Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to professional football.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1549381
label
Football Antitrust Exemption, [1965-66]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1549381
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Football Antitrust Exemption, [1965-66]
description
This file contains material relating to professional football.
citationUrl
collections
Edward Hutchinson Papers
Judiciary Committee Files
subjects
Recreation
Legislation
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1549381
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-10-31
month
10
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-01-01
month
1
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5fba16471ff993f3
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 41, folder "Football Antitrust Exemption, (1965-
66)" of the Edward Hutchinson Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Edward Hutchinson donated to the
University of Michigan his copyrights in all of his writings that might be included in this collection.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
REC"D JAN 19 1966
LOVRE AND DEVANY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
639 WOODWARD BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
HAROLD O. LOVRE
OFFICE DISTRICT 7-7557
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
DISTRICT 7-7558
1949-1957
PHILIP M. DEVANY
*
*
MEMBER OF OUT-OF-STATE BAR ONLY
17 January 1966
Hon. Edward Hutchinson (Mich.)
Room 1420 New House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C.
Re: S. 950 - H.R. 9981
Dear Congressman Hutchinson:
This letter is merely for the purpose of advising that
The American Football League is vitally interested in the above
Sports Bills and sincerely hope that hearings will be held early
so that we can appear and testify.
Conditions have changed drastically since 1958 when ex-
tended hearings were held in the House covering sports and we
feel that the above are not only timely but vital for the
best interest of sports generally.
Trusting that we may have your support and assistance in
early hearings and passage of the above bills.
Cordially,
Heary Harold O. Lovre
Attorney for -
THE AMERICAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
HOL/FW
LOVRE AND DEVANY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
639 WOODWARD BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
HAROLD O. LOVRE
OFFICE DISTRICT 7-7557
MEMBER OF CONGRESS
DISTRICT 7-7558
1949-1957
PHILIP M. DEVANY *
*
MEMBER OF OUT-OF-STATE BAR ONLY
PROFESSIONAL TEAM SPORTS ACT OF 1965
S. 950
AUTHORED:
Senators Hart, Dodd, Dirksen and Hruska
PASSED SENATE: 31 August 1965
NEED:
The Supreme Court of the United States has suggested in vari-
ous decisions that Congress should pass such legislation as
may be necessary to eliminate the inequities that now exist in
the application of the antitrust laws to the various team sports.
(Today baseball is exempt from antitrust laws but football,
basketball and hockey are not.)
PURPOSE:
Put all sports under antitrust and exempt only the essential
sports aspects which are necessary to allow team sports to
operate effectively within leagues thereby balancing playing
strength and preserving the integrity of the sports, which ex-
emptions are spelled out in the bill as follows:
(1) the equalization of competitive playing strengths;
(2) the employment, selection, or eligibility of players, or
the reservation, selection, or assignment of player con-
tracts;
(3) the right to operate within specific geographic areas; or
(4) the preservation of public confidence in the honesty in
sports contests.
SUPPORT:
"Our association is respectful of the role which professional
sports play in American culture, and are sympathetically aware
of the problems posed by the inconsistency in presently applic-
able law to the professional team sports of baseball, football,
basketball, and hockey. We wish to make clear that the views
we hold regarding the provisions of S. 950 are in no way opposed
to the bill's purposes in providing uniform treatment, under the
antitrust statutes, for those sports. Nor are we necessarily
opposed to the means of providing uniformity of treatment
through exemption from applicability of the antitrust laws in
the four areas specified in the bill. 11 (William R. Reed, Chair-
man, NCAA Legislative Committee)
"I am sure my position as concerns this legislation, and par-
ticularly Senator Hart's sports bill, S. 950, is well known. I
favored the bill when it was first submitted. I still favor it.
I have always felt that team sports were entitled to some clear-
cut antitrust exemption for essential sports practices. " (Ford
C. Frick, Commissioner of Baseball)
SUPPORT (Cont'd)
"The National Football League strongly supports S. 950. It
believes it to be in the interest of the league and of proves-
sional football, its fans, its players, and all those connected
with it. " (Pete Rozelle, Commissioner, N.F.L.)
"We feel that legislation of this nature is an absolute necessity
for the continued effective operation of professional football
leagues. Because of the nature of professional football cer-
tain joint actions are necessary. These joint actions would
include all the exemptions contained in S. 950. " (Joe Foss,
Commissioner, American Football League)
"Recently I had the opportunity to look at the text of the new
sports bill which your committee has proposed to the U.S.
Senate, and I would like to take this opportunity to say that the
North American Football League supports bill S. 950 and its
objectives. " (Robert E. Spitler, Asst. Commissioner, North
American Football League)
"I have examined S. 950, the professional team sports bill
which has as its purpose the clarification of the status of foot-
ball, baseball, basketball, and hockey under the antitrust laws.
I think this is a step in the right direction. I am sure it is im-
portant that all team sports be played on an equal basis under
the antitrust laws, and that exemptions only be granted where
conditions are necessary for continuing growth and success. "
(Albert B. Chandler, Commissioner, Continental Football
League)
"I feel that S. 950 be passed for the benefit of all pro sports. "
(Joseph Rosentover, Commissioner, Atlantic Coast Football
League)
"I am in favor of the passage of S. 950. I make this statement
on behalf of the National Basketball Association and the owners
of the nine basketball clubs who are members of the NBA and
who operate teams in the cities of Baltimore, Md. ; Boston,
Mass. ; Cincinnati, Ohio; Detroit, Mich. ; Los Angeles, Calif. ;
New York, N. Y.; Philadelphia, Pa. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; and San
Francisco, Calif. 11 (J. Walter Kennedy, President, National
Basketball Association)
"I have studied carefully the provisions of S. 950 and I would
like to place on record on behalf of the National Hockey League
our unqualified approval of its provisions. " (Clarence Camp-
bell, President, National Hockey League)
ROGERS BILL:
Congressman Byron Rogers introduced H. R. 9981 last July 21st
which is identical with S. 950 except with the provision added
for a mandatory common draft and making exemption inapplic-
able where a college athlete is signed before a certain date.
REQUEST:
Support for early hearings by the House Judiciary Subcom-
mittee over antitrust matters on both S. 950 and H. R. 9981
and passage.
CLASS OF SERVICE
WESTERN C- UNION
SYMBOLS
This is a fast message
DL = Day Letter
unless its deferred char-
acter is indicated by the
W.P. MARSHALL
TELEGR 1966 OCT 14
VRMcF 12.39 39
NL = Night Letter
proper symbol.
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
LT
International
PRESIDENT
=
Letter Telegram
The filing time shown in the date line on domestic telegrams is LOCAL TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt is LOCAL TIME at point of destination
BUC156 (33) (33)DEA208 DEA208
REC'D OCT 1 41966
DE LGA169 PD DL EAST LANSING MICH 14 1108A EST
EH
ind
CONGRESSMAN EDWARD HUTCHINSON
MICHIGANS 4TH DISTRICT WASHDC
HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE FOOTBALL MUS BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED
BEFORE CONGRESS GRANTS ANTI-TRU IMMUNITY TO PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL CLUB BE BOUND
TO THE SAME TELEVISION RESTRICTIONS AS THE LEAGUE OTHERWISE
THE PROTECTION IS MEANINGLESS. INDISCRIMINIATIVE TELIVISION
BY PROFESSIONAL TEAM INTERFERES WITH HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE
FOOTBALL. I WOULD PERSONALLY APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD GET
A COPY OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY WALTER BYERS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
OF OUR NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION WRITTEN TO
HONORABLE EMANUEL CELLER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
BIGGIE MUNN ATHLETIC DIRECTOR MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
(26)
SF1201 (R2-65)
(SR)*
TVIC
ЕНУМПЕР VEHICLE com IDENTITOS 89698
-
PAYMENT WINT 10.V2 COLYLTON
10
Y FELIER EA EXPORTANCE
SECURITY ЗОЛУГГА SECTIVE DI 381
USDLE MOD correet
1961 REPEATION
the curreja revent
CAMPLETED
INSERVITAE THANK E IMPEATE MT
report
or 40 SCOLL
events
operating
you
EDAYET
CONTED 50 reverse
more
=
89TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H.R. 17977
a
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 26, 1966
8
Mr. MACGREGOR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary
e
or
A BILL
To authorize the merger of two or more professional football
leagues, and to protect football contests between secondary
schools from professional football telecasts.
ar
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
rr
3 That the Act of September 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 732; 15
4 U.S.C. 1291), is amended-
5
(1) by amending the first section thereof to read as
follows:
(8)
6
7 "That the antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act
8 of October 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730), or in the
9 Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (38 Stat. 717),
AS
10 shall not apply:
as
I
2
3
1
" (a) to any joint agreement by or among persons
1 ning on the second Friday in September and ending on the
2
engaging in or conducting the organized professional
2 second Saturday in December in any year from any tele-
3
team sports of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey,
3 casting station located within seventy-five miles of the game
4
by which any league of clubs participating in professional
4 site of any intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest
5
football, baseball, basketball, or hockey contests sells
5 scheduled to be played on such date if-
6
or otherwise transfers all or any part of the rights of
6
" (1) such intercollegiate football contest is be-
7
such league's member clubs in the sponsored telecast-
7
tween institutions of higher learning both of which
8
ing of the games of football, baseball, basketball, or
8
confer degrees upon students following completion of
9
hockey, as the case may be, engaged in or conducted by
9
sufficient credit hours to equal a four-year course, or
10
such clubs.
10
"
(2) in the case of an interscholastic football con-
11
" (b) to a joint agreement by which the member
11
test, such contest is between secondary schools, both of
12
clubs of two or more professional football leagues com-
12
which are accredited or certified under the laws of the
13
bine their operations in an expanded single league, if
13
State or States in which they are situated and offer
14
14
such agreement increases rather than decreases the num-
courses continuing through the twelfth grade of the
15
15
ber of professional football clubs SO operating, and the
standard school curriculum, or the equivalent, and
16
16
"
provisions of which are directly relevant thereto."
(3) such intercollegiate or interscholastic football
17
17
(2) by inserting "(a)" after the words "section
contest and such game site were announced through
18
18
1" where such words appear the second time in section
publication in a newspaper of general circulation prior
19
19
2;
to August 1 of such year as being regularly scheduled
20
20
(3) by amending section 3 to read as follows:
for such day and place."
21
"SEC. to 3. Section 1 (a) of this Act shall not apply to
22
any joint agreement described in section 1 of this Act which
23
permits the telecasting of all or a substantial part of any
24
professional football game on any Friday after 6 o'clock
25
postmeridian or on any Saturday during the period begin-
28
odt по gaibne Bas теdтејде8 ni vehicl buoose по gain I
-919) VIII mort yus oi biroose S
entey offt to selimt dubivo beface!
deetnoo Hedjoot TO to
bevellq bolubodos C
God at tastaoo Hedtool stargollbotai (J)
doidw to 11tod gainnel lo 5
to noitélquios gaivollot
9
TO
B
10000 Iladtool
110 diod slooda
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
from professional football telecasts.
2D SESSION
Todi lo swal out) reban baltitrop
Mofto bits betantia doidw
SEPTEMBER 26, 1966
By Mr. MACGREGOR
football contests between secondary schools
fessional football leagues, and to protect
To authorize the merger of two or more pro-
89TH CONGRESS
A BILL
Ladt lo эбятд
15 ban Juelsviupe
CI
H. R. 17977
Hedtool 10
at
dguoult beomomic 919W etia sung dons Dres
TI
190mq moitslubrio Issuage to
81
belubedos vltaluget gnied 88 TR9V dona lo I of
er
Wesslq
OS
to
OCT
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
3
1966
Executive Offices
Midland Building
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
BAltimore 1-7127
President
Executive Director
Secretary-Treasurer
EVERETT D. BARNES
WALTER BYERS
FRANCIS E. SMILEY
Colgate University
Colorado School of Mines
Hamilton, New York
Golden, Colorado
September 28, 1966
The Honorable Edward Hutchinson
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
My dear Mr. Hutchinson:
We are using this means to present to you the viewpoint of this association and
its members in reference to S.3817 which recently was passed by the United States
Senate and, according to news reports, is before the Judiciary Committee of the
House of Representatives. We are concerned by the rapidity by which this bill
cleared the Senate and the fact that there apparently have not been any hearings
or discussions of its possible implications.
The colleges generally have been apprehensive of professional sports' activities
in player drafting and television as they affect and damage the intercollegiate
(and high school) programs. The general intent of S.3817 and its House counter-
parts, however, is not objectionable to the colleges. Indeed, we would concede
that regularization of signing practices which can be expected from consolidation
of the professional football leagues would relieve us of one of our most disruptive
experiences of recent years.
At the same time, we are concerned that it is being represented that these measures,
at least passably, bear the endorsement of the schools and colleges. This is not
the case because we believe strongly that any grant of statutory privilege to pro-
fessional sports should be accompanied by an accounting of their responsibility to
avoid practices detrimental to school and college athletics. It is true that the
current bills extend to high schools the same form of television protection ac-
corded colleges under the 1961 act which authorized professional sports clubs to
"package" their TV programs. This, however, merely corrects what was in effect a
legislative oversight in the 1961 act. It does not go to the core of our concern.
We are disturbed by the practices of professional football teams in scheduling, in-
dependently of the league packages, Friday night and Saturday telecasts which can
do exactly the same damage to concurrent high school and college games as packaged
telecasts. We foresee the merger of the football leagues as introducing new pres-
sures to schedule and televise on these days and to avoid conflicts among themselves.
For this reason we have sought to extend the 1961 act to provide protection from
both the packaged telecasts and from independently arranged telecasts on the part
of those who are privileged under the 1961 act.
Again, it is our argument that any legislation which extends the privileges of
anti-trust exemption to professional sports is an appropriate vehicle for statutory
restraint upon those so privileged, if their practices are or may be seriously
The Honorable Edward Hutchinson
September 28, 1966
Page No. 2
deleterious to the school-college program. [I believe the high schools have a
further concern that the dates of the 1961 act from the second Friday in Septem-
ber do not effectively cover their playing season. In many parts of the country
this season begins before September 1 and is accordingly affected by the tele-
casts of the exhibition games of professional football which, in the main, are
not a part of league packages..
To sum up, we do not oppose S.3817 or its counterparts in their announced pur-
poses. We do believe these measures should be amended to give the schools and
colleges protection where it is due. We believe the legislation should not be
enacted without such amendments and we most certainly do not want the Congress
to consider the proposed bills in a belief that they adequately provide attention
to and protection for vital interests of the schools and colleges. I am enclosing
the text of an amendment to S.3817 on behalf of the colleges. The language fits
in the second line of the proposed Section 3 of the counterpart bills as well.
I hope you can support the incorporation of this amendment in S.3817 or in its
counterparts if and when these measures are considered by the House Judiciary
Committee or one is brought to the floor.
Thank you for your consideration of this.
Sincerely,
Walter Byers
WB:jp
Encl.
AMENDMENT TO S. 3817
Recommended by The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Delete the words, "which permits", on page 3, lines 1 and 2 of
S. 3817 and substitute therefor the following: "if such agreement per-
mits, or if any party to such agreement shall arrange or permit during
the term thereof".
-0-
The amended version, beginning on page 2, line 25 of S. 3817 then
would read:
"Sec. 3. Section 1(a) of this Act shall not apply to any
joint agreement described in section 1 of this Act if such
agreement permits, or if any party to such agreement shall
arrange or permit during the term thereof, the telecasting
of all or a substantial part of any professional football
game on any Friday after 6 o'clock postmeridian or IT
The National Collegiate Athletic Association
September 28, 1966
C - Judiciary - Football -
6893
October 6, 1966
Mr. John L. Lehigh
R. #3
Decatur, Michigan
T
Dear Mr. Lehigh:
I acknowledge your letter of September 30th expressing opposition to
a bill exempting professional football from antitrust laws.
A bill which would recognize the legality of a merger already announced
between the NFL and the AFL has already passed the Senate. Similar
legislation will be the subject of a hearing before a House Judiciary
Subcommittee this week, Although I am a member of the Judiciary Com-
mittee and serve on several of its subcommittees, it so happens that I
am not assigned to the particular subcommittee considering this matter.
You may be interested in the precise language of several of the bilas
introduced. They provide that the antitrust laws shall not apply "to
a joint agreement by which the member clubs of two or more professional
football leagues combine their operations in an expanded single league,
if such agreement increases rather than decreases the number of pro-
fessional football clubs so operating." I understand that language to
mean that the merger would be legalized only if the end result was more,
not less, professional football teams. This language would seem to
demand less monopoly in the field rather than more.
Another provision of these bills would legalize and require agreements
which would reserve the time from 6:00 p.m. Friday, all day Saturday,
and Saturday evening, during the period from the second Friday in Sep-
tember and ending on the second Saturday in December, for the telecasting
of intercollegiate and interscholastic foot ball games by preventing the
telecasting of a professional football game during that time.
I have no knowledge of the form in which the bill might be reported from
the Judiciary Subcommittee or whether, in fact, it will be reported.
Mr. John L. Lehigh - #2
October 6, 1966
There has been a considerable amount of interest in the subject and,
as of the time of receipt of your letter, yours was the only communi-
cation I have received in opposition to the bill.
I am happy to have your thought upon it.
Sincerely,
(EH:hb
dieta.)
REC'D OCT 51966
ASSOCIATES FINANCE COMPANY INC.
THE
ASSOCIATES
409 North Hickory Road
South Bend, Indiana 46615
Telephone: 234-2128
September 30, 1966
Representative Ed Hutchinson
The House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Representative Hutchinson:
When the bill asking exemption of professional football from anti-trust
laws comes before the House, I request that you vote against it.
Respectfully yours,
John Route #3
John L. Lehigh J Foling
Decatur, Michigan
JLL:ck