Broadcasting Telecasting (Oct - Dec 1951)

BASEBALL FUTURE BRIGHT Justice Probes Football By J. FRANK BEATTY WIDE-OPEN bidding for rights to broadcast and telecast baseball games will develop this winter as networks and stations once again enjoy the right to bargain without the handicap of organized restrictions. It was apparent at the weekend that artificial "territorial" barriers imposed by baseball, football and other organized sports were on the way out, if the Dept. of Justice can obtain court support of its theory that the public is entitled to enjoy contests via radio and TV. The sports world was turned upside down last week as: 0 Major league baseball teams decided Monday to drop their "territorial" rules cramping radio-TV rights. 0 The Dept. of Justice went to court in an effort to break down professional football's bans. These two developments completely changed the radio-TV side of the sports universe. Of greatest impact was the baseball ruling, voluntarily adopted by major league clubs without consulting the minor leagues. The baseball ruling means that the matter of granting radio and TV rights has reverted to the individual major league clubs instead of the leagues. League officials insisted they did not act last Monday because they might have had wind of the complaint filed Tuesday by the Dept. of Justice. Heading the baseball negotiation parade this winter will be Mutual and Liberty networks, each of which has featured daily networking of major league games to the entire nation outside major league territory. MBS, LBS Proposals Because of last week's developments, Mutual and Liberty are proposing to carry daily major league games to the Midwest, East and Northeast. Major league teams are centered in these areas and stations within their borders have been generally out-of-bounds for the two networks because of territorial rules. Liberty already has acquired rights to games of the Chicago White Sox. Gordon B. McLendon, president of Liberty, predicted that the network will be able to enter major league territory and said he did not believe minor leagues would suffer from the baseball ruling. MBS officials weren't ready to comment but one high-placed executive said, "We would like to have baseball again next year. We want it and we plan to have it." Liberty is broadcasting professional football games every Sunday, having contracts with two clubs. The football action from the Dept. of Justice was announced Tuesday in Philadelphia by Attorney General J. Howard McGrath. A civil suit charging the National Football League and its member clubs with entering into an agreement to restrain trade in broadcasting and telecasting of games was filed in federal court in an effort to clarify radio-TV rights in relation to the sports world. One of the strongest monopolies in all sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. college football telecasting schedule, apparently will continue despite the government suggestion that monopolies are in the doghouse. Ralph Furey, Columbia U. athletic director and a member of NCAA's Television Committee, told Broadcasting • Telecasting he sees no reason why the government suit should affect NCAA's TV schedule. He called it "perfectly reasonable" and said he contemplates no change in the program as a result of the football suit or statements of government attorneys who filed it. The Dept. of Justice action grew out of an inquiry that has lasted several years. First formal action to fight the sports monopolies was taken in 1947 by Frank U. Fletcher, radio attorney, at that time part owner of WARL Arlington, Va., and later a member of the NARTB board. Prosecution was hinted by the Dept. of Justice in 1949 and the major clubs relaxed their Rule 1-D, enabling MBS to start its game of the day and Liberty to start a sports network that later developed into the present nationwide hookup. Major leagues are interested in several bills now pending in Congress, designed mainly to protect the "reserve clause" governing player contracts. Broadcasters themselves have been anxious to obtain freedom of contract negotiation with major league baseball clubs and at the same time to protect minor league clubs in what to them is a declining economy. Last year NARTB cooperated with the minors by promoting attendance at games, with Robert K. Richards, public affairs director, coordinating the project. Mr. Richards is NARTB liaison in a new joint radio-TV committee that will work with the clubs next season. NARTB Position Not Definite As of Thursday night NARTB officials had not formally discussed the association's position next year but it appeared the wide-open baseball negotiations would stimulate industry cooperation with both major and minor league clubs in an effort to promote attendance as well as good relations between club owners and the industry. The original Rule 1-D of the major league clubs flatly banned broadcast or telecast of any big league game by stations without the consent of major and minor league clubs in that city and within 50 miles. When the Dept. of Justice threatened suit in 1949, Rule 1-D was softened to give the clubs veto power during periods when they played at home or, in the case of TV, also during periods when their road games were being telecast at home. This softened rule was repealed last week. Consequently those desiring to broadcast games must now dicker with the home team in each case instead of with the respective leagues. The major league clubs must decide to what extent they wish to protect minor leagues from impact of their game broadcasts. "We'll be in there bidding for rights, just as we have other years," Mr. McLendon told Broadcasting • Telecasting. "At this point the rule is so new that we don't know how we will approach the situation. "I think the new baseball rules will have a salutary influence on the public and the broadcasting industry. It gives many stations the first chance to carry major league baseball and changes the whole structure of baseball broadcasting. "For the first time Liberty will be able to bring games into the Midwest, East and Northeast." Asked what effect the new situation might have on minor league teams, Mr. McLendon said they will not be hurt. He recalled that when Liberty started broadcasting (Continued on page 105) BOND DRIVES Radio Aid Tops 50% of All Media WITH Sen. Styles Bridges (RN. H.) leading the fight, the Senate last Monday beat down an attempt to prohibit radio, TV and other advertising funds earmarked for the Treasury Dept.'s savings bond program. It was revealed, perhaps officially for the first time, that radio and radio advertisers have contributed over 50% of all free measurable advertising in the five major media over many of the last 11 years. Peak year was 1944 when radio time donations reached $65 million. The upper chamber rejected by voice vote a recommendation by its Appropriations Committee that "no part" of any funds bill be used to promote savings bonds sales through both broadcast and printed media. The action was regarded as a significant victory on Capitol Hill where economy-minded factions have launched concerted drives designed to prohibit the government from buying commercial radio-TV programs or spot announcements during the new fiscal year ending next June 30. Senate rejection followed similar action by a joint conference com mittee under which the Defense Dept. was shorn of monies to buy programs and space for recruiting campaigns [B • T, Oct. 8]. The House took that action by voice vote Oct. 5 and sent the proposal to the Senate, which scheduled it for debate Friday. Military authorities were uncertain over future radio plans. Added to H.R. 5215 The bond proviso was tacked on a supplemental expenditures bill (HR 5215) reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee Oct. 6. The Senate did vote, however, to cut savings bonds monies from $1 million to $500,000. The measure now goes to conference. In offering the amendment on the floor, Sen. Bridges told his colleagues that "it is most necessary that we shall be able to have the bond sales conducted effectively" and that the Treasury Dept. should proceed "within reasonable limitations." This "freedom of action," he added, is more important than the actual amount ($1 million) set forth in the bill. Sen. Bridges' sentiments also were shared by Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W. Va.), who expressed BROADCASTING • Telecasting fear that the proposed amendment "might be killing the goose that lays the golden egg of advertising." In clearing the measure, the Senate went along with the committee's proposal placing restrictions on compensation paid to radio, TV and other experts employed by the Dept. of Labor and the Federal Security Agency. This proviso brings them in line with previous legislation which limits the monies to be paid out to information specialists hired by all other government departments. In a word, it cuts funds 25% as proposed by Sen. Harry Byrd (D-Va.). Affected would be: (1) Functions performed by a person designated as an information specialist . . . publications and information coordinator . . . radio expert, television expert, motion picture expert, or publicity expert . . . and (2) functions performed by persons who assist persons ... in drafting, preparing, editing, typing, duplicating, or disseminating public information publications or releases, radio or television scripts, magazine articles, photographs, motion pictures and similar material. The ban on military monies for recruiting also arose during Senate discussions. Sen. George D. Aiken (R-Vt.), who objected to (Continued on page 104.) October 15, 1951 • Page 25