eral Boxing Commission for the purpose of insuring that the channels of interstate commerce are free from false or fraudulent descriptions or depictions of professional boxing contests.

Since the Civil Service Commission would not be administratively concerned with the program authorized by this legislation, our comments are limited to its personnel provisions.

Section 1 of H.R. 8635 establishes a Federal Commission on Boxing consisting of three members to be appointed by the President and compensated under the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. One of the members will be designated by the President to serve as Chairman.

Employees on the staff of the proposed Commission will be appointed and compensated under the customary provisions of the civil service laws and the Classification Act.

Insofar as these personnel provisions are concerned, we would not oppose enactment of H.R. 8635.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

By direction of the Commission.
Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 12, 1965.

Hon. OREN HARRIS,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request of June 2, 1965, for our views on H.R. 8635, 89th Congress, 1st session, a bill to establish and prescribe the duties of a Federal Boxing Commission for the purpose of insuring that the channels of interstate commerce are free from false or fraudulent descriptions or depictions of professional boxing contests.

The bill would establish a Federal Commission on Boxing consisting of three persons to be appointed by the President, one of whom is to be designated by the President as its Chairman. The Commission is to exercise continuing surveillance over the field of professional boxing. Wherever it determines "that a professional boxing event which is to be televised in interstate commerce, or an account of which is to be transmitted in interstate commerce by wire or radio (while such event is occurring), will be in any way affected by bribery, collusion to effect the result, intentional losing, racketeering, including terrorism, extortion, organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, or use of violence, it may issue an order prohibiting such interstate transmission or televising." The Commission is also authorized to make whatever investigation it deems necessary to carry out its duties. The bill then specifically provides that for the purpose of any such investigation, the provisions of sections 9 and 10 (relating to the attendance of witnesses and production of books, papers, and documents) of the Federal Trade Commission Act are made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Commission.

Since the proposed bill is concerned with conduct which is essentially criminal in its nature and involves the promotion and production of professional athletic events, an area wherein the Commission has no expertise, the Commission is not in a position to make any informed comment.

By direction of the Commission.

PAUL RAND DIXON, Chairman.

NOTE. Pursuant to regulations, this report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget on July 1, 1965, and on July 12, 1965, the Bureau of the Budget advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

JOSEPH W. SHEA, Secretary.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, as you well know, last February I came to your office with the suggestion that such an investigation be undertaken at that time in view of what I felt had happened in Miami, and I had a general feeling that something like this was going to happen again. Naturally I supported your legislation when it was

introduced in the House, and I intended to introduce an identical bill today.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman permit me to say that it shall be included along with the others at the proper place.

(Mr. Springer later introduced an identical bill, H.R. 9633.)

Mr. SPRINGER. I could go into a great deal of detail here to tell what I felt has happened to boxing in the past few years, and I think a great deal of it has been far worse. Perhaps an investigation such as this, if we come forward with legislation to correct the situation, boxing can be put back in the sports world perspective that I think it ought to be, and I will say with the same kind of respect that it had in the twenties when there was really competition, we will say, for the heavyweight title of the world.

I believe, Mr. Chariman-and I shall take only a minute or twoin that conversation with you, I had a feeling that perhaps this investigation should be broader than it presently is. I am happy that you have seen fit to call this investigation for boxing. But it seemed to me since we were going into the question of television and radio which covers such a wide scope that we ought to discuss some of the other things which I felt ought to go into the sports picture.

Widespread ownership of teams by communication entities or national advertisers could lead to some possible abuses having little, if any, connection with antitrust matters but which nonetheless could work against organized sports. Admitting that some of the same results could conceivably come about anyhow, I point out the following possibilities:

First, the changing of the rules of sports in fundamental ways to better suit the convenience of the television medium or the sponsors. Second, the use of the material to further network affiliation for pure profit considerations to the detriment of the game.

I am pointing out how some of the things that I think can happen as a result of ownership. The placements of franchises or the creation of new ones in large numbers and patterns designed to best exploit the purposes of the media or to best suit the economic interests of the advertiser-owner rather than give the public an even chance to see the sport in person or on TV.

Fourth, truly amateur events might tend to disappear.

Fifth, a certain amount of provincialism and sectional rivalry is inherent in league sports. Because of this, national advertisers sponsor many games across the country to get the desired coverage. But what happens when this advertiser owns a team or perhaps two teams and he can cover the whole country by satellite?

It seems to me there are major questions to be considered in addition to these things which I pointed out can possibly happen and I do this briefly:

First, does the ownership of major teams by broadcasting companies or networks endanger the integrity of the sport?

Second, will the changing character of team ownership tend to discourage or present obstacles to the formation of new leagues?

Third, should we look into the possibilities of world series in football, which we do not have at the present time?

Fourth, should there be interleague baseball games during the regular season as there is in football?

Fifth, what, if any, steps need to be taken to protect amateurism? I certainly am faced with that. The University of Illinois, my hometown, there is a question of what nights, what hours, what days shall be allotted for purely amateur sports and what shall be allotted to that which is professional in scope because television and radio now even broadcast the local high school games in Champaign and Urbana? I understand this is not unusual all over the country. It seems to me the whole question of where we stand between amateurs and professionals is important.

I point out what I felt the broad scope of an investigation should be in the public interest. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point to insert my statement completely in the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the statement will be inserted. at this point in the record.

(Mr. Springer's statement in full follows:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, REPUBLICAN, OF ILLINOIS Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement on the fundamental purpose for which you have introduced H.R. 8635. Boxing should not be allowed to use communications facilities to foist upon the public which follows the sport, the commercial ventures which sponsor it and the media which transmit or report it in good faith, the kind of shameful exhibition lately observed in Lewiston, Maine. There must be steps taken to protect all of these elements from a degraded but profitable venture masquerading under the name of sport.

The history of boxing as a national sport has had its ups and downs. Starting as a banned and illegal activity its matches were surreptitiously arranged and were held in out-of-the-way places, completely hidden from general community observance. There have been times since when I have felt that our forefathers knew what was right. Apparently they sensed something sinister and inherently wrong in this whole activity. There have been other times, however, when I have felt that the impact of boxing on the national scene was healthy and desirable. The popularity of this sport at any time has depended upon the few top contenders for honors in the various weight classes. There have been long periods of time when most of these contenders have been reasonably well matched, so that boxing was truly a sport and not a slaughter. Many, and no doubt, most of these contenders were clean living, patriotic Americans. They set good examples for our youth and our population in general. These individual fighters, if not all of the elements connected with the sport, deserved support and received it. There has always been a sordid backwash from the boxing profession, however. The many examples of destroyed bodies and destroyed minds, as well as the established examples of venal managers who have exploited aspiring athletes cast doubt on the overall good of boxing. It is because of these practices that practically every State has come to see the necessity of establishing State boxing commissions. It is difficult to tell what might have happened without the regulation which has taken place thus far.

Boxing at its worst has almost smothered the vision of these fine people who have deserved emulation. Examples of boxing at its worst are those who greedily accept the rewards of the sport and at the same time avoid service of their country in time of need, flout the law of the land in almost every respect, and those who shout and posture and voice contempt for our Government and our way of life. As undesirable as these elements are as representatives of any sport, we could hardly complain if they met behind the barn to fight for the benefit of those few people who would bother to go behind the barn to see them. Today, however, with almost immediate and universal communication to every corner of our Nation, this is not possible. Our technology makes it possible to bring a boxing contest to every community and, with proper arrangements, possibly to every home. For these reasons I believe that legislation such as you have proposed deserves our immediate attention.

Mr. Chairman, while we are looking into communications aspects of this national sport, there are many more such sports and perhaps we should at least mention a few which would also justify the attention of our committee.

More and more sports are becoming popular through exposure on television. The older, well established spectator sports such as baseball and football are becoming far more dependent upon television for continuing revenue than upon attendance. This results in the basic economics of major sports becoming completely entwined with the economics of television and Madison Avenue. Even now, at times, I feel like a viewer of the "Tonight" show, where the program serves to separate the commercials. Sometimes the game begins to lose its continuity and only the commercials seem real.

Widespread ownership of teams by powerful communications entities or national advertisers could lead to some possible abuses having little if any connection with antitrust matters but which, nonetheless could work against organized sport. Admitting that some of the same results could conceivably come about anyhow, I point out the following possibilities:

1. Changing the rules of the sports in fundamental ways to better suit the convenience of the television medium or the sponsors. A simple example could be a change in the timeout rule in football. One can think of other ways the game could be changed or rigged to make it more valuable as a production and a background for commercial display.

2. Use of the material to further network affiliation or for pure profit considerations to the detriment of the game. This could affect the manner in which games would be presented, the times they might be shown and the kinds of schedules which might result.

3. The placement of franchises or creation of new ones in large numbers in patterns designed to best exploit the purposes of the media or to best suit the economic interests of the advertiser-owner, rather than give the public an even chance to see the sport in person or on TV. For example, football at the moment is king. If ratings were to determine entirely its standing in the TV time schedules the Baltimore Colts would get evening hours, while the Kentucky Derby might be relegated to late night viewing. While Mr. Friedel might find this acceptable I am sure Dr. Carter and Mr. Farnsley would not. This stretches the football season slightly, but a year-round schedule might also result from the situation we are here imagining.

4. Truly amateur events might tend to disappear.

5. A certain amount of provincialism and sectional rivalry is inherent in league sports. Because of this, national advertisers sponsor many games across the country to get desired coverage. But what happens when this advertiser owns a team or perhaps two teams and he can cover the whole country by satellite? Then what does he show?

There are questions which should be posed and for which answers should be sought:

1. Does ownership of major teams by broadcasting companies or networks endanger the integrity of the sport?

A question which must be asked at the same time concerns the possible effects of ownership also by the largest customers of stations and networks, the national advertisers.

Since one baseball team is already owned by a network and beer companies or their principal owners have owned other teams, it is safe to speculate that NBC will also have a team. Perhaps General Motors will see value in owning the Lions or Du Pont in owning the Colts. This is a far cry from the situation in the past and today. Commissioner Rozelle of the NFL testified last year that each purchaser of a franchise agrees to abide by the rules of the league, but how can a board of directors bind future management to gentlemen's agreement contracts? Rules can be changed. League business matters will become wheels within wheels, buffeted about by the internal politics of its corporate members. Judging by the way networks seem to make program decisions and their sudden now-you-see-it, now-you-don't quality in regard to TV matters, it is not difficult to envision a chaotic situation for a football league when the same kind of decisionmaking is injected into league affairs. I'm not yet sure that even TV can survive such rat race tactics. I am certain professional football could not. 2. Will the changing character of team ownership tend to discourage or present obstacles to the formations of new leagues?

3. Should we look into the possibilities of a world's series of football?

So far, the National Football League has dominated the stage and has been able to retain its dominence by dividing itself into divisions and building up to a playoff at season's end. The newer league, like the American League in baseball years ago, started off slowly and looked rather weak. Perhaps it is not as powerful yet to compete evenly with NFL. But a world's series, more accurately

a national series, could and very likely might help to equalize the leagues. Commissioner Rozelle expressed opposition to such an idea last year, but I gathered then that his opposition was based primarily upon the bitterness still remaining from litigation between the leagues. These are only growing pains and we should look beyond them to healthy rivalry between the leagues.

4. Should there be interleague baseball games during the regular season? Like the world's series idea being applied to football, the interleague play idea borrows a successful technique from the NFL and applies it to baseball. Although it might complicate the calculation of league standing to have the Cardinals play the Senators two games during the season I am sure that IBM could handle it. To have teams play against teams of the other league occasionally would stimulate interest and attendance. For Detroit fans it might be a great treat to see their team play Cincinnati or Pittsburgh in midseason.

5. What, if any, steps need to be taken to protect amateurism? The excessive televising of more and more sports could stifle amateur performances to the ultimate detriment of sports generally. High school and college sports need public support. Football teams of the big schools have held their own so far, but partly by reason of a voluntary refraining from competition by the professionals. High schools and small colleges are not so lucky. An opening wedge of Friday night televising of professional games has been observed. Although this example is the most evident and the one evoking discussion, it is not too hard to imagine other scheduling which will jeopardize the continuance of amateur and school contests. More than team sports may be affected and the development of sporting skills in our people will retrogress.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can look forward to an intensive investigative effort in this field. The broadening commercial ramifications of sports, particularly their relationships to broadcasting, confer not only jurisdiction but duty upon us to scrutinize them to see what, if anything, should be done at once and what, if any, broad policies should be determined.

In the tradition of this committee we would not be looking for witches, scapegoats, or burglars under the bed. Neither would we be looking for sensationalism. I know that this committee would make every effort to be fair and thorough in any such activities. But I sincerely feel that such a project is overdue and therefore suggest that steps be taken to proceed at the earliest opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for the continuing interest he has manifested in the overall problem since even before the beginning of this new Congress. I do feel, however, that boxing constitutes a peculiar interest in itself, and it is important that we should make an effort to do something about it. The reference to the overall study and investgation, I think, is a point very well taken and it will be considered.

Mr. Henry, we thank you for your taking the time to come here and giving the committee the benefit of the views of the Commission on this matter. I believe you have a statement that you may present at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. WILLIAM HENRY, CHAIRMAN; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT E. LEE, COMMISSIONER; HENRY GELLER, GENERAL COUNSEL; AND JOHN R. LAMBERT, ASSISTANT CHIEF, COMMON CARRIER BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. HENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With me is Commissioner Robert E. Lee, who is interested in this matter both as a member of the Commission and as a citizen.

I am here today at the committee's invitation to present views on the bill of Chairman Harris, H.R. 8635,1 a bill to establish a Federal

1 Identical bills were also introduced by Representatives Rivers of South Carolina (H.R. 8676), Tunney (H.R. 9140), Michel (H.R. 9196), and Murphy (H.R. 9426).