
( - DOCUMENT RESUME . Nk . ED 2'60 044.. 026 '2 9 8- 1 sp TITLE The SAgreme Court-Decision i.:11 "NCAA v. University of Oklahoma." Hearing before the Committee.on the Judiciary. United States Senate, Court's Decision in, "NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of "Oklahoma" (Cedar Falls',Iowa, November 19, 1984). INSTITUTION Congress. of the U.S., 4-hington, D.C. Senate Committile on the Judiciary. ti REPORT NO Senate-Hr9-98-1111, PUB DATE 85 NOTE 95p. PUB TYPE Legal /Legislative /Regulatory. Materials (090) E`DRS PRICE MF0l/pr...04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS. *Commercial Television; *Federal Legislation;. *Football; Hearings; Higher Education;4as-s Media; *IleCreation Legislation IDENTIiIERS Congress 98th; NCAA v Board'of Regents of University of Oklahoma Air ABSTRACT In 1951, recognizing that teleivision telecasts may -decrease attendante at games, the,Nitional Collegiate AOletiC Association (NCAA) devised a plan which gave it exclusive control over the broadcasting of college football 'games. The contracts negotiated by the NCAA with ABC and CBS contained a number of - restrictions designed to give as much exposure to the largest number of schools as possib.n Such limitations included guarpnteed V appearances to both large and small schools, limit,on the number of games that could be broadcast and restrictions on amount of money received and number of times each school coUld,appeir. In 19'81, theiUniversities of Oklahoma, and Georgia sued the NCAA for violation tof the Sherman Antitrust Act undera restraint of trade- theory. The Supreme Court upheld this theory The hearing reported in this document s'held to consider'the impact of the courts reasoning, and addressed the following issues: (1) ShouAd Congress Grant the NCAA a - limited exemption from the antitrust lbs? (2) What effect has the decision had on the financial status of both large'and small, schools? (3) Has there be'en increased or decreased exposUre A a result of the, debision? (4) Has the decision endangered the live gate? and (5) What kinds of restrictions can be imposed upon. schools by broadcasters that limit appearance right*? (JD) **v************************.*1******************************************. Reproductions supplied by EDRA are the best:Ahat can be made from the original doc 134%. **************************************** * ************,********* 1. S. 1-lso 98-11291 " THE, SUPREME,; COURT DECISION IN . ICAA .v.UNIVERSITYOF OKLAHOMA" SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE the -ERIC Facility has assigned this dotuMent for processing-0 to: In our judgementythis document Is elstxof interest to the clearing- I houses noted to the right. indcc- HEARING , mg should reflect their special Roints of view. BEFORE THt COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON THE,IMPACT'OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN "NCAA v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA" Cedar Falls, Iowa NOVEMBER 19, 1684. Serial No. J-98-148 . s ''' . r.. ' s' Printed for the use of the Committee on titJudiciary 1. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION' IFOUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IEFIlt) Vitus document has beep i`bproduced as receiied from the person or anizption ouginating rt Minor changes have been made to mprove reproduction quality . .Points of view of opinions sinus(' in this docu mein do not locessanly represent official N1E position or policy! U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON :1985 BEnitopy,.. ti it p COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY STROM THURMOND, SouthCarolinn,l'Chairmayt CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware PAUL LAXALT, Nevada `EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C.,BYRD, Weet Virginia IROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio 10. 'ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DsCONCINI, Arizona JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. cRASSLEY, Iowa 'MAX BAUCUS, Montana JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania VincroN DEVANELIDE,Chief Counsel and Staff Director I DEBORAH K. OWEN,General Counsel It Dcaoaka 0.BERNSTEIN,Chief Clirk MkAk H. Grmtargt.N, Minority Chief Counsel 11. I- 4 CONTENTS OPENING STATEMENT Page Grass ley, Hon. Charles .E , CHRONOLOGICAL LIST 'OF WIPINF,SSES .. , ' Panel consisting of: Thdmas Graves, director, government relations and desvel opment, Heritage Communiaktions; James Hedlund, lace president, Goveri menkRelations Apociation of Independent-Television Stations (INTV);tin Rex Lardrier, Jr., 'director ofipregram iing, Sports Time, St. Louis, MO J. 3 Panel consisting of: Dr. Ado .L. Sponbe, vice president; Division IP,National Collegiate Athletic- Association (NCB ) and athletic director, North Dakota State University, and Richard S. Snider, director of communications, Col- lege Football Association (CFA) f ri, 32. Panel' consisting of: Bob Bowlsbv, 'athletic director,, University ofNorthern ... Iowa, and John Kurtt, athletic dhector, Wartburg, College . ' , 62 Panel consisting of: Max Urick, athletic director, Iowa State 'University; Jim --White, assistant for promotion marketing to the. athletic director, Universi- ty of Iowa; and John Goebel, vice chancellor, University of Nebraska (Lin- coln), accompanied by J es O'Hanlon and Richard Wood ,. 73 . ALPHABETICA LISTING AND. MATER'LS SUBMITTED Bowisby, Bob: Testimony .-%c 4 . 62 Goebel, John: Testimony 1 76 i - Grassley, Hon t Charles E.:.:. , Statement.of Arthur Watson, president, NBC Spor -`18 Statement of Neal H. Pilson, executive vice presi , CBSBroadctist Group 20 Graves, Thomas: Testimeny Hedlund, James: Testimony , 1 . Kurtt, John: .r ( Testimony 63 Prepared Statement , 66 Lardner, Rex, Jr.: Testimony t. I , 10 O'Hanlon, James: Testimony , 78 Snider, Richnid S.: . Testimony ( 54 , Prepared statement 55'_ Sponberg, Dr: Ade L.: Testimony Nome 32 Prepared statement.L 34 Urick, Maxi TestiTony 73' White;Jim: Testimony, t , ..1 75 Wood, Richard: Testirilay -, 81 APPENDIX "N.C.A.A. Head Asks As'sault On Rampant Abuse ofRules," byPeter Alfano, from the New York Tinibs, Oct. 13, 1984 , 1 A1 85 "N.C,A:.A. Moving To Clarify TV Ruling," by Gordon S. White, Jr., fivini.-4h44\ . New York Times, June 29, 1984 88 "Taking Away the N.C.A.A.'s BallAnd in Other Court Decisions, Three Administration Victories," by Michael S. Serrill, reported by Anne Con-N stable, Washington and Don Winbush, Chicago, from Time, July 9, 198'4 89. 1 e . > THE SUPREME COURT DECI IN "NCAA v. UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA" -MONDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 1954 0 4 "U.S. SENATE, CpMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, - Cedar Falls, IA. The.committee met at. ltp.m. in MRucker University Union, .Uni- versity of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falje, 1,A, Hon. Charles E. Grassley .(acting chairman) presiding. ' Committee staff members present: Alice R. and Bruce Hallman.. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES E. GRASSLEY Senator GRASSI.E.Y. I want to take the oppOrtunity at the start of this. meeting to say thank you to all qf youxho -are here, members ,of the..put)lic at large, our,witness,list,\official people to testify, and aljio,pre0, radio and television people ware present.' I'd also say that we are in Iowa with ts, hearing befothe Ju- diciary Committee, and the reason the Ju Clary Committee of the Seto is involved in this issue is because t Judiciary. Committee. hasrisdiction over antitrust legislatioi in the Senate. The subject of our hearing today is the first in-the Senate on this issue since the decision of last June. The HousemkEepresentatives Commerce Committee did have a hearing looking into this issue, but this is the first in the case of the Senate. The focus of today's.heating is'the impact of the SupremeiCourt's decision in NCAA y. Board of Regents of*the Universi4y of Oklaho- ma. This current situation has arisen out of cicumstances which regih back to the 1940's Sand, 1950's when televisiop b n broad- caring college football. In 1951, recognizing that,TV-lecasts may A decrease attendance at games? the NCAA devised elevision plan- which gave it exclusive control over the broadsting of college games. At plat,time revenues from this entprise netted the schools a total orapproximatelyil million. Ifthe-NCAA's 1982-85 television plan lied been retained, revenues would have reached over 1243 million, It's obvious that 'college football does not only. play an integral part in the overall spirit of the institution, but has becoml a big business as well. The contracts negotiated by the NCAA with ABC and' CBS con- tained.a number of restrictions designed to giVe as much exposure to the largest number of schootip as possible. Such limitations in- cluded guatanteed appearances to both large and sffiall schools,. limits on the number of games that could be broadcast, and restric- (1) . 440 Jr a 2 Lions on 4,the aMoUnt of money received and number of times each .. , ... ° school could appear. Feeling shackled, the UniversitteS of Oklahoma and Georgia sued- the NCAA- in .1981 for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act t der a restraint' of trade theory. The Suprema Court upheld this theory, and in a 7 to 2 opihioniOnd thatand I quote.. N Because .if roetramsA price and output, the.N6AA's television plan has a signifi-. ,. cant pptentiar for anticopetitive.effects. - , ) . It is this deciSion that has led us to today's confused' situation. Our purpose: is not to second-guess the courts,- but instead to ,assess the impact of their reasoning and examine whether Con- grss should have any role th developing' a respOnse to this prob- lem. ° . a, Among the issues to be discussed today, or at least I would hope would be discUssed: , One, should Congress grant the NCAA a limited exemption front the antitrust laws. ,4 Two, what effect has the decision had on the financial status 9f-- both. large and small schools. Thrbe, ilas there been increasod--or--ftrcreased ex a result of the decision. Four, has the decision endangered the live gate. rive, in the wake of the decision, what kind of restrictionkcan be imposed- upon schools by broadcasters Which limit appearance rights.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages95 Page
-
File Size-