups other than the AAU\nand the National Federation of State High\nbers should withdraw from the USOC.\nmembership could not be considered until the bi-\nwhich held international franchises, would result\nSchool Associations.\nennial meeting in February 1967.\n2. Federations should be established in other\nin the USOC accepting the views and recommenda-\n\"When an AAU spokesman claimed that\nsports.\ntions of the schools and colleges. The NCAA Coun-\nBill Reed and Jay-Ehret Mahoney of the AAU\nsuch a games committee change was neces-\n3. Federal supervision of amateur sports could\ncil approved the Barnes-Reed line of reasoning,\nworked with great zeal on redistributing the votes\nsary under International Olympic Committee\nin the USOC to accommodate the new Constitu-\nbe a possibility.\nwhich subsequently was proved invalid. It also\nrules, the USOC counsellor stated that this\n4. The Association should investigate the pos-\nwas a major tactical error. Mr. Reed, shortly be-\ntion. It is interesting to note that with the reor-\nwas a fallacious argument. The USOC coun-\nfore his untimely death in 1971, publicized his\nganized USOC Board, the distribution had not\nsibility of appealing for Federally-directed reor-\nsel quoted Rule 24 of the existing IOC rules\nreluctant conclusions that total reorganization of\nmaterially changed in that New York and Mary-\nganization of the USOC. The Association and its\nthat international franchise holders are not\nallied and affiliated members could withdraw from\nthe USOC was necessary and that external inter-\nland had 23 members, 18 states had 50 and 32\nentitled to majority vote on the games com-\nstates had no members.\nthe USOC and ask Congress to investigate the\nvention was the only means of accomplishing the\nmittees or on the Board of Directors.\"\npresent Olympic structure since the USOC holds\nnecessary change; i.e., it could not be realized\nThe USOC Board meeting held in Washington,\nNCAA Withdrawal? (1966)\na Federal charter.\nwithin the USOC framework. (NCAA NEWS, May\nD. C., was preceded by a two-day conference on\n5. The NCAA should refrain from making any\n15, 1971)\nOlympic Development, which was very useful.\nIn 1958, the NCAA had been successful in\nBarnes and Edward S. Steitz, athletic director at\namending the USOC Constitution to limit the\nappointments to the various Olympic games com-\nDr. Jerome H. Holland, then president of Hamp-\nmittees.\nton Institute and a member of the NCAA Council,\nSpringfield College and an NCAA delegate to the\nterms of Board members to two Olympiads. Such\nreporting for the Council at the 1966 Convention,\nUSOC, spoke on \"Bright Spots in Olympic De-\nlegislation would provide for the infusion of new\nThe National Federation of State High School\nblood and ideas to hopefully stimulate Olympic\nAthletic Associations at its annual meeting passed\nsaid:\nvelopment.\" Excellent charts of present rating\nprogress. The first rotation would become oper-\na resolution, which it sent to members of Con-\n\"As stated earlier, the NCAA has long been\nof various sports were produced.\ngress, which said in part:\non record favoring revisions designed to im-\nReed discovered that some gymnasts had not\native for the first time in the fall of 1965. What\nhappened? The majority of the Board members-\nprove the United States Olympic Committee.\nbeen invited to a training camp on the basis of\n\"Whereas, there are 20,200 high schools in\nwho represented the AAU and other international\nThrough the years there has been a general\ntheir affiliation. Correspondence confirmed this\nthe United States of America that are mak-\ndisregard for ideas advanced by the NCAA.\nsame tactic had deprived college gymnasts of try-\nfranchise holders-decided they did not want to\ning significant contributions to the Olympic\nIn 1965, the nation's schools and colleges suf-\ning for the Pan American team in 1963. The prob-\nrelinquish their positions on the Board. As a re-\neffort through their broad competitive sports\nsult of another Constitutional amendment, the\nfered a serious setback when the USOC\nlems were worked out satisfactorily.\nprograms, and\nrotation system was removed. The then Board\nadopted an amendment which provides that\nA. E. Simonson, president of the National Fenc-\nmembers could stay on in perpetuity (although\n\"Whereas, these schools are not equitably\nthe international franchise holder must have\ning Coaches Association, revealed in his letters\nthe NCAA kept its promise and rotated its dele-\nrepresented on the United States Olympic\na majority vote on the Olympic Games Com-\nthat the Amateur Fencing League of America as\ngates). The Olympic movement still was devoid of\nCommittee and their repeated requests for\nmittees. This situation obviously is inequi-\nGoverning Body had convened a committee of\nnew ideas and outlooks.\nfair and proportionate representation con-\ntable and cannot be justified by any argu-\nAFLA representatives of the New York City area,\nsistently have been denied by the Committee;\nments or facts. It is the result of some type\nwhich presented and had approved a plan for de-\nThe May-June 1965 meetings were a disaster for\nprogress and a triumph for the fumbling USOC\n\"Therefore be it resolved, that the Council\nof misunderstanding, or perhaps we might say\nvelopment without informing the other members\noligarchy.\nof the National Federation of State High\npolitical manipulation. Our dissatisfaction\nof the Olympic Fencing Committee. They planned\nSchool Athletic Associations respectfully re-\nmust not be misunderstood. We continue to\nto accept money and run a program in high schools\nThe NCAA sponsored an amendment for in-\ncreased representation for junior colleges and high\nquests that the Congress of the United States\nencourage our members to provide the finest\nand colleges, unbeknownst to the national coach-\nmake a reappraisal of the public law which\nathletic programs possible SO that the Olym-\ning association. Also, the AFLA instructed its\nschools. The result Another defeat.\ncharters the United States Olympic Commit-\npic Committee can reap the fruits of our har-\nmembers to resign from the coaches association.\nThe NCAA supported a 66-year age limit rec-\ntee and examine its plan of operation to the\nvest every four years.\" (NCAA Yearbook,\nThis is a good example of the authority assumed\nommended by the Little company report. It was\nend that all areas of the United States and all\n1965-66)\nby the governing body by its majority in a Games\nalso defeated.\namateur sports programs now being con-\nThe NCAA appointed a new group to the USOC\nCommittee, and their lack of ability to get the\nGeographical representation on the Board was\nducted be justly and equitably represented in\nBoard, under the chairmanship of Big Ten Com-\nworking teachers united in the program.\nsuggested, but to no avail.\nthe Olympic Committee SO that a united ef-\nmissioner Reed. At the outset, Reed said, \"As you\nThe Olympic Committee balance sheet on Dec.\nRegardless of merit, suggestions were summar-\nfort may be made to further insure and in-\nmay know, I have, in a manner of speaking, im-\n31, 1966, showed assets of $4,849,869, and alloca-\nily dismissed by the USOC unless they proved\ncrease the prestige of the United States of\nposed myself upon the NCAA Olympic Committee.\ntions for development of $296,724.\nbeneficial to the international franchise holders. In\nAmerica in international athletic competi-\nI have done so in good conscience for what I think\nSports Arbitration Board (1966-1968)\nbrief, the Chicago action of the AAU and other\ntion.\" (National Federation of State High\nare sufficient reasons, to express a viewpoint re-\nNCAA President Barnes reported to the NCAA\n20\n21\nConvention in January 1967 on the work of the SO-\ndoubt of the constitutional qualifications of\nNational Federation of State High School Athletic\nField Committee is pretty well summed up by a\ncalled Sports Arbitration Board, which had been\nthe applicants.\nAssociations, wrote Lentz as follows:\nletter from William R. Reed to Oregon track\nappointed by Vice-President Humphrey as a result\n\"In the words of the AAU president, tak-\n\"It is commonplace, rather than unusual,\ncoach William J. Bowerman, with this quote:\nof action by the U.S. Senate following hearings by\ning evident satisfaction in the fact, the mem-\nfor a person who is introduced to Olympic\n\"I am greatly concerned by the operations\nthe Senate Commerce Committee under the chair-\nbership applications of the Federation were\nCommittee work for the first time to come\nof the majority of the USOC Track and Field\nmanship of Senator Warren G. Magnuson. Barnes\n'resoundingly rejected.' The AAU has also\naway totally amazed and ask not only himself\nCommittee. It may be significant that in most\nsaid:\nstated that all the independents joined with\nbut everyone else, 'Is this the way Olympic\nGames Committees, partisanship has not been\n\"Two basic issues in the dispute remain\nit in this rejection, but this was incorrect for\nbusiness is conducted?' People who are dedi-\nasserted SO blatantly, but that in our most\nunsolved-sanctioning and jurisdiction. About\nthree independents.\ncated to the Olympic movement, and who are\nimportant Olympic sport, track and field, it\na week ago, the AAU notified Chairman Kheel\n\"It is a fair conclusion that, echoing the\nlooking for opportunity to serve the United\nevidently is. The whole thing is a result of\n(Theodore Kheel, New York City lawyer and\nexperience of our predecessors, a sense of fu-\nStates in this effort, more often than not are\nthat action of the USOC which gave govern-\nlabor negotiator) that it was unable to meet\ntility and frustration prevails within the\nnot concerned with the differences of the or-\ning bodies absolute control over Games Com-\nin January and requested a postponement of\nNCAA Olympic Committee in its approach to\nganizations that work within the Olympic\nmittees, and authority which is always a po-\nthe meeting until mid-March.\nthe affairs of the United States Olympic Com-\nstructure. However, they find if they are not\ntential source of abuse.\n\"We have met 12 times in the last 13\nmittee.\" (NCAA Annual Reports, 1966-67)\nof the AAU membership they are not given\n\"The situation is symptomatic of a sickness\nmonths and what concerns me personally,\nCharles M. Neinas, assistant NCAA executive\nan opportunity to participate. They are made\nwithin the USOC, which should be solely con-\nhaving been associated with this problem for\ndirector and an NCAA delegate to the USOC, ex-\nto feel all too frequently that they are in-\ncerned with the advancement of our Olympic\nSO many years, is a repetition of history. If\npressed concern that since no master plan for de-\ntruders. The person who is taking part in\nfuture negotiations are delayed two or three\nOlympic Committee work for the first time\neffort and should be making every effort to\nvelopment had been presented, much of the $400,-\nkeep the disputes which do exist for good\nmonths, we are going to be faced immediately\n000 allocated for Olympic development would be\nfinds it extremely difficult to differentiate be-\nreason outside its affairs.\" (Letter from Reed,\nwith the Pan American Games. Immediately\nwasted.\ntween the AAU and the Olympic Committee.\nOctober 20, 1967)\nfollowing are the Winter Games and the\nHe is led to believe that it is the AAU that is\nIn its letter of April 27, 1967, the NCAA told\nestablishing the policy and procedures rather\nClarence L. (Biggie) Munn wrote on December\nOlympic Games in the summer of 1968. We\nUSOC Executive Director Art Lentz:\nfind ourselves repeating the position in which\nthan the Olympic Committee. Since there\n6, 1967, wondering if it was proper for colleges\n\"Since Mr. Hull (AAU executive director)\nwe found ourselves in 1963 and 1964-Please\nisn't any question but what the AAU is in\nsuch as his to pay expenses of his coaches and him-\nis telling the Olympic Games Committees\ndon't tip the applecart and don't rock the boat\ncontrol, it is difficult for us to understand\nself to all the Olympic meetings without credit or\nwhat they can and cannot do, I think you\nduring the Olympic year.' (NCAA Conven-\nwhy it is necessary for that organization to\nreimbursement when the USOC rejected the co-\nshould have a copy of his March 10 Bulletin\nflaunt its power to the extent that it is harm-\noperation and ignored the services rendered by the\ntion Proceedings, January 1967)\nand I am enclosing same.\nful to the United States Olympic Committee's\ncollege group. Neinas answered:\n[Editor's Note: Although named the Sports Ar-\n\"The point is that the AAU is imposing its\nimage and its work.\" (Letter from Fagan,\n\"We agree that the nation's colleges and\nbitration Board, the Board was never given arbi-\nown myriad requirements on top of the\nJune 14, 1967)\nuniversities have been shortchanged in more\ntration authority.]\nIAAF and Olympic rules, and stating that if\nAt a 1967 meeting of the USOC Board of Direc-\nways than one and are still expected to con-\nBill Reed's report of the NCAA Olympic Com-\nan athlete does not obey all the conflicting\ntors, Clifford Buck of the AAU brought up a\ntribute to the Olympic movement. You will\nmittee reveals what that group was experiencing,\nrules, interpretations and restraining orders\nmotion which passed that the Olympic Basketball\nbe interested to know that the current NCAA\nviz:\nof the AAU, he sacrifices his right to com-\nCommittee be given the assignment of trying to\nOlympic Committee is rapidly coming to the\n\"The present NCAA Olympic Committee\npete for the United States in the Olympic\nsolve the basketball dispute between the AAU and\nsame conclusions voiced by the previous Com-\nhad reasoned that the U.S. Olympic Commit-\ngames. For example, the AAU has ruled five\nthe Basketball Federation of the USA. Buck knew\nmittee of which you were the chairman. It\ntee was not necessarily subject to the domin-\nPenn State gymnasts ineligible for the Pan\nFIBA, the governing body of international basket-\nappears that you and your colleagues were\nation by the AAU, contrary to our predeces-\nAmerican Olympic games. Why? Because\nball, had cancelled the Basketball Federation's\nright while the new Committee, including the\nsors.\nThe biennial meeting of the USOC,\nthey competed against the University of Col-\nright to sanction foreign games and had told\nwriter, was wrong.\"\nFebruary 26, 1967, confirmed that there does\nogne in an intercollegiate meet (at Penn\nthe AAU to settle the domestic question prior to\nEd Steitz's letter of December 29, 1967, brings\nexist a political coalition between the AAU\nState) not sanctioned by the AAU.\"\nthe 1968 Olympic Games. This move was inter-\nout more detail of the action of Cliff Buck, past\nand the independents which constitutes con-\nCounsellor Sullivan of the USOC ruled that ath-\npreted to take the AAU off the hook, using the\npresident of the AAU, in sending the basketball\ntrol of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and\nletes trying out for the Pan American team were\nOlympic Committee again in an unconstitutional\ndispute back to the Olympic Basketball Committee\nwhich operates to serve the interests of the\nnot required to join the AAU to be eligible for the\nmanner. The Olympic Basketball Committee chair-\nin spite of the possible damage to the USOC visu-\nAAU.\nU.S. team, only after selected they would have to\nman refused the assignment, stating that it was\nalized by Dr. Harold Friermood of the YMCA and\n\"The test issues before the USOC were the\nbe certified by the governing body.\nnot the Committee's job, and that it could not\nAsa S. Bushnell.\napplications for membership by the U.S.\nThe minutes of the U.S. Olympic Gymnastic\npossibly reach a fair decision since the Basketball\nAt the NCAA Convention, January 1968, Presi-\nTrack and Field Federation, the Basketball\nGames Committee of May 6, 1967, illustrate the\nFederation was not represented on the Committee.\ndent Marcus L. Plant reported:\nFederation and the U.S. Gymnastics Federa-\nimproper dominance of the AAU in that body,\nHe was redirected to undertake the task, which\n\"We have worked very earnestly during\ntion, supported by the NCAA as a constituent\nthrough the imposition of AAU rulings for those\ngraphically shows how the U.S. Olympic Commit-\nthe past year with the Sports Arbitration\nmember of each and vigorously opposed by\nthat Committee should make, including false\ntee is used to do the bidding of the AAU.\nBoard, which was appointed by Vice-Presi-\nAAU.\nstatements made to uphold the AAU position.\nLetters from members of the Olympic Track and\ndent Humphrey. As you may recall, some time\n\"It is ironic to note that the classification\nThe trials for the 10,000 meter track team of\nField Committee reveal their disgust and frustra-\nago we offered to arbitrate all issues if the\nfor membership in the USOC being sought\nthe U.S. Pan American team were removed from\ntion at the meeting of that group where, for the\nother side would submit all issues to arbitra-\ncalled for one vote for each Federation, among\nthe regular tryouts, and selections made from the\nfirst time, no coach or manager was selected from\ntion. Our offer was refused. We have observed\na total USOC voting strength of approximate-\nAAU championships by a postcard decision of the\nthe NCAA coaches' nominations for 1968 Olym-\nthe moratorium meticulously in the face, I\nly 3,000. It is essential to record the constitu-\n45-man track and field committee of the USOC\npic duty.\nmight say, of repeated violations by the other\ntional requirements for the classification be-\nby memo of June 5, 1967.\nA flurry of correspondence including Don Can-\nside. The AAU, as far as we can see, holds\ning sought, since there can be no possible\nClifford B. Fagan. executive secretary of the\nham's resignation from the Olympic Track and\nthat no one can put on a track meet without\n22\n23\nits permission. This is and will continue to be\nization to be responsible for governing the sport\nfor example, by restrictions upon the compo-\nand gave support to the burgeoning programs\ntotally unacceptable to us.\" (NCAA Conven-\nof track and field in the United States.\nsition of the Games Committees. There is con-\nbuilding in the Track and Field, Basketball, Gym-\ntion Proceedings, January 1968)\nSenator Magnuson indicated he was anxious to\ncern that the role of the NCAA in the USOC\nnastics, Baseball and Wrestling Federations. More\nThe NCAA waived the provisions of Bylaw 7B\nhave the SAB's decision put into law, but Senator\nmay be anomalous because of the capacity of\ncolleges continued to add rowing to their pro-\nto conform to the moratorium request; however,\nJames B. Pearson proposed a bill to accomplish the\nthe international sports federation members\ngrams. An active interest and participation in the\nPlant said:\nabove chartered track organization, and the mat-\n(the multi-sport AAU and the so-called inde-\nWorld University Games movement was main-\nter reverted to the Judiciary Committee where it\npendents) to combine politically to dominate\ntained; however, the general dissatisfaction\n\"There was a track meet at Albuquerque\nlanguished.\nthe USOC and exclude the NCAA from a posi-\nshowed in lesser financial support from the col-\nin June, at which another example of capri-\nThe Olympic Basketball Committee experienced\ntion of responsibility and influence.\" (NCAA\nleges for the Olympic quota.\ncious declaration of ineligibility appeared.\nmany problems in attempting to operate with a\nAnnual Reports, 1967-68)\nJohn Sayre, Olympic Gold Medalist, sports edi-\nThe meet was not sanctioned by the AAU, but\n45-man membership but was able to field an Olym-\nthe AAU picked out seven high school girls\nThere was concern expressed also by many\ntor of Pace magazine wrote, \"The Olympic games\npic team that won, although probably the weakest\nwhen the U.S. Olympic Committee officers, without\nare in grave danger. Heavily publicized charges\nand declared them ineligible, allowing quite a\nU.S. team up to that point. The NCAA Council\nexecutive committee approval, endorsed an indoor\nof payola, drugging, racialism, fossilized leader-\nfew other important athletes whom they have\nwaived rules in order that student-athletes might\ntrack meet in New York City, and allowed it to be\nship and double standards of eligibility are often\nuse for in international competition to retain\ntour with the prospective team as requested by the\ncalled the U.S. Olympic Invitational Meet. The\nall too true.\nConcerned athletes want to help\ntheir eligibility. So it is a pretty clear case of\nAAU.\nmeet seemed to benefit private promoters and did\nsave the games.\" (Pace Magazine, February 1969)\nselectivity.\nThe U.S. Wrestling Federation was formed Au-\nnot fall within the USOC's chartered purposes.\nHe published a nine-point program by the Board\n\"The NCAA Council now has decided that\ngust 1, 1968. In Mexico City at the FILA Con-\nAt the USOC Executive Committee meeting on\nof Consultants to rejuvenate U.S. athletics at the\nit will resume the enforcement of Bylaw 7B\ngress, it was passed that FILA (international gov-\nDecember 1, 1968, a minute item reads:\nOlympic level. His thoughts had merit, but the\nstarting in November 1968, and, in doing\nerning body for wrestling) would recognize only\npast 50 years' experience indicates one or two in-\nthis, the NCAA is simply reaffirming the col-\nsingle-purpose national governing bodies. The\n\"Mr. Buck touched on the subject of the\ndividuals with fresh ideas will be ineffective unless\nleges' traditional position that through their\nUSWF was authorized to sanction meets and\nUSOC 'standing up and being counted' re-\nthe USOC is uprooted and placed on a new basis.\nselected agency they must satisfy themselves\nforeign competition and combine with the AAU\ngarding its proprietary rights in the duties\nof the conditions of competition.\nin selection of national and junior teams.\nand responsibilities of governing bodies and\nCarl Cooper, executive director of the USTFF,\n\"At no time in the course of the dispute was\nAlso at the Olympic Games in Mexico City, the\ntheir relationship with international sports\nwrote a letter to Art Lentz, Olympic Committee\nthe NCAA obliged to refrain from enforcing\nInternational Gymnastic Federation, FIG, through\ngoverning organizations.\" (USOC Executive\nexecutive director, objecting to the technical rul-\nits president, persuaded the AAU and the U.S.\nCommittee Meetings, December 1, 1968)\ning again barring the USTFF from membership\nthis rule. The rule is not a restraint upon com-\nin the USOC. Cooper was track coach on the Pan\npetition. It does not prevent a student from\nGymnastics Federation to sign an agreement for\nThis represented an early move by the AAU,\nAmerican team in 1967 and worked five weeks at\nparticipating in any proper competition con-\nan equal commission to be the gymnastics govern-\nwhich ultimately was successful, in persuading\nthe high-altitude camp, as well as serving on the\nsistent with his educational program. In fact,\ning body in the United States. The AAU rejected\nthe USOC to bail out the AAU in its continuing\nUSOC Track Committee. He noted the extensive\nit is a reasonable rule and a rule which is\nthe plan, but the AAU Convention approved it.\nfight to hang on to its international franchises,\nindoor track meets scheduled by the USTFF and\nnecessary to the internal operation of the\nWilliam R. Reed's report as chairman of the\nparticularly in the sports of basketball, gymnas-\nwondered why the U.S. Olympic Committee failed\nNCAA and its member institutions' programs.\nNCAA Olympic Committee at the 1969 NCAA\ntics, wrestling and track and field.\nto recognize them as an asset. The reason, of\nThis rule stands in sharp contrast to a rule\nConvention included these observations:\nEverett D. Barnes, who substituted for the ail-\ncourse, was never admitted. The AAU saw the\nsuch as the AAU General Rule, which is\n\"The spectacular success of the United\ning Art Lentz as Olympic executive director at\nUSTFF as a major threat to its precarious posi-\nan out-and-out boycott rule, which prevents\nStates team in the Olympic Games at Mexico\nMexico City, submitted an excellent report. In\ntion as the so-called \"governing body\" for track\nany meet operator from sanctioning or ac-\nCity was a source of gratification to all Ameri-\npart, he said:\nand field and was able to deny USOC acceptance\ncepting a sanction of any organization other\ncans, but especially to the NCAA Olympic\n\"Other problems that plagued us in the\nto a qualified applicant.\nthan the AAU. That AAU rule, in our opinion,\nCommittee. Never has there been such a\nUnited States migrated with the team to\nThe International Basketball Federation, FIBA,\nis illegal because it constitutes a boycott and\ngraphic demonstration of the role of the\nMexico City\nAlthough many athletes were\nafter sending a commission to the United States,\nbecause boycotts are a per se violation of\nschool-college athletic system in providing the\ninvolved in the early phases of Olympic train-\nobtained an agreement that a board be established\nantitrust laws.\" (NCAA Convention Proceed-\nunderpinning for international competition as\ning, the poor relationship that existed in this\nto conduct international basketball, with 10 mem-\nings, January 1968)\nthere was in the host of medal winners who\ncountry between coaches and teams carried\nbers each from the AAU and the Basketball Fed-\nOn February 1, 1968, the NCAA, as well as\nare currently students or who are the prod-\nover into Mexico and resulted in lack of prop-\neration and with Ben Carnevale, then athletic di-\nother parties, heard the Sports Arbitration Board\nucts of that system.\ner discipline and control of team members and\nrector at New York University and now in the\ndecision announced publicly. Both the NCAA and\n\"The team successes were a further grati-\ntheir behavior.\nThe USOC was accused\nsame position at Wake Forest University, as\nthe USTFF submitted a list of questions request-\nfication to the Committee in dispelling any\nof lack of action in investigating monetary\nchairman. This compromise was to remain in ef-\ning clarification and pointed out certain errors.\nconcerns that the controversies over amateur\npayments to athletes for the wearing of cer-\nfect until the 1972 Olympic Games.\nThe answers received were most disappointing.\nsports administration in the United States, to\ntain athletic equipment, which should have\nThe NCAA, cooperating with the federal gov-\nMost of the key issues involved in the dispute were\nwhich the NCAA is a party, might adversely\nreverted to the AAU.\"\nernment, established the National Summer Youth\nnot settled but referred to a coordinating com-\naffect the Olympic effort.\nHis list of recommendations should have been\nSports Program, whereby the NCAA institutions\nmittee which was proposed.\n\"NCAA cooperation in the Olympic effort\nfollowed before leaving for Munich.\nin the large population centers contribute their\nPresident Plant discussed the matter with a\nwas extended (as it always has been) freely,\nThe NCAA, despite its dissatisfaction with the\nstaff and facilities to operate an extensive sports\nlarge number of track coaches and the NCAA\nnotwithstanding the serious concerns of the\nadministration of the U.S. Olympic Committee,\nprogram for underprivileged youths, having long-\nCouncil and Executive Committee. It was voted\nNCAA regarding the Association's role with\ncontinued to take measures to build strength for\nrange basic potential for the fitness and well-being\nthat the Association reject the Sports Arbitration\nthe U.S. Olympic Committee apparatus. There\nour nation's Olympic teams. The NCAA gave a\nof our young.\nBoard's decision; further, that the Congress be\nis concern that maximum contributions of\npush to three sports, water polo, volleyball and\nThe USOC quadrennial meeting in Denver on\nurged to adopt appropriate legislation creating a\nNCAA members and their personnel are de-\nsoccer, by establishing national championships;\n1969, rejected the application of the\ndemocratically structured single-purpose organi-\nbarred by the U.S. Olympic Committee itself;\nand added decathlon to the track championships,\nU.S. Wrestling Federation and tabled the appli-\n24\n25\ncation of the U.S. Track and Field Federation un-\ning development camps each summer to train\nstatus quo within those circles except for\nNCAA executive Charles M. Neinas' letter to\ntil the biennial meeting in 1971. The application\nyoung men in the Olympic international style. A\nsuch assistance that Olympic recognition or\nUSOC basketball coach Henry Iba, August 11,\nof the Women's Basketball Association was ob-\nselected team from this source would engage in\nOlympic money can give to them. Looking\n1970, stated:\njected to by the AAU, so this was also tabled. Ad-\nforeign trips following the session. Of course, this\nback I think there is great significance in the\n\"The AAU took care of its own in connec-\nditions to the Board of Directors and Executive\nmove cut into the idea of other U.S. teams engag-\nfact that the Sulger Amendment (control of\ntion with the trip to Europe and, as you may\nCommittee were approved, including at-large ap-\ning in foreign schedules, and provided the AAU,\nGames Committees), which is the thorn in\nhave noticed, the USOC received second bill-\npointments to athletes and former officials chosen\nwho had no top-level teams of its own, with a\nour side constantly, originated with and is in\ning or none at all in the publicity surrounding\nby the Board of Directors, and by adding women\nrepresentative to keep its European correspon-\nfact an expression of the political thinking of\nthe tour.\"\nrepresentatives. The NCAA motion to include ath-\ndents happy. Results to date show the program\nindependents, perhaps even more SO than\nThe FILA Congress at Edmonton, Canada, in\nletes in a ratio of one to 15 committee members\nhas not developed a better basketball team for\nthe AAU.\"\nJuly 1970, disaffiliated the AAU as the governing\nwas approved, but the proposal to change the com-\nthe U.S.\nReed, in his NCAA Olympic Committee report,\nbody for wrestling in the United States since it\nposition of the Games Committees by deleting the\nPresident Orth of the USOC died suddenly, and\nsaid:\ndid not conform to the FILA requirement that the\nprovision for a majority membership for the inter-\nin January 1970 a long-time AAU worker, Clifford\n\"It is amusing now, however, to hear and\ngoverning body should be a single purpose body.\nnationally recognized sports governing body was\nBuck of Denver, Colorado, was elected president.\nto anticipate some of the arguments against\nPresident Coulon of FILA asked that a commis-\ndefeated. The AAU, in an audacious move to se-\nThere was disappointment that the Pan Ameri-\nforms of USOC reorganization called for as\nsion be formed. The Board of Directors meeting\ncure Olympic-contributed funds for its own pur-\ncan swimming team trials were conducted at the\nposes, proposed the USOC authorize the sharing\na result of developments within international\nof the USOC held a discussion on this matter, and\nAAU indoor championships, even though the\nfederations.\nCounselor Sullivan suggested the USOC serve as\nof Olympic funds with national athletic organiza-\nOlympic Swimming Committee expressed a desire\n\"The United States cannot accept dictation\nthe interim member. Wally Johnson, president of\ntions which participated in the raising of the\nfunds. This would have allowed the AAU to use\nto name the two NCAA College and University\non domestic matters from foreign bodies, it is\nU.S. Wrestling Federation, supplied a revealing\nthe Olympic cause for its own purposes to a great-\nchampionships as pre-qualifying meets.\nsaid.\nmemo on the make-up of the U.S. Olympic Wrest-\ner extent than it already was doing. The motion\nR. E. Durland, Olympic Shooting Games Com-\nling Committee, which is also typical of the AAU\n\"The cry is reminiscent, although exactly\nmittee, stated:\nappointments to the Track and Field and Basket-\nwas defeated.\nthe opposite, of the protests of 'international\n\"I am very much aware also of the some-\nball Olympic Committees. He noted \"of the officers\nBeginning of the End (1969-1972)\nobligations' which have been used to suppress\ntimes cold climate that exists at the college\nelected by the Olympic Wrestling Committee, all\nBill Reed invited new USOC President Franklin\nthe emergence of the U.S. sports federations,\nlevel when shooting sports are mentioned. It\nwere from the AAU. The AAU had six active\nOrth to a meeting of the NCAA Olympic Com-\nwhich were the supposed rationale of the Sul-\nis this climate that I would like to see warmed\ncoaches out of 22 (controlling majority) appoint-\nmittee at the NCAA track meet in June 1969 and\nger Amendment, and, indeed, which are the\nup to the point where colleges are producing\ned on the Olympic Wrestling Committee; all eight\nunburdened himself of some of his doubts in a\nheart of the anomalous character of the\nNCAA members were active coaches.\"\nthe majority of the team potential right from\nletter dated May 7. Chairman Reed urged the\nUSOC as it is built along organizational lines\nthe schools rather than the students having\nFILA's decision to disaffiliate the AAU in wres-\nNCAA Olympic Committee not to consider with-\n(federations) rather than functional lines re-\nto enter the service to get the kind of training\nflecting actual participation in and contribu-\ntling prompted the AAU to persist in having the\ndrawing from the USOC.\nand recognition they deserve. The next few\nUSOC intervene in its behalf.\nTo illustrate the feeling toward the structure\ntions to the U.S. Olympic effort.\nyears are going to see many of the finest\nBill Reed's letter of December 1 answered the\nof the U.S. Olympic Committee, the following is\nshooters retire from active military service.\n\"In final analysis the situation is not in fact\nUSOC doubletalk on this point:\nquoted from a letter sent by Clifford B. Fagan,\nMany of them are or could become the coaches\namusing. There is involved the effectiveness\nof the National High School Federation, to USOC\nwe need SO badly at this level.\" (Durland let-\nof the USOC to discharge its responsibility\n\"I am bothered by an implication that the\nExecutive Director Lentz:\nter, February 10, 1970)\nfor furtherance of the U.S. Olympic effort.\nUSOC must initiate affiliation with the in-\nternational member. I read nothing in the\n\"A recent edition of the USOC Newsletter\nThis is representative of traditional USOC dou-\n\"The root problem is historic. It is inherent\nUSOC Constitution that this is a USOC func-\nfailed to include the National Federation of\nble standards-seek the colleges' help in main-\nin the virtual uniqueness of the United States\ntion or within its authority. As I see it, the\nState High School Athletic Associations on\ntaining and advancing a program, but continually\nsports structure, where SO much is centered\nUSOC is passive in its relations with an in-\nthe list. We cannot but conclude that this is\nreject their influence in the policy-making process.\nin the educational system. This is unlike the\nternational federation until the latter acts\nan overt act.\nWe accepted it as further\nThe USOC Board of Directors, meeting Febru-\nprevailing circumstances in most other na-\neither to affiliate or disaffiliate its own mem-\nevidence of the influence of the AAU on the\nary 14, 1970, elected Buck president and set a goal\ntions, where sports activity is centered in a\nber. The USOC then must act in accordance\nUSOC.\nThe organizations that have the\nof $10,000,000 for the 1972 Olympiad.\nstate supported and regulated system or un-\nwith its constitutional qualifications for mem-\nlargest regularized competitive program in\nAn April 7, 1970, letter by Chairman Summers\nder the aegis of organizations which identify\nbership.\"\nthe United States, and which administer ath-\nof the Olympic basketball team is an illustration\nS0 completely with domestic programs they\nOn December 22, 1970, the U.S. Gymnastics\nletics for over one and one-half million boys\nlend themselves to the conduct of interna-\nof the use of the Olympic training squad to repre-\nFederation, now the international franchise hold-\nand an increasing number of girls, are not\ntional relations.\"\nsent the AAU on foreign tour and give the AAU\ner, filed the necessary material and was recog-\nrepresented in the development program of\nsome semblance of having a basketball program to\n\"It remains a truism that the maximum\nnized as the Group A member and governing body\nthe nation's Olympic Committee. This is, of\ntheir foreign colleagues.\neffectiveness of the USOC cannot be realized\nin gymnastics in the United States.\ncourse, ridiculous on its face. The school\nMeanwhile, NCAA Olympic Committee Chair-\nuntil the vast potential of the school-college\nThe U.S. Wrestling Federation applied as a\npeople know the reason why.\" (Fagan letter,\nman Reed was becoming increasingly disillusioned.\ncommunity is fully, responsibly and equitably\nGroup B member. The AAU influence in the USOC\nSeptember 14, 1969)\nHe wrote:\nintegrated in the constitution and functions\nshowed at the January 20, 1971, Board meeting in\nGeorge Killian, executive director, National Ju-\n\"I am somewhat disenchanted with the in-\nof the USOC.\" (NCAA Annual Reports, 1969-\nDenver. The officers of the USOC proposed an\nnior College Athletic Association, called to USOC\ndependent federations and accordingly have\n70)\namendment to the Constitution to give themselves\nPresident Orth's attention the fact that no junior\nless confidence in our original strategy than\nReed questioned President Buck concerning the\nthe authority to approve or deny an organization's\ncollege representative was on the Olympic Devel-\nI did. The problem is that the independents\nauthorization of the Olympic basketball tour to\napplication to become this country's representa-\nopment Committee.\nrepresent pretty provincial points of view,\npay off AAU debts to its international friends. He\ntive in an international sports governing body.\nThe U.S. Olympic Basketball Committee, at its\nlimited to the circle of their own activities\nnoted such a tour was not proposed when the de-\nThe Board also voted to establish the USOC as\nmeeting October 5, 1969, voted to establish train-\nand mainly concerned with protecting the\nvelopment camp was authorized.\nthe interim governing body for wrestling.\n26\n27\nDr. de Ferrari, FILA vice-president, called a\nI note that they fit quite well together.\" (Gil-\ncome about only by a two-thirds majority,\nAAU has controlled the U.S. Olympic organization\nmeeting of the commission involving the Wres-\nstrap letter, June 8, 1971)\nand (3) prior to acceptance of a Federation as\nand insisted that it has the sole jurisdiction and\ntling Federation and the AAU as directed by\nEd Steitz, athletic director at Springfield College\nthe international franchise holder, the USOC\nregistration rights in certain sports. Even though\nFILA. This body sponsored two teams for the ju-\nand a veteran international authority, took over\nmust give its prior approval as recognition\nclub athletic teams have long since ceased being\nnior and senior world's championship. The AAU\nas chairman of the NCAA Olympic Committee.\nof that organization being the governing\nsupported by most of the private or publicly as-\nreneged on accepting its half share of the costs,\nSteitz summarized the year in his report, and\nbody.\nsisted clubs, the AAU has insisted on maintaining\nwhich it had planned to get from the U.S. Olympic\nparts are quoted:\n\"NCAA members of the Olympic Commit-\nthe status quo of its voting power and control in\nDevelopment Fund.\n\"At Greenbrier at the USOC biennial meet-\ntee are gravely concerned; in fact, quite pes-\nthe Olympic organization. The situation has been\nThe AAU sought and secured continuing help\ning, a motion was passed whereby a sports\nsimistic, to the point that they feel a radical\nmagnified by collusion of the AAU with the inde-\nfrom two AAU stalwarts-USOC President Buck\nbody, such as a Federation, in order to be\nchange must take place within the structure\npendent franchise holders' voting bloc, which\nand International Olympic Committee President\nrecognized by the USOC, must obtain a favor-\nof the USOC itself before the school-college\nexists for the same defensive protection of the\nAvery Brundage-to persuade FILA to return the\nable vote of two-thirds\nsystem will ever receive its due identity and\npower position of these governing bodies as the\ninternational wrestling franchise to the AAU even\nrespect; i.e., having a voice and vote com-\nAAU.\n\"This devisive legislation is interpreted by\nthough it was not a single-purpose organization.\nNCAA representatives as a means of doing\nmensurate with the contribution it makes in\nSeveral of these governing bodies (other than\nThe biennial USOC meeting at Greenbrier, West\nall that is possible to prevent one of the Fed-\nvarious sports.\" (NCAA Annual Reports,\nthe AAU) are as inactive and decaying in their\nVirginia, became known as the USOC \"power\nerations from being designated the govern-\n1970-71)\nsports as is the AAU in several of the sports over\ngrab.\" The USOC passed the amendment to the\ning body for that particular sport. In addition,\nIt was agreed among many of the NCAA com-\nwhich it claims control.\nUSOC Constitution that a majority of the Board\nbefore a sports body may apply to the inter-\nmittee members and officers who considered the\nThe rules have been manipulated or interpreted\nof Directors of the USOC would have to give ap-\nnational governing body for membership, it\nproblem that the NCAA, as an organization, and\nat the will of this bloc to put the school-college\nproval before any national organization in the\nmust have the approval and recognition of\nthe individuals who represented it should fulfill\nathletic system, which represents the greatest\nUnited States could seek affiliation with an inter-\nthe USOC.\ntheir responsibilities and assignments through the\nactual and potential source of United States ath-\nnational federation as a national sports governing\n\"This, in effect, places control of (all) inter-\n1972 Olympic summer games at Munich, Germany.\nletic talent, in a servile and now exiled status-\nbody; another amendment proposed without prior\nnational competition in the hands of the USOC\nSerious and damaging mistakes in USOC manage-\nexiled by the self-serving Sulger and Greenbrier\nnotice was adopted amending the required vote\nBoard of Directors which, in turn, is gov-\nment were evident previous to and during the\nAmendments. The school-college community is\nfrom a majority to two-thirds. Many questioned\nerned by the organizations which hold inter-\nMunich competition. On October 25, 1972, the\nmost willing to serve, and for many years has con-\nthe legality of the action.\nnational franchises at the present time. Be-\nNCAA Council-the Association's 18-member pol-\ntributed the greatest portion of the Olympic effort\nA great loss was suffered on the death of Wil-\nfore any change can be made in membership,\nicy board-voted to withdraw from the U.S. Olym-\nin many sports. But the AAU and its cronyism\nliam R. Reed in 1971. His statement, distributed to\nthe change must be approved by two-thirds\npic Committee.\ntechnique of maintaining control requires a new\nmany sports organizations on May 14, 1971, called\nvote of the very people who hold present\nOlympic structure.\nSummary\nfor total USOC reorganization. The negotiator and\nmembership. Objections to their policies and\nIn 1921, General Pierce, NCAA president, said,\npeace-maker realized that his efforts had been\nAn attempt has been made to consolidate from\nprocedures are passed upon by the same\n\"The attitude of the Committee on Reorganiza-\nfutile.\nfiles and other materials a narrative of what has\npeople who make policies and administer the\ntion, and the steps it has taken, are such that the\nhappened in the NCAA in its relationships with\nOther observers experienced the same feelings.\nprocedures. At a time when due process is\nNCAA feels that it is for the best interests of\nthe U. S. Olympic Committee, the AAU and the\nC. R. Gilstrap, NCAA Olympic Committee mem-\nemphasized in the schools and in the courts\namateur sports in the United States that it with-\nnew Federations. Also the most pertinent letters\nber, wrote:\nof our land, this is a movement diametrically\ndraw from the present movement.\nfrom the various files have been sorted by subject\n\"When I was first associated with the\nopposed to such a concept. If Ralph Nader\nHe offered two solutions: \"First, the organiza-\nmatter to provide a ready reference and bibliog-\nOlympic movement, I carried with me the\nbelieves General Motors is too much 'estab-\nraphy. Hopefully, they may be useful in giving\ntion of an American Olympic Association that\nidea that the controversy between the NCAA\nlishment,' he would be flabbergasted by the\nsome background for present assessment of the\nwould be really representative of all interests con-\nand the AAU was in all probability the result\nUSOC's role in controlling international com-\ncerned, or second, the taking over of the entire\nposition of the NCAA and other organizations on\nof personality differences, poor communica-\npetition.\nthese subjects currently.\nresponsibility for the proper conducting of the\ntion and perhaps a somewhat exaggerated\n\"Oddly enough, the legislation prohibiting\nOlympic Games by the Amateur Athletic Union.\"\nThe struggle going on in amateur sports today\npresentation of the whole thing by the news\na Federation from being recognized without\nIn 1926 after the NAAF, the Navy, YMCA and\nis the very same struggle that has gone on inter-\nmedia\napproval of the USOC Board of Directors is\nNCAA withdrew from the Olympic Association,\nmittently since 1889, flaring up when conditions\n\"Since that time, I have had an opportunity\na complete turnabout of the cry that we\nGeneral Pierce said, \"Now that the AAU has as-\nbecame intolerable in 1921, 1926, 1928, 1936, and\nto watch the USOC hierarcy function at the\nheard in former years. The previous argu-\nsumed complete responsibility again, the outlook\nfrom 1960 to 1972 when the NCAA finally with-\nDenver meeting and at Greenbrier, and I\nment was that the Board could not recognize\ndrew from the USOC.\nis far from promising. Since the NCAA is in such\nam now convinced that I have been totally\na new sports governing body until the inter-\na helpless minority, it seems to me the part of\nThe basic issue is the self-assumed and con-\nwrong. I have watched as these people ma-\nnational federation had done SO.\nwisdom to withdraw entirely from administrative\ntinued monopolistic control that the Amateur Ath-\nnipulate the USOC Constitution to suit their\n\"In my view, the future membership of the\nparticipation.\"\nletic Union has claimed and tried to maintain\nconvenience. I have seen them interpret the\nNCAA within the USOC should be contingent\nOn April 16, 1928, Commissioner Griffith sug-\nover various amateur sports in the United States,\nsame IOC rule in diametrically opposite ways\nupon repeal of three constitutional provi-\ngested that a representative American Olympic\nmainly through the U.S. Olympic organization.\nto support different positions. I heard them\nsions: (1) the notorious Sulger Amendment\nAssociation be organized to take control of\npreach patriotism and national sovereignty\nwhich provides that international franchise\nPerhaps in the first few Olympiads there was\nAmerica's Olympic effort \"and end the domination\nmerely to justify the USOC position in the\nholders must have majority representation\nsome reason for the athletic clubs to assume a\nof the Amateur Athletic Union over American\nFILA fight, and I have become convinced that\non U.S. Olympic sports committees; (2) the\nleading role, although college athletes and Pro-\namateur athletics.\"\nthey can't be dealt with. Parenthetically, I\nprovision that the USOC may recognize only\nfessor Sloan of Princeton were involved in al-\nFollowing the 1936 Olympic Games, President\nwould also add that I have great difficulty\none national governing body in a sport, which\nmost equal numbers in the first Olympic Games,\nJohn Griffith of the NCAA advocated and obtained\ndistinguishing between our 'friends' in the\nbody must be a member of the international\nand were in a majority at the second.\nan equal number of games committee members\nAAU and some of the so-called independents.\nsports federation and that recognition may\nWith persistent political maneuvering, the\nfor the NCAA and AAU in certain sports. The cur-\n28\n29\nrent Olympic power bloc has repealed this 1936\nthirds vote, and (3) the USOC must give its ap-\ncompromise solution.\nproval before an organization is accepted by the\nIn 1961 and 1962, the NCAA made numerous\ninternational federation in a sport.\"\nattempts to get the Olympic Committee and the\nAll will agree that Bill Reed and his colleagues\nAAU to agree within the structure for a re-\nmade as good an attempt as can be made to solve\nINTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE\norganization, to no avail. When it was obvious the\nthe problem by winning over the other members\nNational Collegiate Athletic Association\nAAU had no intention of modifying its position,\nof the USOC. When they arrive at the same con-\nthe NCAA and other large athletic organizations\nclusion as all the other NCAA delegates have pre-\nEdward S. Steitz, director of athletics at Springfield\nStates Collegiate Sports Council and serves on its execu-\nadopted the Federation concept in some sports to\nviously over the long span of years, it rules out\n(Massachusetts) College, has actively promoted U.S.\ntive committee.\nprovide a way to bring progress in those sports.\nfor good the option of internal USOC restructur-\ninternational competition as much as anyone in inter-\nClaude R. Gilstrap, director of athletics at the University\ncollegiate athletics. He is president of the Basketball\nThe late William R. Reed, chairman of NCAA\ning.\nof Texas, Arlington, was an NCAA representative to the\nFederation of the U.S.A. and has been its official represen-\nUSOC from 1968 until the NCAA's withdrawal and was in\nOlympic Committee, wrote in May, 1971: \"During\nThe recent gross errors of USOC mismanage-\ntative at the last four Olympiads. Last year he represented\nattendance at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. A\nmy six years as a member of the USOC Board of\nment at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich\nthe U.S. State Department in India. He served on the\nhighly successful high school and college football coach\nexecutive committee of the USOC's board of directors and\nDirectors and Executive Committee, I have\nhave focused public attention upon the problem.\nfor 26 years, he won six \"Coach of the Year\" awards and\nthe USOC's drug abuse and administrative committees\nreached the conclusion that the USOC is a sick\nis also the recipient of a Distinguished Service Award\nHistory has repeated itself many times. Men\nat the 1972 Alympiad.\nfrom the Texas High School Coaches Association.\norganization or one 80 anomalous in its composi-\nin good faith have tried to obtain a suitable Olym-\nSamuel E. Barnes, professor of physical education at Dis-\nStan Bates, commissioner of the Western Athletic Confer-\ntion that I seriously doubt that it can serve USOC\npic organization which coincides with American\ntrict of Columbia Teachers College, was a member of the\nUSOC board of directors for the last Olympiad. He also\nence, was a member of the NCAA's Olympic Committee\ninterests adequately for the future, particularly\nideals. They have accepted compromises hopefully,\nfor six years. He served 17 years at Washington State Uni-\nwas on the USOC's administrative committee for the 1971\nconsidering the advances in the level of world com-\nbut these have soon changed back to greater\nversity, part of that time as director of athletics. He has\nPan American Games and the 1972 Olympiad. A former\npetition.\" He suggested approaching Congress to\nalso coached football and basketball at the high school\nmonopolies. Action must be taken now, while the\nathlete and college coach, he has teaching, coaching and\nreview the charter, eliminating all organizations\nlevel and is a former president of both the state high school\nlast Olympics is still fresh in our minds and before\nadministrative experience.\nprincipals association and the state high school coaches\nin the USOC but the Federations with some modi-\nthe next one approaches.\nCarl Maddox, director of athletics at Louisiana State Uni-\nassociation in Washington.\nfications, and possible withdrawal to support the\nversity, has led that institution's intercollegiate athletic\nTHE SOLUTION: A new Olympic structure which\nJesse T. Hill, commissioner of the Pacific Coast Athletic\nWorld University Games.\nprogram in an expansion from six to eleven sports and a\nAssociation, served on the USOC Board from 1964 through\nabandons the present concept of organizational\n50 per cent increase in number of participants in the past\nEd Steitz, his successor, said: \"In my view,\n1968. During his 15 years as director of athletics at the Uni-\nthe future membership of the NCAA within the\ncontrol-with its power bloc voting structure and\nfour and a half years. He was a highly successful football\nversity of Southern California, USC teams won 29 national\nand track coach and has been on the LSU staff since 1954.\njurisdictional disputes-and returns the United\nchampionships and nearly twice as many conference\nUSOC should be contingent upon repeal of three\nDonald B. Canham, director of athletics at the University\nStates Olympic movement to the American people\nchampionships. A cum laude graduate and top athlete at\nconstitutional provisions: (1) the notorious Sul-\nof Michigan, has coached six different foreign teams in\nUSC, he was highly successful as head coach in football\nger amendment; (2) recognition of only one na-\non a state basis.\nScandanavia, Africa and Europe. He was the first Olympic\nand track at his alma mater.\nThe problem that won't go away can be solved!\nteam coach of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika in 1956 and\ntional governing body by the USOC only by a two-\nhas conducted clinics and coaching schools throughout\nCONSULTANT\nEurope. He was a member of the Olympic Track and Field\nAdmiral T. J. Hamilton, USN, Ret., has served as research\nCommittee until 1968, when he resigned. A former NCAA\nconsultant for the International Relations Committee. Now\nhigh jump champion, he coached Michigan's track and\nliving in La Jolla, California, Admiral Hamilton is one of\nfield teams to twelve Big Ten Conference championships.\nthe most knowledgeable men in the nation on the history\nCharles M. Neinas, commissioner of the Big Eight Confer-\nof the Olympic movement. He served on the USOC board\nence, was recently elected chairman of the NCAA's Inter-\nof directors and executive committee, including a stint as\nnational Relations Committee. He has been active in\nchairman of the Development Committee. He has been\ninternational administration in several capacities. The\nhead football coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, director of\nformer NCAA assistant executive director was a member\nathletics at the Naval Academy and the University of\nof the USOC board of directors for the last two Olympiads.\nPittsburgh and executive director of the Pacific-8 Con-\nHe was instrumental in the organization of the United\nference.\nFORD\n31\n30\nmay\nTHE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION\n1221 Baltimore Avenue\nPhone 816/474-4600\nKansas City, Missouri 64105\nCOPY\nAMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF U.S.\nDecember 1, 1972\nRepresentative Gerald R. Ford\nCapitol Building, H-230\nWashington, DC 20515\nDear Representative Ford:\nWith some justification a call has recently gone out for an investigation\nby Congress into certain aspects of amateur athletics. To the end that such\na probe is constructive and makes effective and cogent recommendations\nfor change, I concur with it. However, it seems to me that such scrutiny\nby Congress falls somewhat short when it fails to view the activities of\nthis country's most powerful collegiate organization -- the National\nCollegiate Association.\nIt has become something of a cliche to discuss the NCAA and the AAU in\none breath. Nevertheless, the differences between these two organizations\nare at root cause of many of the problems that presently plague amateur\nathletics. We turn, therefore, to you and the rest of Congress for\nimplementations of a solution to these problems.\nAnd, such a pattern for resolution of this conflict exists: It is the\nbinding solution that the Congressionally-appointed Kheel Commission handed\ndown in 1968. However, in open contempt of Congress, the NCAA National\noffice notified the Nation that it refused to accept the decision of this\nofficial arbitration body.\nMoreover, as outlined in the attachments, the already arbitrary power of the\nNCAA national office increases daily to the detriment of amateur sports,\nthe college community and our Nation's image internationally.\nTherefore, I ask that Congress take action to compel the NCAA to abide by\nprevious Congressional directives. Further, I ask that a commission be\nformed to investigate the workings of the NCAA, most particularly the\nworkings of its national offices.\nThe AAU stands ready and willing to abide by Congressional fiat and to\nassist in implementing Congressional will.\nMost sincerely,\nJOHN B. KELLY, JR.\nPresident\nJBKJR/kr\ncc: Frank Meyer, Administrative Assistant\nADVIDENTE INRECTORS 30 OF\nNovember 9, 1972\nNATURAL\nNACDA\n1893\nTHINK\nFORD\nOFFICERS\nPRESIDENT\nCECIL COLEMEN\n1st VICE PRESIDENT\nJOHN WINKIN\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nUniversity of Illinois\nColby College\n2nd VICE PRESIDENT\nHARRY FOUKE\nUniversity of Houston\nVICE PRESIDENT\nBILL ROHR\nOhio University\nCongressman Gerald R. Ford\nSECRETARY\nHOWARD.GEN\nTennessee State University\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nDear Congressman Ford:\nUNIVERSITY DIVISION REPRESENTATIVES\nBARRAT\nEarlier this week I directed a télegram, which was\nDeversity\nfollowed by a letter, to President Nixon requesting con-\nERNIE BARRENT\nriansas State University\nsideration for a White House Congress on Amateur Athletics.\nto COPPEDGE\nThe telegram, as well as the letter, was sent in the name\n\"rave Academy\nof the National Association of Collegiate Directors of\nED KRAUSE\nuniyersit Notre-Dame\nAthletics, an organization of over 1,000 collegiate ath-\nMCDAVID\nletic directors in this country. W. have specifically\nof run Menco\nquested the use of White House offices for a congress 01\nTERS\nCollege\nthe leaders of all amateur sports bodies which are any\nWORDRUFT\nway related to\nor responsible for\ninternational\nIndnessee\ncompetition. Our concern is not only for the present image\nMAYARD\nUniversity\nof U. S. athletics internationally, but also for the wel-\nCOLLEGE DIVISION REPRESENTATIVES\nfare of the competitors and, therefore, doem it manda-\ntory that all bodies involved sit down together and dis-\nNorthridg\ncuss mutual areas of concern.\nInversity\nFRITZ NNEGRE\nFor as long as any of us can remember the United States\nSolorade of Mines\nOlympic Committee has been embroiled in various controversies\nrgo, ROBINSON\nwith other organizations such as the National Collegiate\nStarating Coliege\nCARNIE SMITH\nAthletic Association (N.C.A.A.) and the Amateur Athletic\nKansas State Chliege Pittsburg\nUnion (A.A.U.). We firmly believe that only through a White:\nTRIMER\nUhis Wesleyan University\nHouse Congress on Amateur Athletics, where there is free and\nSIA LIVAN\nopen dialogue between the heads of these and all sports.\nBusion state College\nbodies having international competition, can the differences\nRAY WHISPELL\nWhitenberg College\nwhich have existed for so many years be settled. From this\nJUNIOR AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE\nmeeting, we would hope that a new super-structure could\nREPRESENTATIVES\nemerge to coordinate all international competition, in\nTERFIELD\ncluding our Olympic program.\nJunior College\nDEMIE MAINIERI\nHinior College North Campús\nHAL SHERRECK\nFulterion terms oilege\nNOF 211 CHAK\nMiddlessis County College\nExecutive Director\nMICHAEL I CLEARY\nannual convention\nExecutive Club West Bldg\n21330 Center.Ridge Road\ndenver. colo.\nCleveland Ohio 44116\nN.A.C.D.A. JUNE 26: 26 27,1973\n(216) 331 5773\nPage 2\nNovember 9, 1972\nIt is our firm belief that within this super-structure,\nequitable representation from all sports whose constituencies\nare affected would be mandatory. Going back to our basic as-\nsumption that all parties are deeply interested in what is best\nfor the participant and our country, we have not been encouraged\nby reports that other organizations are planning to request Con-\ngressional investigations. We believe that the White House Con-\ngress on Amateur Athletics would be more efficient\nmore\nobjective\nand more expedient, thus getting to the heart\nof the matter quicker than possible legislative action could\naccomplish.\nShould you be in agreement with this proposal, we urge\nyou to make this known to President Nixon. We are prepared to\nassist in any way which would serve the best interest of our\ncountry.\nWe thank you in advance for your consideration and send\nour best wishes for your continued success in all areas.\nSincerely,\nCecil n. Coloman\nCecil N. Coleman\nPresident\nCNC:1c\ncc: M. J. Cleary\nA. W. Twitchell\nGERALD\nUniversity of Illinois\nAthletic Association\nOffice of the Director\n112 Assembly Hall\nChampaign, Illinois 61820\n58 District Associations Serving\nAAU\nAMATEUR\nAmateur Athletics in Nineteen Sports\nA.A.U. HOUSE\n3400 WEST 86th STREET\nINDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46268\nATHLETIC\nTelephone: (317) 297-2900\nCable Address: \"AMATHLETIC\" Indianapolis\nUNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC.\nNATIONAL OFFICERS\nPresident, JOHN B. KELLY, JR.\nNovember 15, 1971\n1720 Cherry St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19103\nFirst Vice President, DAVID G. RIVENES\n203 N. Custer, Miles City, Montana 59301\nSecond Vice President, JOSEPH R. SCALZO\n1925 Mt. Vernon Dr., Toledo, Ohio 43607\nThe Honorable Warren G. Magnuson\nSecretary, RICHARD E. HARKINS\n201 East Armour Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64111\nChairman, Committee on Commerce\nTreasurer, CLARENCE JOHNSON\nUnited States Senate\nP.O. Box 427, Royal Oak, Michigan 48067\nWashington, DC 20510\nDear Senator Magnuson:\nAAU president Jack Kelly has referred your letter of October 22, 1971 to our\nrespective offices for reply. We are sure that Mr. Kelly explained that because\nof the function of our committee as a virtually autonomous body within the AAU,\nit might be more relevant for us to review the successes and failures with regard\nto the implementation of the Sports Arbitration Board's report to the United\nStates Senate Commerce Committee. We think it pertinent, in this regard, to\nbriefly trace the history of the dispute between the Amateur Athletic Union\n(AAU) of the United States and the other sports bodies to which you referred.\nIn the early and mid-1960's, the feuding between the bodies involved in the\nconduct of the sport of track and field in this country became so bitter as to\nthreaten the very survival of that sport. At the specific request of the National\nCollegiate Athletic Association and the United States Track and Field Federation,\nthe Senate of the United States appointed an Arbitration Panel known as the Sports\nArbitration Board and chaired by the eminent Mr. Theodore H. Kheel.\nFollowing twenty-five (25) months deliberation, the Sports Arbitration Board arrived\nat a settlement which Mr. Kheel felt was more than generous to the NCAA and its\ntrack group. He was quoted as having said at the time that he was fearful \"the\nAAU would object to the extent to which we had permitted the NCAA to force its\nway into the domain the AAU had governed for the better part of the century.\"\n(New York Times, Friday, November 8, 1968).\nWe did object; we did feel that it \"constituted a signal victory for the NCAA and\narbitrarily stripped the AAU of many of its traditional and legal prerogatives.\"\n(Robert Giegengack, Re-statement of Position and Projection of Policy by the Men's\nTrack and Field Committee of the Amateur Athletic Union of the U.S. vis-a-vis the\nNCAA). For some eighty-one (81) years, since its founding in 1888, the AAU had\nmade as a requisite for any sanction the agreement that AAU sanction, and AAU\nsanction alone, would be used for athletic event. However, in order to implement\nthe Kheel Agreement, the AAU for the first time agreed to permit dual sanctioning\nin order to facilitate cooperation between itself and the other groups interested\nin the sport of track and field. This policy decision has been in effect, without\ninterruption, since February, 1968.\nSenator Warren G. Magnuson\nNovember 15, 1971\nPage two\nIt was not the AAU that announced the demand for governmental intervention in this\ndispute; it was not the AAU that threatened the total disruption of our national\nathletic program; it was not the AAU that called upon the gentlemen of the Arbi-\ntration Panel to sacrifice twenty-five (25) months of deliberation.\nIt was the United States Track and Field Federation.\nAnd, having made these demands and threats the federation has, to this date, refused\nto abide by the decision of the Sports Arbitration Board, despite the fact that Mr.\nKheel stated upon the completion of the report, \"This is a final decision in an\narbitration matter which is final and binding\n\"\n(Sports Arbitration Board\nReport, Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce United States Senate 90th Congress\nSecond Session on the opinion and decision of the Board of Arbitration on Track\nand Field)\nAnd, you yourself stated, Senator, as the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee,\nwhen it became apparent that the USTFF was stalling in the acceptance of the\nreport that, \"It is the feeling of my committee, in light of all the circumstances\ninvolved, that we must consider the decision of the board to be in full force and\neffect\n(Associated Press story) While the nation's press and other interested\nparties to this dispute condemned the USTFF for its failure to accept the report,\nit does not change the fact that the solution upon which we had based our hopes\nfor peace in this matter has fallen short of its promise, solely because the USTFF\nhas steadfastly refused to accept any solution which does not give it complete\ncontrol over track and field in this country.\nWe at the AAU charge that the real intent then, and now, behind this federation is\nto usurp the power and prerogatives of the AAU domestically and internationally.\nThe USTFF was prepared then, and is obviously prepared now, to use any method possible\nto achieve this end. They have tried to use the athlete, the spectator, the Senate\nof the United States and the designated Sports Arbitration Board to achieve this end.\nThey have been openly contemptuous of the findings of this Board, of the Board itself\nand of the Congress and Senate of the United States of America which authorized that\nsome decision be made regarding this matter.\nWe do not wish now to restate our stand on the issues that confronted the Sports\nArbitration Board. We felt that the make-up of the panel was such as to render\na fair decision based upon the facts. The NCAA, too, was quite explicit about its\nsatisfaction with the make-up of the Board. On the occasion of the appointment of\nthis Board, the president of the NCAA, Mr. Everett Barnes, stated, \"Our group had\ncomplete confidence that the vice-president would select a distinguished, unbiased\nand competent arbitration board. These selections confirm that confidence and\ncompletely satisfy us.\" (Stenographic Transcript, Press Conference of Vice-President\nHubert H. Humphrey, Washington, DC, December 14, 1965)\nThe question remains, of course, why did the USTFF refuse to accept the binding\ndecision of the Board?\nSenator Warren G. Magnuson\nNovember 15, 1971\nPage three\nWe would like to review briefly the decisions of the Sports Arbitration Board.\nYou will recall that one of the major areas of disagreement between the AAU and\nthe federation was over the question of sanctioning. Your Board made the decision\nthat in strictly \"closed\" competition, the USTFF would be allowed to conduct\ncompetition without AAU sanction; but that in meets declared \"open\", that is\ninvolving other than \"students\" as defined by the Sports Arbitration Board, the\nfederation would be required to apply for sanction from the AAU, based upon the\nAAU's position as the governing body for the sport in the United States for\ninternational purposes. We did not agree entirely, but as we said at the time,\n\"Neither pride nor selfish interest has prevented us from this generous solution\",\nand we permitted dual sanctioning. (Robert Giegengack, op. cit.)\nWhat has happened, as a result, is this: The USTFF has continued, in open defiance\nof the findings of the Board, to conduct \"open\" competitions without application\nfor AAU sanction. Thus, not only have they exhibited contempt for the arbitration\nagreement, but they have placed in jeopardy the amateur standing of those \"open\"\nathletes competing in their illegal meets. Already they have been responsible\nfor the possible loss of one world record for an athlete for whom they purported\nto speak. (Syndicated column by Red Smith, attached)\nAdditionally, rather than openly announce to athletes entering their meets that\nthey were in conflict with international rules, the federation used subterfuge\nand deceit. Many athletes entered the federation meets under the belief, implicit\nin the entry blanks for the federation meets which ask for an AAU registration\nnumber or card as proof of amateur standing, that the meet was sanctioned by\nthe IAAF representative (the AAU of the U.S.) and was therefore a legitimate meet.\n(See attached entry blank for 1971, USTFF meet). Subsequently, many wrote to the\nAAU expressing surprise that the sanctioning dispute had once again broken out,\nsince they went under the impression that the decision of the Sports Arbitration\nBoard had settled the issue in 1968. (See attached letter from Oklahoma athlete\nDarl Locke, September 1, 1971)\nThere are pertinent adjuncts to this question of sanctioning. Rarely in the course\nof its short existence has the USTFF applied to the AAU for sanction, even after\nthey were formally bound to do so as a result of the decision of the Sports Arbi-\ntration Board. Therefore, all such meets involving \"open\" athletes -- including\nthe many indoor, outdoor and cross country meets sponsored by the USTFF since the\nSports Arbitration Board decision was handed down in 1968 -- are in violation of\nthe spirit and law of the IAAF and as such, the AAU, as the member-representative\nin the United States, would be well within its legal bounds to suspend athletes\ninvolved in such meets.\nSince the decision was passed down by the Sports Arbitration Board, we have refrained\nfrom any such action, feeling that it is the USTFF that deserves the criticism for\nits total disregard of the athletes welfare. We do not wish to become a party to\nthe oft-used USTFF tactic of hiding behind the athlete and allowing him to take\nthe blunt of the punishment.\nSenator Warren G. Magnuson\nNovember 15, 1971\nPage four\nAnother related point in sanctioning -- the AAU was never required to permit dual\nsanctioning of its meets by the USTFF. However, over the past two years we have\napplied and used the sanction of this federation to avoid further internal injuries\nto the nation's track and field program. We realize that, despite the inflated\ncosts of the sanction, we would better preserve the peace by utilizing their\narbitrary approval.\nAdditionally, with regard to the question of sanctioning, the USTFF is the only\ntrack group in this country that refuses to apply for AAU sanctioning of \"open\"\nmeets or events. Even the NCAA, with whom this dispute originally started, complies\nwith these provisions as they relate to AAU sanction. (See attached material on\n1970 NCAA Indoor Meet, Detroit, Michigan)\nThe pervasive attitude of distrust that exists between the AAU and the USTFF is\ndue, in part, to the latter's disregard of reality in its relations with us. In\nthe December 1970 NCAA Newsletter, an article entitled \"The Federation Movement\"\nstated, \"The USTFF sponsored three international tours to Latin America and the\nCaribbean without AAU sanction being applied.\" (NCAA Newsletter, December 1970)\nPrime facie, of course, it is untrue, because no member-representative of the\nIAAF would allow a foreign team in its country which was not authorized by that\nteam's home governing body. Notwithstanding that, the Executive Director of\nthe federation, Carl Cooper, wrote on May 21, 1970 to the AAU saying, \"Your\noffice grants permission to the Brigham Young University track and field team\nto take a tour every other year to the Scandinavian countries. The tours out-\nlined above (to the Caribbean and Central America) will be very similar in nature\nand we would like to have similar permission from your office.\" (Emphasis ours)\nFollowing this, correspondence was received from the president of the federation,\nWayne Cooley, complying with all the information needed before AAU permission\ncould be granted to them for such a tour.\nWe might point out, parenthetically, that the AAU, were it intent upon diminishing\nor destroying this federation, might easily have refused permission for any tour.\nWe did not, since we felt that such a move would not contribute to a resolution\nof this conflict.\nPerhaps the most offensive disregard of reality with which the federation amuses\nitself is the myth that the USTFF \"has\" 90% of the athletes and \"owns\" 90% of\nthe track and field facilities in this country. (For the Record\nA Statement\nfrom the United States Track and Field Federation, page 7) At the outset, the\nfederation can no more lay claim to an athlete than can our organization or\nany organization. The athlete belongs to no one but himself. He may compete\nunder the auspices of the AAU one day, the NAIA (National Association of Inter-\ncollegiate Athletics, a group of 537 colleges and universities which are allied\nwith the AAU) another and the NCAA on a third, but surely he is not bound to any\nSenator Warren G. Magnuson\nNovember 15, 1971\nPage five\none organization. If the USTFF wishes to claim athletes as their property, they\nare free to make such a claim. But as for us, we relinquish any claim to the\nremaining 10% that the federation ceded to us. We do not wish to claim property\nrights to athletes, be it with USTFF blessing or not.\nThe claim to ownership by the federation of 90% of the track and field facilities\nin this country is incredible. The vast majority of these facilities obviously\nbelong not to the USTFF, but to the taxpayers of the state, county or city where\nthey are located. How audacious of this federation to usurp that ownership.\nThroughout the period following the decision of the Sports Arbitration Board,\nthe AAU has sought not only to abide by the Agreement, but to encourage the USTFF\nto abide by that agreement. Only recently the president of the AAU appealed to\nUSTFF president Cooley, urging him to meet with members of the virtually autonomous\nnational track and field committee of the AAU. Mr. Cooley coldly declined to do\nso, saying, \"I will not be available as president of the USTFF for meetings with\nMessers. Cassell, Giegengack and/or Wright. It is pointless to pursue this any\nfurther\n11 In the most recent editorial of the AAU Newsletter, we asked\nthat the USTFF join with the AAU by signing the Articles of Alliance in order to\nend this internecine strife (Amateur Athlete Newsletter, October 1971) We have\nreceived no response.\nWe have been supported in our position not only by the decision of the Sports\nArbitration Board, but also by the United States Olympic Committee, which refuses\nto recognize the federation, by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF),\nby the member national governing track and field bodies throughout the world, who\nrefuse uniformly to deal with the Federation (See attached letter from Arthur Gold\nof the British Amateur Athletic Association) and by the United States Department\nof State which recently informed the USTFF, \"We require an authorized letter from\nthe governing sports body (the AAU) before consideration can be given to co-sponsorship\nof any overseas tour.' (See attached)\nWith respect to this federated organization, we are not out to destroy it. It may\nwell be that the federation could make a contribution to domestic track and field\nin this country. Certainly the AAU would support any organization that strengthens\nthe sport of track and field in the United States. What we will not support, cannot\nsupport and will not tolerate is an organization that is set upon a course of des-\ntruction with respect to the AAU, and without respect for any of the millions of\nothers -- athletes, fans, volunteers and coaches -- who are being irreparably harmed\nby the federation's actions.\nWe think that, in the main, these are men of good will. We think that they are\ngenuinely interested in furthering the sport. But we equally feel that there are\nthose whose motives are dictated by the imperatives of raw power. In this respect,\nit is illucidating to refer to a recent incident regarding the submission of an\napplication for world record for a young hurdler named Tom Hill. His pending\nSenator Warren G. Magnuson\nNovember 15, 1971\nPage six\nrecord was set at the USTFF Championships at Wichita, Kansas, June 1970. Despite\nthe fact that the AAU urged the federation to apply for sanction, that such a\nsanction would not have been given immediately under the terms of the Sports\nArbitration Board and that the AAU, after the fact, offered to issue a retro-\nactive sanction for the meet \"Without fanfare\" so that this athlete would receive\nworld recognition, the USTFF refused to make application.\nIn a letter from the track coach at Duke University (an institution affiliated\nwith the NCAA), Al Buehler, is one of the AAU representatives to the USOC and\npresident of the United States Track and Field Coaches Association, he stated,\n\"Carl Cooper (Executive Director of the USTFF) said in effect\nthat he\ncould not and would not request a 'retro-active' sanction from the Missouri Valley\nAAU\nCarl said he had been given these instructions by his Executive Council\ncomposed of Cooley, Crowley, Byers, etc. and if 'he would request said Missouri\nValley AAU sanction he would be fired tomorrow'\nIn summary, we would like to reiterate briefly the areas in which the USTFF has\nfailed to abide by the Sports Arbitration Board decision we have discussed:\n(1) the USTFF has failed to accept the Sports Arbitration Board\ndefinition of \"open\" competition as that competition where\nother than students participate.\n(2) despite repeated AAU offers to supply immediate sanction for\nUSTFF \"open\" events, that body has failed to apply to the AAU\nfor sanction of its \"open\" meets as it is specifically bound\nto do under the Sports Arbitration Board agreement.\n(3) the USTFF has deliberately attempted to disguise the fact\nthat its meets are unsanctioned and hence, under the terms\nof the Sports Arbitration Board, illegal, from various athletes\nwho therefore unknowingly compete in these events.\n(4) the USTFF has, we feel, misrepresented the truth and subverted\nthe best interests of the sport of track and field to its own\nambitions.\n(5) finally, the USTFF has constantly and arbitrarily refused to\nmeet with the AAU in order to discuss solutions to the problems\nthat plague the sport of track and field in this country. They\nhave done so, we contend, maliciously and without thought of the\nconsequences to all parties involved in our sport.\nWel feel, and we cannot but hope that you will agree, that we have done more than\nour share to end this strife. We have done so in the interests of preserving\nthe place of the United States at the pinnacle of track and field competition in\nthe world, of providing proper developmental programs and of creating an atmosphere\nSenator Warren G. Magnuson\nNovember 15, 1971\nPage seven\nin which the sport can prosper in this country. We have done so at the cost of\nsome of our traditional authority, but, we thought, the price for peace was not\ntoo great to pay. We have received neither response nor support from the USTFF.\nWe do not wish to climb down the evolutionary scale and revert to the threats\nand intemperate statements that characterize their communications with us. But\nthis cannot long continue. We ask, Senator Magnuson, that you make known your\nviews on the subject so that we may clarify this situation to all concerned and\nbring some harmony to track and field in the United States.\nMost sincerely,\nStanley STANLEY V. WRIGHT 11. wight\nROBERT GIEGENGACK\nChairman,\nAAU Liaison to the\nNational AAU Track and Field Committee\nSports Arbitration Board\ncc: Theodore Kheel\nJack Kelly\nHarry Hainsworth\nOllan Cassell\nRich Harkins\nRich McArthur\nRemarks of AAU President John B. Kelly, Jr.\nNovember 1, 1972\nPhiladelphia, PA\nLast month the NCAA announced its intention of withdrawing from this nation's Olympic\nMovement. At that time I directed myself to what I supposed was the rationale behind\nthis move: namely that the NCAA's Executive Director, Walter Byers, had been thwarted\nin his attempt to gain control of the USOC and had, in a characteristic fit of pique,\ndecided to remove the organization he so tightly controls from further cooperation.\nLet me say that I have not wavered in my belief that this is the primary impetus\nbehind the move of the NCAA. But in the interim, such action raises far more ominous\nquestions about the structure and conduct of the NCAA -- particularly as it concerns\nthat body's national operation in Kansas City, Missouri.\nAmong these questions are:\nBy what authority does this one individual control the destinies of so many athletes,\ncoaches, institutions and athletic programs?\nIf such authority exists, how and by what machinations did it accrue to this one\nindividual?\nIf the NCAA (and we are talking here about an office in Kansas City and the individual\nwho controls it) is charged with protection of the student-athlete, why is so much of\nthat office's time spent in harassing, threatening and otherwise intimidating not only\nthe athletes, but the institutions comprising the membership of the NCAA?\nWhile Mr. Byers, through his lieutenants, calls for an investigation of the USOC's\nfinancial status (comprised of a quadrennial sum of $10 million) who investigates the\nfinancial status of the more than $15 million per year that flows into NCAA coffers\nfrom television revenues?\nWhat imperatives motivate Walter Byers, who at best is involved with a fraction of\nthe male, college-level athletes in this country, to seek hegemony over all amateur\nsports in this country?\nHow has the NCAA, under Byers' leadership, been successful in an open contempt and\ndisdain of a congressional decision?\nI think that the answers to these and other questions regarding the NCAA and its\nExecutive Director are justly asked and demand answers. At the root of them all\nis the question of the direction a portion of collegiate athletics in this country\nwill take in the coming years.\nDuring the past year, one Charles Neinas, now Commissioner of the Big-8 and for\nmany years Mr. Byers' assistant, told a group of USOC officials, \"I am going to\nrecommend to the NCAA that it put all of its facilities 'off-limits' to AAU programs;\nand I will personally insure that this is done in the Big-8.\" By what unmitigated\neffrontary does this fellow usurp the publicly owned facilities in the six states\nrepresented in the Big-8? How, by any reasonable interpretation of law, does an\nindividual in an office in Kansas City presume to control the facilities of tax-\nsupported institutions throughout this country. How does an individual, neither\nduly lected nor residing in that sovereign state, wrest such control from its\ncitizenry?\nThe answer, of course, is that he does not. But this cavalier disregard for the\ntruth and these pompous pronounceent's must not go unchallenged. For, in fact, by\nsuch audacious assumptions they have successfully intimidated member-schools and\ndenied use of these public facilities to the very persons who own them -- the\ntaxpayers.\nThis, at the very least, borders on criminal collusion.\nLast summer, under the auspices of the AAU, a dual track and field meet was scheduled\nbetween juniors (ie. athletes under 20 years of age) of the Soviet Union and the\nUnited States. One week before the meet was to take place, and nearly one month\nafter the United States squad had been selected and publicly announced, Mr. Byers'\noffice notified the schools and coaches of all athletes from NCAA institutions that\nunless the NCAA certified this meet these athletes would be liable to reprisals.\nWe have yet to hear any conceivable explanation of how the welfare of student-\nathletes is affected by the opportunity to compete internationally. Moreover, such\ninterference by the NCAA is forbidden by the terms of the Kheel Commission, a body\ncalled together by the Senate at the specific request of the NCAA. The NCAA, in\nopen contempt of the United States Senate, has, since the report was issued in 1968,\nconsistently refused to abide by the binding decision of the Kheel Commission.\nBeyond all this, though, there is an intrinsic evil in the conduct of Mr. Byers and\nhis lieutenants: it is the blatant intimidation and harrassment of these athletes\nand their schools that strikes at the very core of their personal freedoms. Not\ntoo long ago the track coach at Harvard University, Bill McCurdy, said, \"The NCAA\nshould realize that there is no greater right held by a college student in athletics\nthan his right to compete. Nobody can abridge that right, and I don't care what\nrules they use. When rules and decisions stop kids from competing in legitimate\ncompetitions, then I have very, very little respect for the decision-makers.\"\nI find that many coaches and athletic directors at NCAA institutions share that opinion.\nWhat is most revealing about that statement, and the action taken by the NCAA last\nsummer, is the sense of futility the coaches and athletes feel under the Kansas City\noffice's pervasive domination. If the coach balks, he endangers his job; if the\nadministration balks, the school faces probation; and if the athlete competes, Mr.\nByers and crew take away his scholarship. And if none of this occured last summer,\nit was only because the AAU refused to allow these athletes, coaches and institutions\nto be punished as a result of Walter's lust for more power.\nI submit to you, and to all those involved, that it is a very, very unhealthy\nsituation for sport when one man casually dictates the destinies of thousands of\nathletes and several hundred athletic departments.\nWalter Byers has been called a petty tyrant. Tyrant? Yes. But when one man has\nthe total allegiance of the commissioners of some of the largest athletic conferences,\nwhen he supervises annual television receipts of $15 million and when he is the sole\ndispenser of his own perverse kind of justice to a large segment of this nation's\ncollege athletic community, then this is far from petty. Byers himself may be\npetty and venal; the power he weilds is considerable and should be challenged.\nThere is, too, something ominous about the dual role the NCAA offices play. At\nthe same time that they are making the critical decisions about which events will\nbe televised -- a decision which can mean nearly $100 thousands in revenues to an\ninstitution -- they are also making critical decisions about which institutions\nwill be penalized for violations of NCAA rules. At the very least there looms\nthe distinct possibility of a conflict of interest. In this regard, it is quite\nclear by events of recent occurance that Mr. Byers has used the loss of television\nreceipts as a form of selective reprisal against an institution which has incurred\nhis private and prolific enmity.\nMr. Byers has a virtually insatiable appetite for power. Not content with control\nof domestic amateur athletics, he's now branched out into the international field.\nWith the creation of a series of federations founded and funded by the NCAA, he's\nattempted to usurp control of the legitimate sports governing bodies in the United\nStates. Beyond the very legitimate objection that international amateur athletics\nis well beyond the scope of a domestic collegiate organization is the objection that\nthe NCAA office has diverted funds intended for use in pursuit of domestic collegiate\nathletic goals for the furtherance of Walter's ambitions. He has, I contend, exceeded\nthe scope of his organizations legitimate aspirations, deluded his membership as to his\ntrue intentions and sought to embarrass this country in the eyes of the international\nsporting community.\nIt is possible that this type of meglomania will eventually run its course and\ncease to exist because of itself. It is also possible that the member institutions\nof the NCAA will, as certain recent events suggest, realize that Byers and his\nlieutenants are paid servants of theirs and begin to give him some much needed\ndirection in his activities.\nHowever, too much is at stake to depend upon time or resolve for a solution to this\nintolemable situation. I have, therefore, sent letters to every member of the United\nStates Senate, the House of Representatives and appropriate governmental and private\ncitizens calling for a congressional investigation into the activities of the functions\nof the National Collegiate Athletic Association. I have asked that a special\ncommission be formed to determine the legitimate scope of the NCAA's activities\nand that as an integral part of that investigation they examine the methods of\nenforcement employed by the NCAA Executive Offices under Mr. Byers, that they examine\nthe method of distribution of television receipts, that they examine the procedures\nfor punishment of tax-supported institutions and that they clearly define the limits\nof the NCAA's legitimate goals and methods of implementing such goals.\nFurther, I have asked that such congressional action as is recommended be binding\nupon the NCAA and that the NCAA not be permitted to ignore Congress as they have\nin the past.\nSPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD REPORT\nHEARING\nBEFORE THE\nCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE\nUNITED STATES SENATE\nNINETIETH CONGRESS\nSECOND SESSION\nON\nOPINION AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION\nON TRACK AND FIELD\nFEBRUARY 1, 1968\nSerial No. 90-46\nPrinted for the use of the Committee on Commerce\nU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE\n89-295 0\nWASHINGTON : 1968\nCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE\nCONTENTS\nWARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, Chairman\nJOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island\nNORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire\nA.S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma\nTHRUSTON B. MORTON, Kentucky\nPage\nFRANK J. LAUSCHE, Ohio\nHUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania\nOpening statement of the chairman\n1\nE.L. BARTLETT, Alaska\nWINSTON L. PROUTY, Vermont\nVANCE HARTKE, Indiana\nJAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas\nSTATEMENTS\nPHILIP A. HART, Michigan\nROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan\nHOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada\nCox, Archibald, member, Sports Arbitration Board\n5\nDANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland\nKheel, Theodore W., chairman, Sports Arbitration Board\n2\nRUSSELL B. LONG, Louisiana\nMetcalfe, Ralph, member, Sports Arbitration Board\n6\nFRANK E. MOSS, Utah\nVail, Thomas, member, Sports Arbitration Board\n6\nERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina\nFREDERICK J. LORDAN, Staff Director\nADDITIONAL INFORMATION\nJAMES J. BARRY, Assistant Staff Director\nMICHAEL PERTSCHUK, General Counsel\nSenate Resolution 147, text of bill\n12\nRAYMOND D. HURLEY, Minority Staff Counsel\nSports Arbitration Board report\n15\n(II)\n(m)\nSPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD REPORT\nTHURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1968\nU.S. SENATE,\nCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,\nWashington, D.C.\nThe committee met at 3:55 p.m. in room S-207, Capitol Building,\nHon. Warren G. Magnuson (chairman of the committee) presiding.\nPresent: Senators Magnuson, Cotton, Cannon, Pearson, and Griffin,\nand Theodore W. Kheel, Chairman of the Sports Arbitration Panel,\nArchibald Cox, member, Ralph H. Metcalfe, member, and Thomas\nVail, member; from the National Collegiate Athletic Association:\nMarcus L. Plant, president, Walter Byers, executive director, Charles\nNeinas, assistant executive director, and Philip Brown, attorney;\nfrom the Amateur Athletic Union: Col. Donald Hull, executive direc-\ntor, and Richard Kline, chairman of AAU junior olympic program;\nfrom the U.S. Track & Field Federation: Rev. Wilfred Crowley,\npresident; from the National Athletic Inter-Collegiate Association;\nAl Buckingham, immediate past president.\nOPENING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN\nThe CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen, the Vice President has been\ndelayed in a meeting with the President himself at the White House.\nHe thought at first it would end in sufficient time to come to this\nmeeting, and we even waited, as you know, almost an hour. But it\nlooks like it is not going to break up in time for the Vice President to\nbe here.\nThe purpose of calling this meeting was that the Commission\nappointed by the Vice President under the law passed by Congress\nhas completed its report on this longstanding matter, and the members\nare all here today to present this report, its conclusions, and recom-\nmendations.\nI am sure if the Vice President were here, Mr. Kheel and members\nof the Panel, that he would join with me in commending the work of\nthe Commission. It has been long, tedious work and a most sensitive\nand difficult problem on which to reach any conclusions and arrive at\nsome decisions.\nI am not going to comment until later on the report which has been\nsubmitted to us. Incidentally, it will be made into a Senate document,\nso there will be many copies available for people who are interested.\nThe Commission went ahead and did their own work of publishing,\nbut they were a little short on the wherewithal to publish too many\ncopies\nBut this is of great interest to everyone, every citizen interested in\nathletics-amateur athletics-in this country.\n1 The report appears on p. 15 of this hearing.\n(1)\n3\n2\nsay that it was a great pleasure to have been associated with them\nSo without further ado, because it is getting late and many of you\nalso. They are all very fine gentlemen. I have no doubt at all about\nhave been here a long time waiting-and we do appreciate that-1\nthe sincerity of their concern for track and field and amateur athletics.\nwant to introduce the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Theodore\neven though at various times we felt a little exasperated with our\nKheel, who will give you a briefing, as I understand it, on the report\ninability to bring them around to an agreed upon point of view.\nitself.\nWe did set out to bring about an agreement, although we were\nIf there are any questions about the report, I am sure Ted or other\nacting pursuant to a Senate resolution which designated us as arbi-\nmembers of the Commission would be glad to answer them.\ntrators empowered to make a final and binding decision. We felt-and\nSo if you will take over, we will appreciate it.\nwe still feel-that the acquiescence of the parties to an arrangement,\nwhatever that arrangement may be, is essential, and we do say that\nSTATEMENT OF THEODORE W. KHEEL, CHAIRMAN, SPORTS\nwhile our decision is final and it is not negotiable and not subject to\nARBITRATION PANEL\nchange, and it is the end of the work of the Sports Arbitration Board\nin the area of track and field, that if the parties that are involved and\nMr. KHEEL. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.\ncovered by it set out deliberately-and I don't believe they will-to\nWe can only surmise what it is the Vice President and the President\nfrustrate our decision, they probably will succeed.\nare discussing which has delayed the Vice President, but if it is\nBut if they do, they will be doing a great disservice to the sport of\nanother dispute which has attracted worldwide attention, I can merely\ntrack and field and to all athletes who wish to take part in amateur\nsay that while that dispute may be more important, it is not any more\ncompetition. But I would be very much surprised if this turns out to\ndifficult than the dispute we have been dealing with the last two and a\nbe the circumstance.\nhalf years.\nAs we say in the report, we tried to bring about a single organization\nWe were appointed in December of 1965 by the Vice President\nthat would govern track and field in the United States. Efforts were\npursuant to a resolution of the Senate, No. 147, that came through\nmade to establish such a single organization within the AAU or\nSenator Magnuson's committee, the Senate Committee on Commerce.\nwithout-that is, outside of the AAU-but our efforts in this respect\nWe consisted at that time of five members: myself as the Chairman,\nproved unavailing, and we concluded in the decision we have made\nGeneral Shoup, who subsequently resigned from our Board, and my\ntoday that it was not possible to direct the creation of an organization.\ncolleagues who have persisted with me throughout and to this con-\nYou cannot create an organization in the field of private endeavor by\nclusion of our work.\nan order. You would have to provide methods for financing it. You\nI must say to the Vice President-to Julius Cahn to convey to\nwould have to provide people to run it. And we saw no way in which\nhim-that I could not have been more delighted with the quality\nwe could order the creation of a single organization in any shape, form,\nand caliber of the colleagues with whom I was associated, and with\nor manner.\nthe opportunity to work together with them. And I would like to\nWe then had to decide on a modus operandi for the various organi-\npresent them to you:\nzations which we considered to be fair to them, which we considered\nOn my far right is Prof. Archibald Cox of the Harvard Law School,\nto be in furtherance of their legitimate purposes and legitimate\nthe former Solicitor General of the United States-and I did observe\naspirations, and which would enable them to work together\nto him that I thought that our report, whether or not you agree with\nharmoniously.\nit, at least was as good as any brief that had been submitted to the\nWe concluded that it was not possible to anticipate every single\nSupreme Court of the United States from the Solicitor General's\nOffice.\nitem of controversy that might possibly arise between now and when\nour award prescribes that there should be an end and it renegotiation;\nSeated next to him is Ralph Metcalfe, a former great American\nnamely, in 5 years. So we specified that there should be a coordinating\nOlympic star, whom I am sure all of you know.\ncommittee and I might say this was discussed during our hearings\nNext to him is the publisher of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, one of\nand generally agreed upon by the parties-to act in the case of specific\nAmerica's leading publishers and a great public servant as well.\ncontroversies, subject to a statement of principles which we laid down\nTom Vail.\nin this decision. And further that if in any instance the coordinating\nThe dispute that we were given in December of 1965 proved SO\ncommittee which is 10 consist of equal representatives from both\nvery difficult because we were dealing with relationships of many\nsides- if the coordinating committee could not resolve IL particular\norganizations, not only the AAU and the NCAA, but also the United\ndispute, that there should be an impartial chairman of this board or\nStates Track & Field Federation, which was not formally a party to\nof this committee to be selected by agreement of the parties or named\nthe proceedings at the outset but was made a party as we went along.\nby the Vice President of the United States.\nand the NAIA. which is also an association. like NCAA. of colleges\nNow with regard to the decision itself-which is summarized in\nand universities.\ntwo and 11 half pages beginning on page 41 of our decision what we\nWe were dealing with a relationship. a very complex relationship.\nhave basically set out to do is to render unto each of these organizations\nand with responsibilities that the organizations have that were not\nthe things that are \"each's.\" if I may use that word, by specifying\ncoextensive and not identical.\nthat the AAU is the sole sanctioning and governing authority for\nI must say that while we have been critical from time to time of\ninternational competition, and indicating what additional respon-\nthe representatives of all of the organizations. I wish at this point to\nsibilities it should have in carrying out that function.\n5\n4\nI would ask for a few remarks from the other distinguished Americans\nWe have specified the responsibilities of the National Collegiate\nwho gave time and energies to this work, which has been long, tedious,\nAthletic Association, which obviously is concerned with, and properly\nand difficult.\nso, and confined to students who attend colleges or universities.\nI thought maybe Archibald Cox might give us a little brief descrip-\nAnd we have spelled out what we think is the proper function\ntion, possibly of some of the legal aspects of this, if you would.\nand responsibilities of USTFF, an organization which came into being\nin 1962 for the purpose of conducting and promoting track and field.\nSTATEMENT OF ARCHIBALD COX, MEMBER, SPORTS\nThe most important aspect, I suppose, or at least one of the most\nARBITRATION PANEL\nimportant aspects of this effort on our part to spell out the proper\njurisdiction of the parties and how they should relate to each other is\nMr. Cox. Thank you, Senator Magnuson.\nthe portion having to do with what is closed competition and what is\nI would stress, I think, four points.\nopen competition. And we have said that domestic meets confined\nFirst, to the best of our judgment this decision secures to each of\namong full-time students whose athletic activities are based upon the\nthe organizations its central concerns; to the AAU its central concern\ncoaching and facilities of a bona fide educational institution are to\nfor the international aspects of track and field; to the NCAA its\nbe considered closed competition. And we have defined \"students\" to\ncentral concerns both for the welfare of undergraduate athletes and\ninclude undergraduate students, graduate students, students between\nfor expanding its track and field meets and closed meets to include\nterms or on vacation or in the summer between school and college.\ngraduate students, students between terms, and in vacations, whose\nWe have said that all other meets are open meets for which the\nactivities are based on college facilities and college coaching. And\nsanction of the AAU is required.\nthird, it secures to the United States Track & Field Federation and\nWe have said further that since the purpose of such a sanction is\nits affiliates the opportunity to conduct domestic meets without\nto enable the AAU to carry out its responsibilities over international\ninterference by the AAU. except where there is a question of the\ncompetition, since it is evident and was evident to us that the USTFF\ninternational implications.\nis a bona fide organization running meets that are proper meets, that\nThe second point I would emphasize is that there are also in the\nits sanction should be considered presumptive evidence that the meets\ndecision provisions that would check any one of these organizations\nit will conduct will be carried out in accordance with the requirements\nfrom abusing its power so as to attempt to use the jurisdiction it\nof international competition. This does not mean that a sanction is\nis given as à handle for expanding into somebody else's area: and any\nnot required, but it does mean that upon being sought, it must be\ndisputes of that kind could be taken to the coordinating committee.\ngranted unless there is some indication or belief by the AAU that there\nThe third point I would emphasize is that in our sincere judgment\nis not compliance with the requirements of international competition,\nwe have studied this carefully. There is nothing by way of legal\nin which event the dispute can be taken to the coordinating committee\nobstacles, Senator. to all four of these organizations accepting this\nand, if necessary, to the impartial chairman.\ndecision in the manner stated.\nWe have also said that the coordinating committee should seek to\nAnd finally I would emphasize the very great importance that\nwork out such sanctioning of USTFF meets on an annual basis, since\nMr. Kheel has already mentioned to tens of thousands of young\nfor the most part the meets that USTFF will conduct are known in\nmen and women. and also to the public and to the country of there\nadvance, and there can be an advance agreement with regard to such\nbeing an end to this dispute.\nmeets.\nWe have also dealt with NCAA's concern with the students and its\nPerhaps this isn't the only possible solution, but it is a solution.\nAnd it would seem really incumbent at this point to have an end to\nresponsibility for their welfare, and have spelled out a procedure with\nthe warfare and a concentration on the important job of getting\nregard to its legitimate concerns in that area for the protection of the\nwelfare of the students much the same as the procedures we have set\ntogether and fielding the best teams we can and conducting competi-\nforth for the AAU.\ntion under the best possible conditions for the young men and women\nNow I have no doubt that there will be some bugs in this, some\nwho engage in it.\nproblems that we haven't anticipated. We have tried to cover the\nThank you, Senator.\nmajor matters that were brought to our attention during the last\nThe CHAIRMAN. Another distinguished member of the Commission.\nMr. Metcalfe-as mentioned here earlier today-was one of America's\ntwo and a half years, and we have provided a method whereby addi-\ntional or new problems as they arise can be dealt with.\ngreat athletes, and I would suspect he would know more about the\nWe think to the extent of our ability-and nobody can accuse us of\nfeelings of amateur athletes who participate in these athletics than\nany other one man I know of.\nundue haste-that we have set forth a way in which these organiza-\ntions can live happily ever after-or at least for the next 5 years-to\nRalph, we would be glad if you had a statement to make here on\nthe benefit of the United States, our Olympic aspirations, and par-\nyour work in this Commission.\nticularly the athletes who are participating in the games.\nYou call it a Board. I call it a Commission: but it is the same\nThank you very much, Senator Magnuson.\nthing.\nThe CHAIRMAN. Before I let you ask some questions of the Chair-\nman of the Commission-who has had a distinguished record in dealing\nwith disputes over the years, and I hope this one will be as successful-\n6\n7\nSTATEMENT OF RALPH METCALFE, MEMBER, SPORTS\nous job on this matter, as have all the other members of this panel. I\nARBITRATION PANEL\nhope that we have done a complete job and that now we will get on\nwith the task of implementing it.\nMr. METCALFE. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.\nThank you, Senator. very much.\nI do feel as though my representation on the Board has been one\nThe CHAIRMAN. Before we get to some of the questions you may\nof complete objectivity, because it would be extremely difficult for\nhave, I think most of you know the Senate Commerce Committee\nme to say out of my own experience whether or not I competed in\nspent a great deal of time on this dispute. We had long, lengthy hear-\nmore NCAA meets or more AAU competitions.\nings, in which many of you participated. We had sportswriters, ath-\nI have been and I am presently very interested in the youth, and\nletes, educators, and pretty near everyone you could think of inter-\nI am concerned that we do not provide sufficient facilities, sufficient\nested in this come and testify before us. They all came.\ncoaching and all that in order to field the best teams in the Olympics.\nOf course, all came to the same conclusion-that something had to\nI welcomed the opportunity to work with this very distinguished\nbe done and should be done as soon as possible.\ngroup of men on this very important question.\nWe attempted to resolve it in our own way, but finally had to resort\nYou have already heard from two of our distinguished arbitrators.\nto the passage of the legislation and establishment of this Board.\nI simply would like to conclude my remarks by saying that we have\nhoping that they would come up with a fair and lasting decision, which\nhad our own discussions, and this document that you have before you\nit is, in the judgment of those of us who have read it, and I think we\nreflects the thoughts of each and every one of us, and we have had an\nare pretty much in agreement, although I haven't spoken to every\nopportunity on SO many occasions to compare notes, and I think that\nmember of the Commerce Committee.\nour chairman has conducted these hearings in a very democratic\nWe have here Senator Griffin, from Michigan, who has taken a\nmanner. And certainly he has given cognizance to the contribution of\ngreat interest in it, and Senator Cotton of New Hampshire. Senator\neach and every one of the members of the committee to this particular\nCannon and Senator Pearson had to leave for exactly the same reason\nproblem.\nthat is keeping the Vice President from being here.\nThank you very much, Senator.\nBut I want to say in behalf of the committee-and I am sure\nThe CHAIRMAN. The other member of the Board is a man who has\nSenator Cotton will join me-that we deeply appreciate the work you\ndevoted a great deal of time and energy to many, many government\nhave done in this field and also the cooperation extended by the parties\nand civic problems. And when you talk about objectivity, we in\ninvolved.\npolitics sometimes think it is impossible for a newspaper to be objec-\nI know you want to ask the chairman some questions, and he is\ntive, but he surely has in all the work he has done, and as many times\navailable for any answers you wish.\nas he has been called to service in these jobs, he has been about as\nI have a short message from the Vice President which I will read\nobjective a person as I have encountered.\nafter you are through.\nThomas Vail is, as you know, the publisher of the Cleveland Plain-\nMr. KHEEL. Are there any questions?\nDealer. Tom, I hope you might have something to add here.\nMr. BUCKINGHAM. A. W. Buckingham, representing the NAIA.\nFirst I want to compliment the committee on this work. It really\nSTATEMENT OF THOMAS VAIL, MEMBER, SPORTS ARBITRATION\nlooks like an excellent job.\nPANEL\nBut I was wondering about the time-February 10. Our executive\ncommittee meets in March. Could that be extended until March 9.\nMr. VAIL. Thank you, Senator Magnuson.\nfor instance?\nI don't know-when you say that I was the most objective, I\nMr. KHEEL. The date of February 10 pertains only to the president\ndon't know if you mean I started knowing the least about this dis-\nof the organization. We recognize that the executive councils-or\npute-but I would only add this to what my distinguished colleagues\nwhatever they may be called-of the organizations might not be\nhave said: I think that we have exhausted the field thoroughly.\nable to meet immediately.\nAnd as the chairman said somewhat facetionsly. we haven't come to\nWe propose-it is on page 39-that the president of each organiza-\nthis conclusion in u hurry.\ntion indicate whether he accepts the statement to the extent of his\nI would add that from the public standpoint I get the feeling that\npower to do SO and will recommend unconditional acceptance to the\nwe have come to the end of the road as far as further examination\nappropriate governing bodies of his organization. So that it will not\nof the problem is concerned. I believe it is incumbent upon not just\nbe necessary for your organization as such to respond by February 10.\nall of us and the parties involved. but I believe under public pressure.\nI might say that the responses are to go to the chairman of the\nthe time has come when something must be done. because the public\nSenate Committee on Commerce, from whom we originally derived\nis focusing on the well-being of the athletes rather than on the situa-\nour authority, and to whom we return this dispute at this time.\ntion of the individual organizations. although we have tried to give\nQuestion. Should this be rejected by the four presidents, or any\nthe fairest possible hearing to both sides. and I hope that they feel\none of the four presidents. what alternative course would there be?\nthat we have done this.\nMr. KHEEL. 1 would refer the question to Senator Magnuson.\nI would also underline. as Ralph Metcalfe has. my great pleasure in\nserving with Chairman Kheel. He has done his usual fair and marvel-\n8\n9\nThe CHAIRMAN. There are several pieces of legislation pending,\nand the Commerce Committee would be prone to take them up if\nAnd we have provided time in which to do this. As I explained in\nthey didn't agree.\nanswer to the question from the representative of the NAIA, we have\nQuestion. What would they do? What would the other bills do\nprovided time for them to have a meeting of their organizational\nthat you are considering?\nbodies, SO that they will tell us that they will cooperate with the\nThe CHAIRMAN. The details of the bills are all different. I suggest\ndecision.\nthat this report itself might be the basis for a bill.\nNow this is not the simple sort of an arbitration award that Archie\nQuestion. Senator, the report calls for an ideal solution, which\nCox or I might have made in a dispute where the union says, \"We\nwould be to form a new single unit to govern athletics. a completely\nwant a $10 increase.\" And the employer says, \"We won't give any\ndifferent unit from what we now have. Would this possibly be a\nincrease.\" And our decision after deliberation is for a $5 increase.\nlegislative aim if this is rejected?\nNow, that type of award can be enforced very easily and very read-\nThe CHAIRMAN. That would depend on what we decide in the\nily. We are saying that lots of people in at least four organizations\ncommittee-whether this is the method of getting at it, yes.\nhave to work together. And in the final analysis, their ability to live\nQuestion. Would you go for something ideal rather than something\ntogether under this formula will depend upon their good sense and\nas a compromise?\nthe demands of the people of the United States as expressed by the\nThe CHAIRMAN. We will do anything that will settle this thing\nSenate Commerce Committee-that they do conform to this decision:\nand get it on the road. I don't think that the Japanese Diet, or the\nthat they do make is possible notwithstanding their ancient rivalries\nPolitburo in Moscow or the French Parliament or the Parliament in\nfor young athletes to engage in track and field.\nGreat Britain have any argument ahead of time before they field\nQuestion. They meet in New York on February 9, and from the\nathletes for the Olympic teams, and we better get to it.\nterms of this it would appear to me that no sanction by the AAU\nMr. KHEEL. I may presume to say I do not believe that it is likely\nwould be required since that would be largely or entirely including\nthat the Senate or the Congress would seek to create a private organiza-\ngraduates, undergraduates, and people who are otherwise affected.\ntion to govern track and field. And I doubt very much whether they\nMr. KHEEL. I do not wish to make n determination since I don't\nwould create a public organization which would introduce government\nhave all the facts, but if in fact it is confined exclusively to students\ninto what is essentially, and should be, a private sport.\nas we have defined the term \"students,\" whose athletic activities are\nQuestion. Do you have any idea what the responses of these groups\nbased on the coaching and facilities of a bona fide university or\nmight be? Do they know about the report?\neducational institution, your statement is correct.\nMr. KHEEL. We don't have any idea, and we hope they would not\nI do not know at this moment the full scope of the athletes that\nrespond today. They received this report this morning at 10 o'clock.\nmay participate in that meet, SO I do not wish to make an interpreta-\nIt is, we think, a deliberate document which took a long time in\ntion of our decision as applied to that meet.\npreparation, and we would hope that they would study it very care-\nIncidentally, that is a good example of the type of thing that the\nfully and not respond off the top of their heads, because this is very\ncoordinating committee and the impartial chairman would resolve in\nserious business for them. This is the end of the line.\nparticular instances, in particular meets where there may be a dispute\nQuestion. Why do you say it is the end of the line?\nas to whether or not it is closed. The coordinating committee and the\nQuestion. Did you say this was binding upon them?\nimpartial chairman can resolve that dispute in accordance with the\nMr. KHEEL. This is a final decision in an arbitration proceeding,\nprinciples we have set forth here.\nwhich is final and binding-\nQuestion. Would you serve as the impartial chairman?\nQuestion. To whom\nMr. KHEEL. No, sir.\nMr. KHEEL. Let me finish-according to the laws of arbitration.\nQuestion. Do you have any recommendations?\nI said in my opening remarks that if any of these organizations set\nMr. KHEEL. No, sir. We have provided that the parties should\nout deliberately to frustrate the award which we have made, they would\nagree themselves, which is preferable, or that the Vice President should\nsucceed. I will acknowledge that.\nname the impartial chairman.\nI also said that that would be a very sorry day for the athletes of\nQuestion. Just one more. What would be the next step from here if\nthis country. I do not anticipate-I would be very disappointed if\nby February 10 the four presidents involved give you assurance that\nwhat is and should be essentially It voluntary matter by private\nthey can live by this? Then would the Senator go into motion to set\norganizations, not run by government, not directed by government.\nup this committee and start making appointments?\ncould not make arrangements with and among each other whereby\nMr. KHEEL. I think that we as a board. while we consider this to\nyoung men and women and boys and girls could run in track and field.\nbe the end of the responsibilities we were asked to perform pursuant\nQuestion. Mr. Kheel, would you clarify the point about any rejection?\nto Senate Resolution 147. would be available in connection with the\nMr. KHEEL. We have said, if you will turn to page 39, while we\nhousekeeping details and the tying up of the loose ends.\nconsider this to be a final decision, we have also said that we wish\nWhat newspaper organization do you represent, Father Crowley?\nthese organizations to indicate that they will comply with the decision,\nFather CROWLEY. I guess you have seen me before.\nthat they will accede and cooperate with the structure and the coordi-\nWhat provisions have you set up for correcting the errors and the\nnating committee which we say should be brought into existence.\nambiguities in the report?\n11\n10\nMy organization is a hit sensitive to a sharp misstatement of fact. a\nMr. KHEEL We believe the report contains the basic principles\ncomplete misstatement of fact that reflects badly upon my organiza-\npursuant to which, Father Crowley, your organization as well as the\ntion.\nothers can live in harmony. And we also have provided, as I have\nAnd without debating the question, I would like to know whene\nsaid, a coordinating committee with an impartial chairman to resolve\nprocedure He go to to have those errors corrected before the Senate\nquestions that may arise.\nprints the document.\nObviously this document of 29 pages cannot cover the whole gamut\nMr. KHEEL. First of all, I believe Senator Magnuson said it would\nof human relationships in track and field. This sort of thing is quite\nbe printed as n Senate document as a matter of courtesy and conven-\ntypical in other areas. I am most specifically familiar with labor-\nience in distribution.\nmanagement contracts, which are a lot more complex than these today.\nThe CHAIRMAN. We do print lots of documents for distribution.\nThe General Motors contract with the United Automobile Workers\nand there will be great numbers-hundreds of people-who want to\ncovers some 300 to 350 pages, with supplements, and they have an\nlook at this. It is just for distribution, merely the printing of it. It is\nimpartial chairman. And so-called ambiguities or matters of omission\nan extension of the Senate Commerce Committee's business. (See P. 15.)\nor, more particularly, disputes that arise in the administration of the\nMr. KHEEL We would be very pleased to sit down with you and\ncontract, are covered by the impartial chairman in a manner that has\ndiscuss any matter of that sort. If there is something that we have\nproved satisfactory in this area of human relationships, and it has\ninadvertently said that might reflect unfairly on your organization.\nbeen a pretty extensive and successful experience.\nif we can correct that, we will correct it. What we won't do is to change\nFather CROWLEY. Where is the impartial chairman at this present\nthe basic principles and conclusions we have reached. But we will be\nmoment?\navailable for that purpose.\nMr. KHEEL. He does not exist at the present moment. This decision\nThank you very much.\ncame down today, and it doesn't suddenly create everything and spring\nThe CHAIRMAN. If I may, the Vice President did have a message\nit into existence. We are available to assist in this interim period.\nfor you which he would deliver were he here, and I quote:\nFather CROWLEY. If we have to agree to something, we should\nThis is a final report. It is not, I repeat not, presented for further negotiation.\nunderstand what we are agreeing to.\nMr. KHEEL. You are agreeing to the creation of a coordinating\nHe is talking about the guidelines.\ncommittee whose representatives your side will designate to the extent\nI believe I interpret the temper of the American people correctly in stating to\nof your representation, and you are going to try to agree on an im-\nthe disputants very emphatically: Gentlemen, America will not tolerate arbitrary\npartial chairman, or to have the Vice President name him.\ndestruction of the careers of our amateur athletes. The best interest of the athlete\nFather CROWLEY. That is an essential part of the report, SO we\ncomes first. That is where the national interest lies, In our young men and women\nbeing able to compete at their peak performance. Our athletes must not be sacri-\ncan't agree to that unless we know and understand what the report\nficed in a cruel cross-fire. I earnestly request the cooperation of the disputants in\nsays. It is a matter of interpretation. Many of the paragraphs I find\naccepting and implementing the report. I ask the assistance of this Arbitration\nunclear and needing clarification and explanation.\nBoard in helping me, as pointed out by Mr. Kheel, follow through on that imple-\nI don't think it is proper to go to a piece of machinery that is sup-\nmentation.\nposed to be set up by the Board that doesn't exist.\n.KHEEL. Thank you very much, Senator Magnuson.\nMr. KHEEL. Father, we want to be very helpful and patient. We\nThe CHAIRMAN. We all thank you for your patience, and we thank\nhave been patient with you and your association and the other organi-\nyou for coming.\nzations for the last two and a half years.\n(Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the conference was adjourned.)\nFather CROWLEY. This I have admired, but not other things.\nMr. KHEEL. And we are not dropping this in the middle of the\nstream. We are prepared to assist in this changeover period. But we\nhave set up, in our judgment, a structure pursuant to which you can\nlive and conduct the work of your organization. And if there is any\nassistance you need in this interim period, we will be glad to supply it.\nBut I want to make this clear: We are not about to undertake to\nrenegotiate this decision with you or anybody else.\nFather CROWLEY. We are not asking this.\nMr. KHEEL. If there is a matter of clarification, we would be glad\nto supply it.\nMr. BYERS. Chairman Kheel, with reference to Father Crowley's\nearlier question and your response, it seems to me this takes on a bit\ndifferent complexion when Senator Magnuson, if I understand him\ncorrectly, has said that this document will be printed as a Senate\ndocument. And Father Crowley's question was of procedure, taking\nthe first part to insert corrections.\n13\n12\n2\nCalendar No. 738\nindividual amateur athlete, will achieve the broadest possible\nparticipation by amateur athletes in competitive sports, and\n89TH CONGRESS\n1ST SESSION\nS.RES. 147\nwill maintain a harmonions and cooperative relationship\namong all amateur athletic organizations: and\n[Report No. 753]\nWhereas it is essential that means be provided whereby such\ndisputes can he equitably and finally resolved: Now, there-\nfore. be it\nIN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES\nSEPTEMBER 16 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 15), 1965\n1\nResolved, That the President of the Senate is hereby\nMr. MAGNUSON, from the Committee on Commerce, reported the following\n2\nauthorized to appoint an independent board of arbitration\nresolution; which was ordered to be placed on the calendar\n3 composed of five members, one of whom he shall designate\n4 as Chairman, for the purpose of considering disputes relat-\nRESOLUTION\n5 ing to the conduct, development. and protection of amateur\n6 athletics, which are submitted to it by the parties to such\nWhereas disputes have existed for many years between the\nAmateur Athletic Union of the United States, the National\n7 disputes. and rendering decisions determining such disputes\nCollegiate Athletic Association, other amateur athletic or-\n8 which shall be consistent with the purposes of this resolution\nganizations, and their affiliates or associates; and\n9 and shall be final and binding on such parties.\nWhereas these disputes have discouraged the full development\n10\nSEC. 2. In the consideration of disputes submitted to\nof amateur athletics in the United States and the maximum\n11 the Board appointed under this resolution the members of\nperformance by athletes representing the United States in\ninternational competition; and\n12 such board should consider and determine all relevant facts\nWhereas the parties have not been able to resolve their differ-\n13 and issues necessary to the attainment of the goals set out\nences through their own efforts or through previous arbitra-\n14 in the preamble to this resolution.\ntion efforts: and\n15\nSEC. 3: Until such time as the Board appointed pur-\nWhereas it is necessary and desirable for the United States to\n16 suant to this resolution renders its decision in the current\nmaintain a vigorous anateur athletic program that will field\nthe best possible teams in domestic and international com-\n17 dispute between the Amateur Athletic Union of the United\npetition, will protect and provide for the welfare of the\n18 States and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the\nV\n89-295 0-68-2\n15\n14\n3\nBEFORE THE SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD\n1 interested and affected parties should be governed by the\n2 following principles:\nIN THE MATTER\n3\n(a) An immediate and general amnesty shall be granted\nOF THE\n4 to all individuals, institutions, and organizations affected by\nARBITRATION PROVIDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT\n5 this dispute in any amateur sport.\nOF\nDISPUTES INVOLVING AMATEUR ATHLETICS\n6\n(b) Any disciplinary action proposed or pending against\nPursuant to Senate Resolution 147\n7 individuals, institutions, and organizations for reasons related\n8 to such dispute shall be vacated.\nOPINION AND DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION\n9\n(c) Any discrimination against the full use of all avail-\nON TRACK AND FIELD\n10 able facilities for scheduled meets and tournaments shall be\nThis is a proceeding before the Board of Arbitration appointed\n11 discontinued.\nby the Vice President of the United States pursuant to S. Res. 147,\n89th Cong., 1st Sess., to determine \"disputes relating to the conduct,\n12\n(d) Any restraints against participation by any athlete\ndevelopment and protection of amateur athletics.\" The original mem-\n13 in scheduled meets and tournaments shall be discontinued.\nbers of the Board were Theodore W. Kheel, Chairman, Archibald\nCox, Ralph H. Metcalfe, David M. Shoup and Thomas Vail. General\n14\nSEC. 4. The Board appointed pursuant to this resolution\nShoup retired on February 5, 1967, and was not replaced.\n15 shall report to the Senate not later than February 15, 1966,\nFormal hearings were held on January 18, February 28, March 1,\nMay 2, 3 and 23, June 15 and 16, July 21 and 22, September 19 and 20,\n16 and from time to time thereafter as it may deem necessary,\nand November 15 and 16, 1966, and on May 1 and 2, and November 9\nand 10, 1967. In addition, there were many conferences and informal\n17 with respect to its activities under this resolution.\nmeetings, and countless briefs, letters and memoranda were filed with\nthe Board. The history of this proceeding is more fully described\nin a report this Board submitted to the Senate Committee on Com-\nmerce on August 17, 1967.\nThe Board of Arbitration concluded that it should first concen-\ntrate upon track and field sports because the establishment of peace\nin that area would furnish a basis for the adjustment of other dis-\nputes. The Board earnestly sought to induce the parties to reach the\nvoluntary settlement SO plainly required by the welfare of the athletes\n16\n17\nand the national as well as their own interest. Although some minor\nby the I.A.A.F. or by a member of the Federation.\" Rule 11 provides\nconcessions were offered, none of the parties were willing to subordi-\nthat, \"The I.A.A.F. alone shall have the right to organize or sanction\nnate self-interest to the general good to the extent necessary to\nWorld, European, Far East, Latin American and other area champion-\ncompromise the issues. Accordingly, the Board must render a deci-\nships for track and field events.\" Rule 54 bans from IAAF competi-\nsion upon the track and field aspects of the controversy.\ntion any person who is ineligible \"to compete in competitions under\nUpon the whole record, the Board of Arbirtation makes the fol-\nthe jurisdiction of his national governing body.\" IAAF does, in fact,\nlowing findings of fact and decision for the settlement of the dispute:\nsponsor the major international competition, and it has generally\nbeen successful in asserting its jurisdictional claims.\nNational Collegiate Athletic Association is the largest athletic\nA. THE PARTIES\nfederation of colleges and universities in the United States. Its\nAmateur Athletic Union of the United States (hereafter \"AAU\")\nactivities encompass all-or nearly all-intercollegiate sports. It pro-\nwas organized in 1888 as a union of athletic clubs promoting amateur\nmotes, sanctions, and conducts intercollegiate competition in track\nsports. It claims \"jurisdiction\" over thirteen sports including basket-\nand field sports as well as other sports. Its rules cover virtually\nhall, gymnastics, swimming and track and field. For many years\nevery aspect of competition, including eligibility and financial aid.\nAAU was the plainly-dominant, if not the only, body asserting nation-\nNCAA claims the right to sanetion open track and field meets\nwide supervision over amateur track and field competition.\nin which collegiate athletes participate. The claim is based upon\nAAU conducts a number of open track and field meets, including\nNCAA's responsibility for the welfare of college athletes. The greatest\nthe national AAU championships, and it sanctions meets conducted\nproportion of athletes in major track and field competition today\nby other promoters. \"Open\" meets are those in which all amateurs\nare students at colleges and universities.\nin good standing may participate, as distinguished from \"closed\"\nNational Association of Intercollegiate Athletics is also an\nmeets, which are restricted to specific classes, such as collegiate\nassociation of colleges and universities engaged in the development\nathletes, members of the Armed Forces, or another particular group.\nof athletics as a sound part of the educational offering of member\nThe terms are defined more precisely in the context of this dispute\ninstitutions. NAIA is geared primarily to the needs of institutions\nin a subsequent portion of this decision.\nhaving enrollment of moderate size.\nAAU took an early part in the formation of International\nUnited States Track and Field Federation was chartered in\nAmateur Athletic Federation (hereafter IAAF), which was founded\n1962 at the same time as organizations claiming jurisdiction over\nto promote international track and field competition; to establish an\nbasketball and gymnastics. The major impetus came from NCAA\nauthentic register of World and Olympic records; and to promulgate\nand college coaches at NCAA institutions, who had been engaged in\na universal code of rules and regulations and a common definition of\nrunning conflict with AAU. USTFF is primarily a federation of\n\"amateur.\" IAAF is composed of \"national governing associations\ncollege, junior college and high school associations. but its member-\nor federations of countries, in control of amateur track and field\nship includes the National Track and Field Association, an associa-\nathletics\nwhich agree to abide by the rules and regulations of\ntion of clubs engaged in conducting and promoting track and field\nthe IAAF.\" The IAAF Constitution states, \"Only one member for\nsports. Although the Senate Resolution stated that NCAA estab-\neach country can be affiliated.\" and the IAAF rules and regulations\nlished USTFF and that \"for all practical purposes\" they \"may he\nfrequently describe the member as \"the national governing body.\"\nregarded as the same organization\", USTFF has been recognized in\nRule 10 stipulates that, \"All international meetings must be sanctioned\n18\n19\nthese proceedings as an independent sports organization providing\n(i) It requires promoters to maintain the standards estab-\ndomestic track and field competition for male and female amateur\nlished by AAU for the preservation of amateurism, the protection\nathletes. It has promoted, conducted and sanctioned this open track\nof athletes, and the proper conduct of competition;\nand field competition, in some instances without sanction from AAU.\n(ii) It satisfies IAAF requirements for international com-\npetition and thus protects potential competitors in international\nB. THE ISSUES\ncompetition;\nNCAA and AAU have been in intermittent disagreement for more\n(iii) It provides revenue for AAU; and\nthan half a century. See Flath, Á History of Relations between the\n(iv) It is a method of enforcing AAU's claim to be the sole\nNational Collegiate Athletic Association and the Amateur Athletic\ngoverning body for track and field sports.\nUnion of the United States (1964). The issues between them vary\nfrom time to time. Their differences have extended at one time or\nIn aid of the last objective the promoter who accepts an AAU\nanother to almost every aspect of track and field sports. Thus, during\nsanction is required to agree that-\nthe hearing before us differences were aired over such diverse matters\nthe AAU is the sole governing body in the sport for which\nas the selection of coaches and competitors for international meets,\nsanction is applied\ntravel permits, receipts from television rights, the scheduling of meets,\nexpense allowances and prizes, and the definition of amateur.\nthat he-\nThe central issue, however is one of \"jurisdiction\" and \"sanction-\nwill neither seek nor accept sanction from any other group or\ning.\" The basic contest is one for power, and \"jurisdiction\" and\nbody claiming jurisdiction in such sport\n\"sanctioning\" are the boundaries and tools of power. Each side\nand that he will not-\nclaims with evident sincerity that it would use the power more wisely\nthan the other, but the protestations cannot be allowed to obscure the\npermit athletes not eligible to compete under A.A.U. rules to\nessential character of the contest. It is-we repeat-a struggle for\ncompete in such sanctioned event.\npower in which the athletes are being used by both sides as pawns\nSO long as the contest continues.\nTo be eligible for AAU sanctioned meets, an athlete must be\nThe formal arguments are highly conceptual. One must under-\nregistered or certified with AAU and pay the required fee. Further-\nstand the concepts, but it is important not to become enmeshed in\nmore, AAU Rule VII stipulates that any athlete who participates in\nthem and thus lose sight of the underlying realities, including the\nany meet not sanctioned by AAU shall be disqualified from further\npractical interests that the concepts are being made to serve.\nAAU competition; and also that any athlete who competes against a\nAAU claims to be the \"sole governing body\" for track and field\ndisqualified athlete forfeits his own qualification.\nsports in the United States. Its General Rule I-1-a provides that all\nIAAF rules bar an athlete disqualified by AAU from international\ntrack and field meets \"must be sanctioned\" by AAU. The term\ncompetition.\n\"sanction\" means simply approval for AAU athletes to compete, but\nThe literal and effective enforcement of these AAU and IAAF\nby accepting a sanction the promoter binds himself to a number of\nrules concerning membership, sanctioning and registration would\nconditions, the acceptance of which makes the sanctioning procedure\nrequire all U. S. track and field athletes in open competition to be\nserve four main purposes:\nAAU members. The rules would give AAU and its affiliated organi-\n20\n21\nzations a monopoly of the administration of all track and field meets\nIMMEDIATE BACKGROUND\nin the United States. This is undoubtedly one of their purposes, and\nalso one of AAU's objections to USTFF.\nIn 1962 the AAU-NCCA feuding became so bitter as to threaten\nIn fact, this theoretical monopoly is subject to three significant\nthe quality of U. S. representation in the 1964 Olympiad. President\ngroups of exceptions.\nKennedy induced the parties to accept arbitration before General\nFirst, AAU itself excepts several categories of what it calls\nDouglas MacArthur. General MacArthur's award called for an imme-\n\"closed competition.\" The most important category is competition\ndiate amnesty, cessation of discrimination in the use of available\nconfined to undergraduate students representing educational institut-\n)\nfacilities, and the establishment of an Olympic eligibility committee.\ntions. A second category is members of the Armed Forces competing\nThe award included the following implementing agreement:\namong themselves. A third is playground competition.\n)\nThe members of the USTFF will restrict their activities to\nSecond, USTFF, NTFA and affiliated clubs, in fact, have con-\nenrolled students and the organization will be classified as closed.\nducted some major open track and field meets without AAU sanction.\nThis includes graduate students, students in vacation periods\nThird, in parts of the country where AAU is not equipped to\nbetween terms and students in the summer periods between high\nenforce its rules, there is probably a considerable amount of unsanc-\nschools, junior colleges, colleges or universities.\nAn athlete\ntioned competition mostly involving athletes who have not achieved\nnot in the foregoing classification shall be required to have an\nnational or regional recognition.\nAAU card to compete in USTFF open meets sanctioned by the\nNCAA's rules require an NCAA sanction for all meets in which\nAAU and must in addition comply with any USTFF requirement\ncollege athletes compete, including open meets sanctioned by AAU.\nto compete in such events.\nThe promoter of a meet, in order to obtain an NCAA sanction, must\nmeet NCAA rules pertaining to many matters which AAU under-\nThe MacArthur plan preserved the necessary modicum of peace\ntakes to scrutinize. The NCAA rules also stipulate that a college\nthrough the 1964 Olympiad. There was immediate dispute about its\nathlete who participates in an open meet not sanctioned by NCAA\nmeaning, however, and after the Olympiad the parties returned to boy-\nshall forfeit his collegiate eligibility. Obviously, these rules can be-\ncotts and counter-boycotts in pursuit of selfish advantage.\nand they have sometimes been- used as a means of controlling under-\nIn 1965, for example, AAU refused to allow NCAA sanction for\ngraduate athletes for NCAA's purposes, and thus as a weapon for\nthe San Diego tryouts for a U.S. team to compete in Russia. NCAA,\nincreasing NCAA's power.\nin retaliation, banned student athletes from the meet, and threatened\nUSTFF also engages in sanctioning, but in this proceeding it\nthem with ineligibility for intercollegiate competion and loss of\nhas confined itself to the argument that the AAU sanctioning rules\nathletic scholarships. AAU, on its part, threatened athletes with\nattempt to create an illegal and undesirable monopoly. USTFF's\nineligibility for AAU and international competition if they took part\nposition is essentially that it and its affiliated organizations have the\n)\nin USTFF meets without AAU sanction. The result of the action of\nright to conduct and sanction domestic competition without AAU\nboth organizations was injury to the individual atheletes they sought\nsanction and without endangering the eligibility of the participating\n)\nto use as pawns, and interference with the effort to field successful\nathletes for subsequent competition in AAU-sponsored and inter-\nU. S. teams in international competition.\nnational meets.\nOn September 4, 1965, Senator Magnuson, Chairman of the\nSenate Committee on Commerce arranged the following moratorium\nuntil the Board of Arbitration rendered a decision:\n22\n23\n(a) An immediate and general amnesty shall be granted to\nNEED FOR A SINGLE ORGANIZATION\nall individuals, institutions, and organizations affected by this\ndispute in any amateur sport.\nThe members of the Sports Arbitration Board unanimously agree\nthat the formation of a single organization for the government and\n(b) Any disciplinary action proposed or pending against\npromotion of track and field sports would be of immeasurable benefit\nindividuals, institutions, and organizations for reasons related to\nto millions of young men and women. Its formation would also\nsuch dispute shall be suspended.\nadvance the national interest in the success of U. S. teams in inter-\n(c) Any discrimination against the full use of all available\nnational competition. We were all impressed by the fact that the\nfacilities and athletes for scheduled meets and tournaments shall\nopportunities for development of track and field sports are SO great\nbe discontinued.\nas to leave more than enough vital work for all interested persons and\norganizations, if they will stop fighting among themselves and turn\nUnfortunately, the moratorium did not halt the aggression.\nto the job to be done.\nNCAA, USTFF and AAU have each read the moratorium in the way\nSuch an organization, combining warring factions, could be estab-\nthat would promote its selfish interest. Each has acted upon its\nlished in a number of ways. AAU could serve the purpose, if it\nunilateral interpretation and then charged the other party with\nwere reorganized to give NCAA and other collegiate organizations\nviolating the moratorium by following a contrary view. Each party\na much larger voice in the government of AAU-merited by their\nthus deliberately pursued a course which it knew constituted con-\nmajor contribution of athletes and facilities-and if provisions were\ntinuance of the warfare the moratorium was intended to stop. The\nmade for the representation of NFTA clubs. USTFF could be recon-\nBoard of Arbitration sought to arrange a modus vivendi for meeting\nstituted as the vehicle. An entirely new federation could be estab-\nthe problem of sanctioning pending a final decision: USTFF, without\nlished, either as an independent organization or as an affiliate of AAU\nprejudice to its claim that no AAU sanctions are required, was to\nwith guaranteed autonomy.\nmake a purely formal request for AAU sanction; AAU would be\nThe Sports Arbitration Board explored some of these alternatives\nrequired, without prejudice to any claim of a right to supervision,\nwith the parties, but the effort to work out such an agreement was\nto grant the sanction automatically without any conditions. USTFF\ninvariably blocked by either AAU or NCAA and USTFF. AAU\npersisted in proceeding unilaterally in deliberate disregard of the\nwould not consider any organization outside AAU on any terms.\nBoard's request. As a result, AAU never had occasion to acknowl-\nNCAA and USTFF would not consider any solution within AAU\nedge whether a purely formal request for a sanction would be suffi-\non any terms. In consequence of this organizational pride, millions\ncient. Both sides often took unilateral action which they knew the\nof athletes are the losers.\nother would regard as a violation of the moratorium without giving\nIt is impossible to set up a new organization by decision of this\nnotice of the problem far enough in advance to solve it, and without\nBoard-or by legislation-unless the parties are willing to cooperate\ntrying to carry out the spirit of the moratorium by finding a tempor-\nin making the organization a success. Cooperation is indispensable in\nary compromise accommodation.\nsetting up the organization because the arrangements must reach down\nto the regional and local level throughout the nation. No board could\nwork out all the local details without the active assistance of all\nparties. That kind of cooperation cannot be commanded. Nor could\nthis board provide a method of financing such an organization. With-\n25\n24\nout money obviously it could not operate. Furthermore, whatever\nthe appropriate U.S. governing body, therefore, for all international\nblueprints were drawn, any of the major parties could easily prevent\npurposes.\nThere is no difficulty in identifying what is international whenever\nthem from operating successfully.\nUntil the parties change their attitude, therefore, an interim\nathletes from two or more countries are involved. Plainly, any entry\nof U. S. athletes in foreign meets is international. So is any U. S.\nmethod of accommodation must be found.\nmeet in which one or more foreign athletes participates, unless he is\nrepresenting a U. S. college at which he is a student, subject also to\nDECISION\nthe existing practice under which a single event may be sanctioned\nWe find that a fair and equitable framework would have three\ninstead of the entire meet.\nThese considerations require acceptance of the following prin-\nparts:\nciples:\n-A statement of fundamental principles defining the jurisdiction\nof each of the major parties and imposing safeguards against\n(a) AAU is the sole sanctioning and governing authority for\ninternational competition.\nabuse.\n(b) AAU sanction is therefore required for meets in which\n-Machinery for final and binding decisions upon all questions\nathletes from other countries participate.\nconcerning the interpretation, application, or alleged violation\nof the principles, in advance of reprisals.\n(c) U. S. athletes participating in such meets must therefor\nbe registered or certified under AAU rules.\n-A forum for discussing and resolving by agreement between the\norganizations other matters of mutual concern.\n2. Open Domestic Competition\nThere are aspects of domestic competition in which AAU, as the\nA. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES\nsole governing authority for international competition, has a legiti-\nmate interest. Practically every athlete at the least aspires to be and,\n1. International Competition\nif still young, may well become an international competitor. The\nThere is clear need for U.S. interests to speak with one voice in\nconditions under which any athlete runs and the competitors against\nthe international aspects of track and field competition. None of the\nwhom he ru... in meets long prior to becoming an international com-\nrival U. S. organizations really questions the need. International\npetitor may have important bearing upon his eligibility, especially his\nbodies and foreign organizations on their part naturally look to a\namateur status. Practically every meet, therefore, contains some\nsingle U. S. organization to handle our part in all international com-\ncompetitor of potential international status; and this makes it neces-\npetition, and also to be ultimately responsible for matters of actual\nsary, with respect to the entire meet, to have assurance that interna-\nor potential international significance in the conduct of U. S. com-\ntional requirements for protecting eligibility are satisfied. There is\npetition.\nalso need for a continuous central record showing that the conditions\nAAU is presently the sole sanctioning and governing body for the\nunder which open meets were conducted, were checked at the time and\ninternational aspects of U. S. track and field sports, under the rules\nactually did satisfy international requirements. Only thus, if a ques-\nof the IAAF. Its status. as such, is not in dispute in this proceeding,\ntion is raised later, can satisfactory assurances be made.\nalthough the scope of its legitimate international concern was debated.\nSince AAU is the governing body for these international purposes,\nAAU is a member of the U. S. Olympic Committee. AAU is plainly\nit must also have the responsibility for validating world records set\n26\n27\nin domestic meets. This function also entitles AAU to assurance\nabout the conditions under which the claimed record was set. In addi-\nAccordingly, the resolution of the controversy requires drawing a\ntion, it is obviously desirable* to have a single organization serve as\nworkable line between the international and \"record-keeping\" functions\nthe \"keeper\" of standards and records for domestic as well as inter-\nof AAU, on the one hand, and the domestic freedom of NCAA, USTFF\nnational competition. Since AAU must perform these functions for\nand other organizations, on the other hand. Next, there must be a work-\ninternational purposes, it should also perform them for domestic\nable delegation enabling AAU to assure itself on the standards essen-\nrecords.\ntial to its limited responsibilities but also giving other domestic organi-\nAAU is not entitled for this reason to be, or to claim to be, the\nzations dignity and freedom of operation. The exact boundary between\nsole governing body for domestic competition. No law grants AAU\nwhat has potential significance for international purposes and what is\nthat authority. Neither IAAF nor any other international body could\npurely domestic may have to be worked out by the process of case by\nconfer it, even if one tried.\ncase decision by the Coordinating Committee described below, but the\nFrom a purely domestic standpoint, no organization is entitled,\nessential points are clear:\nlegally or morally, to a monopoly of track and field athletes, of their\n(1) Matters pertaining to amateurism have international sig-\ndues, or of the conduct of the administration of track and field meets.\nnificance in the case not only of athletes who are already of inter-\nCongress has granted no monopoly. Monopoly is against the spirit\nnational stature but of athletes who may rise to that level.\nof our institutions. There is more to be done in promoting track and\nfield competition than all the organizations now active are able to\n(2) Matters pertaining to qualification as a world record have\naccomplish. The opportunities are vividly illustrated by the rapid\ninternational significance.\ngrowth of track and field clubs not affiliated with AAU and based upon\n(3) The restrictions on the use of the word \"Olympic\" serve\nacademic facilities.\ninternational purposes.\nFor AAU to attempt to use its international position in order to\n(4) The existing AAU requirement that the promoter recog-\nboost its control over purely domestic aspects of competition would,\nnize AAU as the \"sole governing body\" goes beyond any legitimate\ntherefore, be an abuse of power.\ninternational purpose unless qualified by the words \"for interna-\nAAU is not required, in carrying out its international functions,\ntional purposes,\" as does the requirement against accepting any\nto run or supervise every track and field meet in the United States.\nIndeed, AAU has recognized this for years. It permits closed meets\nother sanction, because those conditions might be taken to apply\nto purely domestic matters.\nto be run without any sanetion because presumably it is satisfied that\nthe organization that will run or supervise the meet will make sure\n(5) Acceptance of an AAU sanction for international and\nthat the appropriate standards of international competition will be\nrecord-keeping purposes should not bind the promoter to confine\nmaintained. In effect, AAU thereby delegates to such organization\na domestic meet to AAU members.\nits responsibility for maintaining international standards of competi-\n(6) Although athletes participating in international meets (or\ntion subject, of course, to its right to review any action it believes\ninternational events) may be required to join AAU as heretofore,\nimproper.\nand to subject themselves to AAU discipline for international pur-\nDelegation, with appropriate safeguards, is entirely practicable,\nposes, the necessity of applying for, or acceptance of, membership,\ntherefore, in the case of open domestic meets; and it would reduce any\nwould not bar membership in other domestic organizations.\nrisk of AAU's undertaking to supervise the total conduct of domestic\nmeets.\n(7) No fee may be charged for the sanction required for inter-\nnational and record-keeping purposes beyond that necessary to\ncover the cost.\n28\n29\nThe foregoing considerations lead to the principles stated imme-\nmeets in which an undergraduate competes, his educational welfare\ndiately below and to part of the delegation of functions described in\nmay also be affected by some of the conditions of competition. So may\nsection 4.\nhis future eligibility for intercollegiate competition.\n(a) USTFF may supervise and conduct purely domestic\nMany colleges and universities have established NCAA to exer-\nopen track and field meets without interference, except as AAU\ncise this function on their behalf. The need is far from clear, since\nsanction is required to protect the interests of the U. S. and its\nthe individual college and coach must always approve a student's par-\nathletes in present and future eligibility for international competi-\nticipation; and surely they know much more about an individual\ntion and to validate international and domestic records.\nstudent's situation than NCAA officials. Still, if the colleges and uni-\n(b) Athletes shall not be declared ineligible for AAU member-\nversities desire this further check, we see no reason why their wish\nship or AAU competition by reason of membership in a USTFF\nshould not be respected, provided that NCAA sincerely confines itself\naffiliated organization or participation in USTFF meets conducted\nto educational functions.\nin accordance with this Statement of Principles.\nWhat NCAA has occasion to approve is not the open meet,\nwhich may be held without students, but the participation of under-\n(e) Athletes shall not be declared ineligible for membership\ngraduate athletes. This was the ruling of General MacArthur. We\nin a USTFF affiliated organization or for USTFF competition by\nfind it eminently sound. For this reason, and also because it pro-\nreason of AAU membership or participation in AAU meets con-\nmotes confusion, the use of the term \"sanction\" is to be avoided.\nducted in accordance with this Statement of Principles.\nNCAA's function in this respect is roughly parallel to the function\n(d) The interests of U. S. athletes and the United States re-\nof AAU in respect to the international aspects of domestic competi-\nquire general recognition of the ultimate responsibility of AAU\ntion: it is valuable within its sphere, but it must be confined to its\nfor all those aspects of domestic competition which have substantial\nsphere and not be used as a weapon for enhancing NCAA's power or\ninternational significance, either actual or potential.\nthe power of other organizations outside the educational area. Here,\ntoo, the line between the aspects of meets with which NCAA has a\n(c) An AAU sanction for international purposes and to pro-\nvide for the validation of records is required for all open meets.\njustifiable educational concern and the aspects outside its proper pur-\nview must be left to case by case decision by the Coordinating Com-\n(f) The AAU sanction required for international purposes\nmittee.\nshall be granted, without conditions other than the pay of a fee\nAccordingly, we lay down the following principles:\ncovering cost, for any domestic meet conducted by a responsible\n(a) The interest of colleges and universities in the educa-\norganization, including USTFF, if the meet satisfies the require-\nments necessary to validate records and protect the eligibility of\ntional welfare of students and their eligibility for intercollegiate\nsports requires recognition of the responsibility of NCAA to its\nthe participants for future international competition.\nmembers for assuring them that the open domestic meets in which\n3. Undergraduate Athletes in Open Meets\ntheir students participate are conducted under conditions con-\nsistent with their educational welfare and the protection of eligi-\nThe demand for student athletes to participate in open track and\nbility for intercollegiate sports.\nfield competition could easily overwhelm their educational welfare. Al-\nthough the problem would seem to be primarily one of the number of\n(b) NCAA may require a meet promoter to obtain its\napproval of the participation of undergraduate athletes before\npermitting any such athletes to participate therein.\n30\n31\n(c) The use of the power to withhold approval as a lever for\nIt is also appropriate for AAU to request full reports concerning\nexercising supervision over other aspects of meets, or as a means\nthe conduct of meets for which its sanction for international purposes\nof reprisal against any organization, is prohibted.\nis obtained, in substantially the form in which AAU-sanctioned meets\n4. Mutual Delegation of Operating Responsibility\npresently report. This would enable AAU to verify the manner in\nwhich USTFF was performing its operative duties.\nUnder the IAAF rules AAU is responsible for the international\nThe situation of NCAA and AAU in relation to the educational\naspects of track and field competition in the United States. We do\nwelfare of undergraduate students is similar to that of AAU and\nnot believe that IAAF would wish to dictate the manner in which\nUSTFF in respect to the international aspects of domestic meets.\nAAU carries out the responsibility-against the wishes of AAU and\nAAU has presumptive capability to see that any meets which it holds\nother U. S. organizations-provided that AAU retains the final\nor to which it gives a general sanction, are properly conducted from\nresponsibility. The present practice of defining some meets as\nthe standpoint of undergraduates' educational welfare and intercol-\n\"closed\" even though athletes of international calibre compete therein\nlegiate eligibility, if undergraduates are to compete. Accordingly,\n-intercollegiate meets, for example-is actually a form of delegation\nAAU should be understood to undertake this operative responsibility,\nof operative responsibility. Accordingly, we see no reason why AAU\nwhenever it requests NCAA to grant its approval for undergraduates\nmay not delegate to a reliable organization the power to act for it\nto compete; and NCAA should grant the approval immediately unless\nwith respect to the international aspects of domestic meets, provided\nit has specific reason to believe that educational requirements will not\nthat AAU retains the ultimate responsibility.\nbe met. In the latter event it should take the matter up with the\nThe ability of USTFF to conduct track and field meets in accord-\nCoordinating Committee as provided below.\nance with all requirements necessary to protect the eligibility of\nIt is appropriate for NCAA to request relevant reports concern-\ncompetitors for future international competition and to qualify per-\ning the conduct of meets for which its educational approval has been\nformances for world and U. S. records cannot be seriously questioned\nobtained.\nonce the idea is abandoned that no one can be eligible who takes part\nIn making these two related determinations we are not unmindful\nin any open domestic meet, held under USTFF sanction, with some\nthat AAU has argued that it could not trust the capacity and reliabil-\ncompetitors who are not members of AAU. USTFF is equally able\nity of USTFF to see that IAAF standards were maintained, just as\nto hold up to international standards the promoters of any domestic\nNCAA has said that it could not in good conscience rely upon the\nmeets it undertakes to sanction.\ncompetence of AAU to protect the educational welfare of students.\nAccordingly, we conclude that a USTFF request for AAU to\nEach side has gone too far to be persuasive in casting aspersions upon\nsanction a domestic meet for international purposes would import\nthe other, while protesting its own absolute innocence and altruism.\nUSTFF's promise to see that all international requirements are met,\nThe procedure we establish allows both NCAA and AAU to take the\nincluding protection of the amateur status of the athletes and also all\nmatter up in the Coordinating Committee if either has specific reason\nstandards necessary to validate a record if approval of a record may\nto believe that any meet may not satisfy the appropriate standards.\nbe sought. AAU should grant its sanction upon such a request from\nThe failure of USTFF or AAU to carry out its obligations in respect\nUSTFF unless it has specific reason to believe that the international\nto any meet would also be an appropriate subject for action of the\nor \"record-keeping\" requirements will be violated. If AAU has\nCoordinating Committee. The reports that are required would pro-\nreason for such a belief, it should take the matter np with the Co-\nvide a further check. These safeguards give goth AAU and NCAA\nordinating Committee as provided below.\nample assurance that the requirements they are respectively charged\nwith policing will actually be observed.\n33\n32\nToday, an increasing number of undergraduate athletes go on to\nThe Coordinating Committee should also consider whether\ngraduate school. There, they continue to look to university or college\narrangements cannot be worked out for granting USTFF national\ncoaches and facilities for continuing their athletic activities. An\nmeets the AAU sanctions on an annual basis, and AAU national meets\nincreasing proportion of the facilities available for training. and com-\nannual NCAA approval of student participation.\npetition are educational. Under these circumstances it is reasonable\nThus, we arrive at the following additional principles:\nto extend the \"closed\" concept to the fringe groups mentioned below,\n(a) AAU, while retaining ultimate responsibility, should rec-\nwhen they are training and competing under substantially the same\nognize the presumptive competence of USTFF to ensure that any\nconditions and supervision as prior to graduation and during the\nopen domestic meets USTFF conducts, or sanctions for domestic\nschool year. If the coaches and athletic directors can be trusted to\npurposes, will be conducted in such a manner as to satisfy any\nact responsibly in relation to undergraduate competition, they can be\nrequirements of international significance including those relevant\nexpected to be equally responsible in relation to graduate students.\nto amateur status and other requirements of eligibility or the\nThe MacArthur ruling is direct precedent for this conclusion.\nvalidation of records, if approval of a record may be sought. In\nWe have carefully considered whether this extension of the cate-\nsuch cases, AAU should promptly either grant its sanction upon\ngory of closed meets should be limited to students at educational\nrequest or else take the matter up with the Coordinating Com-\ninstitutions which certify their willingness to assume responsibility\nmittee.\nfor the amateurism and conduct of graduate students and students in\nthe summer or between terms. At this stage the requirement seems\n(b) NCAA, while retaining ultimate responsibility, should\nlikely to produce a volume of paper-work and confusion quite dispro-\nrecognize the presumptive competence of AAU to ensure that\nportionate to its value. Should evidence of carelessness or deliberate\nany mect AAU conducts, or sanctions for domestic as well as\nabuse should develop, the Coordinating Committee can impose the\ninternational purposes, will be conducted in such a manner as to\ncondition as a method of applying the requirement that the meets, in\nsafeguard the educational interests of undergraduates with which\norder to be closed, must be \"conducted in accordance with the rules of\nNCAA is charged and to protect their eligibility for intercollegiate\namateurism and other proper standards.\"\ncompetition. In such cases, NCAA should promptly either grant\nIn refusing to expand the definition of closed competition to\nits approval for the participation of undergraduates or else take\ninclude all USTFF meets we are influenced by two considerations:\nthe matter up with the Coordinating Committee.\nFirst, USTFF opens its meets to all amateurs without regard to class\nor category. Second, as a leading college coach and executive of\n5. Closed Competition\nthe U. S. Track Coaches Association wrote the Arbitration Board,\nThe principle of treating certain kinds of competition as \"closed\"\n\"it seems logical\" that there should be \"some method of restriction of\n(i.e. as not requiring AAU sanction). is well established. Competition\nout-of-school athletes.\" Although he proposed that \"when a boy gradu-\nconfined to the Armed Forces is one example. Undergraduate inter-\nates from an institution he be allowed to run with the Federation\ncollegiate competition is another.\n[USTFF] for one more year\", we believe it more logical to draw the\nThe willingness of AAU to treat intercollegiate competition as\nline in terms of full time study and athletic activities based on the\nclosed very properly acknowledges the ability of the coaches and\ncoaching and facilities of a bona fide educational institution.\nathletic directors to conduct competition in accordance with the high\nWe express these points in the following principles:\nstandards set by AAU.\n(a) Domestic meets confined to \"students\" whose athletic\nactivities are based upon the coaching and facilities of a bona\n34\n35\nfide educational institution, when conducted in accordance with\npartisan members. If they disagree, the Vice President of the\nthe rules of amateurism and other proper standards shall be\nUnited States would be requested to make the designation.\ntreated as \"closed\" Imeets in accordance with present AAU rules\nThe expenses should be divided evenly between the two sides.\nand practices.\nThe use of grievance and arbitration machinery such as we pro-\n(b) The term \"students\" means full-time undergraduate\npose is a thoroughly-tested method of resolving differences between\nstudents, full-time graduate students, full-time students between\nrival organizations as they arise under on-going agreements. Notable\nterms and in vacation or summer recess, and full-time students\nexamples are the \"no raiding\" agreement between international labor\nin the summer between high school and college, regardless of\norganizations and also the construction industry's National Joint\nwhether the student is representing the institution.\nBoard for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes. Experience\nshows that a very high percentage of the problems that arise between\norganizations operating in the same areas can be amicably settled\nB. COORDINATING COMMITTEE\nbetween the parties' own representatives if they commit themselves\nHonest adherence to the Statement of Principles should be enough\nto a rational discussion without unilateral action or reprisals. The\nto avoid any major conflicts between the parties, but minor differences\nproblems of third party decision are no more difficult here than under\nare bound to arise involving questions of interpretation and applica-\ncountless successful arbitration agreements.\ntion, alleged violations, and details of implementation. Such disputes,\nThere can be no serious doubt of the power of any of the organi-\nif left unresolved, could easily produce a new outbreak of controversy.\nzations to enter into an arbitration agreement covering only disputes\nThe first requirement, therefore, is that such differences be taken\nconcerning the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of basic\nup promptly between the organizations affected in advance of action.\nprinciples which it has already accepted. Under such circumstances,\nThere should be a regular forum and procedure for the settle-\nthe agreement to arbitrate merely substitutes a prompter, more flex-\nment of such disputes. We propose the establishment of a Coordinat-\nible and less formal remedy for the cumbersome process of enforce-\ning Committee for this purpose, with equal representation of AAU\nment by litigation in the courts. If there is any impediment in IAAF\nand NAIA, on one side, and NCAA and USTFF, on the other. In\nrules, we have not the slightest doubt that it would be waived upon the\nfact, the parties agreed to this during the hearings. The membership\nearnest request of AAU accompanied by the explanation that the\nought to be as constant as possible in order to preserve continuity of\narrangement was necessary to terminate damaging warfare between\nunderstanding but recognizing the difficulties of ensuring regular\nsports organizations in the United States.\nattendance we provide that members may be changed from time to\nThese arrangements should be incorporated in the following rules:\ntime by designation of the organizations.\n1. Any difference or dispute between the parties involving\nDecisions would be taken by majority vote, but since the partisan\nthe interpretation, application, or violation of the foregoing State-\nmembers may be evenly divided, there should be a neutral chairman\nment of Principles shall be referred to a Coordinating Committee\nwith power to cast the deciding vote on all questions concerning the\nfor a final and binding decision.\ninterpretation, application, or alleged violation of the Statement of\nPrinciples. The neutral chairman should be permanent so that he may\n2. (a) The Coordinating 'Committee shall consist of eight\ngain familiarity with the problems of track and field sports organiza-\npartisan members and an impartial permanent chairman.\ntion; and also so that he may be quickly available whenever a differ-\n(b) The partisan members may be changed from time to time.\nence arises. Preferrably he would be chosen by agreement of the\nFour shall be designated by AAU and NAIA. Four shall be desig-\nnated by NCAA and USTFF.\n36\n37\n(c) The permanent chairman shall be named by a majority\nThe permanent chairman should preside and participate in the\nof the eight partisan members or, if there is no majority, by the\ndiscussions but should not have power to decide disputes unless they\nVice President of the United States.\ninvolve the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of the\n3. Decisions of the Coordinating Committee shall be taken\nStatement of Principles-or unless the parties agree, in the particular\nby a majority of the partisan members present and voting but, if\ninstance, to be bound by his decision. It would be unfair, now, to give\nthe partisan members are evenly divided, the permanent chairman\nthe permanent chairman the power legally to bind any party over\nshall render the decision.\nsome unknown future dispute whose character is uncertain and for\nwhich no governing standards like those in the Statement of Principles\n4. A decision of the Coordinating Committee shall be final\ncan be established in advance.\nand binding, and enforcible by judicial action to the fullest extent\nThere is no serious risk to any party, however, in giving the per-\npermitted by law.\nmanent chairman power to break a tie vote upon any question con-\n5. There shall be no resort to unilateral action or other self-\ncerning the committee's own procedure. Indeed, this is necessary to\nhelp against alleged violations of obligations under the Statement\nobviate the risk that the partisan members may become SO deadlocked\nof Principles without prior sanction of the Coordinating Com-\nupon their own procedure as never to get to the merits.\nmittee.\nIn addition, the permanent chairman should be authorized to par-\nticipate in the discussion and make recommendations for the disposi-\ntion of any matter upon which the partisan members are equally\nC. OTHER DISPUTES\ndivided. This procedure has several advantages. It puts pressure on\nthe parties to support their positions by fact and reason. It brings a\nAlthough the Statement of Principles covers the critical issues on\nfresh mind, and possibly constructive suggestions, to the disposition\nwhich the parties focussed the discussion before the Board of Arbitra-\nof the matter. It provides a focus for public opinion, which may then\ntion, there are many other differences: for example, the scheduling of\nforce settlement of a controversy injurious to individual athletes and\nmeets, the selection of coaches for U. S. teams, the issuance of invita-\nthe national interest. At the same time, the parties would retain the\ntions to participate in international competition, the promotion of\nprotection against egregious error in a legally-binding disposition of\nmedical studies, etc. Such matters cannot be resolved by a single\ntheir rights.\ndetermination, nor can general principles be found to govern their\nAccordingly, there should be acceptance of the following commit-\ndecision.\nments:\nSuch problems have festered in the past because of the basic lack\nof cooperation between the organizations, and also because the lack of\n1. The organizations will make an earnest effort to adjust\na regular forum in which to discuss and resolve operating differences.\nany other difference or disagreement of any character in the\nAcceptance of the principles stated above will limit the jurisdictional\nCoordinating Committee without aggression or reprisals.\nwarfare. The Coordinating Committee would provide a continuing\n2. The Coordinating Committee may render a final and bind-\nforum for the discussion and resolution of differences upon any matter\ning decision by vote of a majority of the partisan members.\npertaining to track and field sports which any of the parties wishes to\ndiscuss with the others. Most of the differences can be resolved, as\n3. The permanent chairman may preside at such meetings,\nthey arise, by a sincere effort to find mutually acceptable accommoda-\nparticipate in the discussion, and vote on questions concerning\ntions.\nprocedure in the Committee. The permanent chairman, in his\n38\n39\ndiscretion, may make public recommendations on substantive ques-\ntions but, unless they arise under the Statement of Principles, he\nG. CONCLUSION\nmay not vote.\nThe welfare of millions of fine young athletes demands an imme-\ndiate end of the mutual aggressions and reprisals of NCAA-USTFF\nD. DURATION\nand AAU. Each has been treating fine young athletes as pawns in a\nOur decision supplies a modus vivendi designed to enable rival\nstruggle for power, and then blaming the fault on the other.\norganizations to operate in peace. Circumstances may change. One\nThe national interest of the United States also requires an end of\nmay hope that, after a period of peace, the parties will join into an\nthe warfare. Our national prestige is damaged when quarrels, uni-\nunified organization needed for the fullest development of track and\nlateral aggression, and boyeotts prevent our entering our finest\nfield competition. Accordingly, these determinations should not be\nathletes in international competition. An Olympic year is now begin-\nning. It would be intolerable for the internecine warfare to continue.\nbinding into the indefinite future.\nAt the same time, the track and field athletes of the United States\nIn this decision we have stated principles and proposed the estab-\nmust be given relief against the early renewal of this dispute and the\nlishment of disputes procedures which would halt the aggression and\nprinciples and disputes machinery should be followed long enough to\nreprisals. Changes and alternatives might be proposed. Possibly\ntest their validity. An Olympic year is just beginning. A five year\nanother plan would be better. But the time for argument has ended-\nperiod would carry through the next Olympiad in 1972. Accordingly,\nlike the time for organizational warfare that injures the athletes and\nthe principles and disputes machinery are made binding through\nthe national interest. The plan here proposed is fair to both sides.\nDecember 31, 1972, and from year to year thereafter, unless notice of\nIt does not interfere with the vital functions of any organization. It\ncan be carried out without sacrificing any legitimate aspirations.\na desire to terminate is given prior to November 1.\nAccordingly, WC call upon NCAA. USTFF. AAU and NAIA to\nAccordingly, we decide that:\naccede to the Statement of Principles and Disputes Procedure herein\n1. The foregoing Statement of Principles and disputes procedure\nset forth. Ratification by the appropriate governing bodies may take\nare to be effective immediately upon notification by AAU, NCAA,\nsome weeks. The President of each organization. therefore, should\nUSTFF and NAIA to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce\nnotify the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, on or\nof the United States Senate, and shall continue in force through\nbefore February 10. 1968-\nDecember 31, 1972, and from year to year thereafter unless one of the\n(a) whether he unconditionally accepts the statement of\nfour organizations gives notice prior to November 1 of a desire to\nPrinciples and Disputes Procedure to the extent of his power. and\nterminate at the end of that calendar year.\nwill recommend unconditional acceptance to the appropriate gov-\nerning bodies. and\nE. AMNESTY\n(b) whether his organization will comply therewith pending\n1. Complete amnesty shall be granted individuals affected by this\naction by its governing bodies. provided the other organizations\ngive the same undertaking.\ndispute.\n2. The Coordinating Committee, with the permanent chairman\nThere can be no doubt of the power of all four organizations to\nvoting to break any tie, shall have power to resolve disputes over\naccede to this program. We perceive no problem under IAAF rules;\namnesty.\n40\n41\nbut, even if there were a technical difficulty, no one can seriously doubt\nSUMMARY OF DECISION OF SPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD\nthe power of AAU to have it removed by sincere effort, or even to go\nforward independently. No.do we see any impediment for NCAA\nThe following six point program is the core of the decision of the\nor AAU.\nSports Arbitration Board on the AAU-NCAA dispute:\nThe only question, therefore, is whether the men ultimately\nresponsible for these organizations-including the Presidents of the\n1. International Competition\ncolleges and universities-are ready to see that the welfare of the\n(a) AAU is the sole sanetioning and governing authority for\nindividuals who engage in athletics is put ahead of organizational\ninternational competition.\nambitions.\n(b) AAU sanction is therefore required for meets in which ath-\nSPORTS ARBITRATION BOARD by\nletes from other countries participate.\nTHEODORE W. KHEEL\n(c) U. S. athletes participating in such meets must therefore be\nTheodore W. Kheel\nregistered or certified under AAU rules.\nChairman\n2. Closed Competition\nARCHIBALD Cox\n(a) Domestic meets confined among full-time students, whose\nArchibald Cox\nathletic activities are based upon the coaching and facilities of a bona\nMember\nfide educational institution, are to be considered closed competition.\n\"Students\" includes undergraduate students, graduate students, and\nRALPH H. METCALFE\nstudents between terms or in vacation or the summer between school\nand college.\nRalph H. Metcalfe\nMember\n(b) Other meets conducted by USTFF are open meets.\nTHOMAS VAIL\n3. Open Domestic Competition\nThomas Vail\n(a) AAU's status as the sole governing body for international\nMember\npurposes cammins ultimate responsibility for the international aspects\nof domestic competition. Since every open domestic meet has aspects\nof potential international significance (such as the maintenance of\nconditions necessary to protect the future amateur status and eligibil-\nity of competitors for international competition and to validate\ninternational records). open domestic meets require an AAU sanetion\nunder carefully limited and confined conditions.\n(b) Since AAU has the responsibility for international records,\nit should also have the responsibility for maintaining and validating\ndomestic records.\n42\n43\n(c) An AAU sanction, for these purposes, must be granted, with-\n6. Other Disputes\nout further conditions, where the promoter satisfies requirements\nnecessary: (i) to protect the amateur status and eligibility of athletes\n(a) Other disagreements among the organizations will be referred\nfor international competition; (ii) to validate international and\nto the Coordinating Committee, which may render a final and binding\ndomestic records; and (iii) to satisfy other international requirements.\ndecision by majority vote of the partisan members.\n(d) A USTFF sanction is to be accepted as presumptive evidence\n(b) The impartial chairman will preside and may make recom-\nthat a meet will be so conducted.\nmendations to the parties upon such matters, but may not vote except\nupon a question of procedure.\n(e) AAU is not entitled to be, or claim to be, sole governing body\nfor domestic purposes. Both AAU and USTFF may conduct and\n7. Duration\nsanction open domestic meets subject to the rules set forth above.\n(a) The arrangement is to be binding for five years.\n4. Undergraduate Athletes in Open Meets\n(a) NCAA's approval of those aspects of an open meet which\nare directly relevant to the educational welfare of undergraduate\nstudents may be required for the participation of undergraduate\nstudents enrolled at member institutions.\nTHEODORE W. KHEEL\n(b) NCAA's approval of the participation of students must be\nChairman\ngranted, without further conditions, where the promoter satisfies the\nrequirements necessary to the welfare of undergraduate students.\nARCHIBALD Cox\nMember\n(c) An AAU sanction is to be accepted as presumptive evidence\nRALPH H. METCALFE\nthat a meet will be SO conducted.\nMember\nTHOMAS VAIL\n5. Coordinating Committee-Disputes over Interpretation\nMember\n(a) A Coordinating Committee is established with equal numbers\nof AAU-NAIA and NCAA-USTFF members, and an impartial per-\nSports Arbitration Panel\nmanent chairman.\n(b) The Coordinating Committee will have power, by majority\nvote, to render a final and binding decision in disputes over the\ninterpretation, application, or alleged violation of these rules. If the\npartisan members are equally divided, the permanent chairman will\ncast the deciding vote."
}