« PreviousContinue »
Mr. HOLMES. It was right after the first hearing that they called. David Berst called and they told me about the situation. As it was explained to me, there was the claim that, relative to intimidation, that the intimidation in the NCAA also included not only studentathletes or other sources, but also commissioners of conferences and that they would not cooperate with an institution attempting to gather the facts and they used me as an example personally.
Mr. WUNDER. They used you as a personal example of someone who would not cooperate.
Mr. HOLMES. Who had not cooperated.
Mr. HOLMES. Had not cooperated at all with the institution. They requested information from me and I had not cooperated. This is after two telephone calls and a letter.
I told David Berst what the situation was and what I had done and the information that I had provided. I went to the file and pulled the letter and put in on the telecopier, a facsimile machine, and sent it to him.
Mr. WUNDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SANTINI. I will repeat my enthusiastic endorsement of your courage and your candor. I hope we are all working in the right direction in Washington.
Thank you very much, Mr. Holmes.
Mr. SANTINI. The committee will stand in adjournment subject to call of the Chair.
(Whereupon at 5:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned to reconvene subject to call of the Chair.)
26.961 - 79.35
NCAA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1978
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John E. Moss (chairman) presiding.
Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will be in order.
We resume this morning with the subcommittee's inquiry into the theory and practice of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's enforcement program.
From previous hearings we have seen that experience with the NCAA enforcement division is not always a happy one. Still, nearly every witness before the subcommittee—including distinguished educators, athletes, coaches, and in one instance, a former president of the association has had some praise for the NCAA, and has reiterated the need for a strong, vigorous, and fair athletic association.
Such examples of alleged unfairness, as will have been presented for this subcommittee's record, are received in a constructive desire to improve the NCAA, if and where improvement is needed. And let me say again, for the benefit of the NCAA and its partisans, several full hearing days will be devoted exclusively to the NCAA's officers and staff.
In the meanwhile, we are pleased to welcome Miss Lana Tyree and Mr. Mike Edwards. Miss Tyree is a lawyer from Oklahoma City, whose lot it has been in the last few months to represent Mr. Edwards, an Oklahoma State University football player, before the NCAA. Miss Tyree appears today not as Mr. Edwards' counsel, but in her own right, to discuss her experiences as a lawyer with the NCAA enforcement process.
Would you both come foward at this time and be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Miss TYREE. I do.
Mr. Moss. Miss Tyree, I understand that while you have no formal statement, you do have some remarks to address to the committee.
Miss TYREE. Yes, I do.
TESTIMONY OF LANA TYREE, ATTORNEY, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.,
ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE EDWARDS, STUDENT-ATHLETE, OKLA. HOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
Miss TYREE. I would like to start out generally with a statement that I feel is like background material, sufficient to understand the functioning of the NCAA, and what I believe, many times, to be the motivation of many of the actions which I am here to discuss.
The NCAA's stated purposes are to promote and develop educational leadership, physical fitness, and sports participation as a recreational pursuit through the implementation of eligibility rules, rules of play, and legislation standards for collegiate athletics with competitive programs designed to be a vital and inseparable part of the education process. In alleged support of those purposes, the NCAA regulates eligibility and recruiting of athletes, scholarships, financial aid, admissions, the hiring and sometimes firing of institutional employees, the number of games and the authorized competitors, the television rights and the approval of TV sponsors, as well as the price of athletic tickets.
However, the NCAA has far exceeded its stated purposes in its pursuit of commercial enterprise and financial benefit to be derived from what they designate as amateur athletics. I would like to quote from some of the materials furnished by the NCAA to its membership. I quote:
While great excitement on the field attracted record crowds and strong television viewership to college football in 1977, equally as important for the NCAA's television fortunes was the agreement with ABC, and therein lies what I believe to be a part of the background of the current functioning of the NCAA.
The contract referred to was for $118 million, over a 4-year period with ABC. In addition to the fortune NCAA recognizes to be derived from television, they have increasingly independently progressed into the marketing of a variety of products for commercial sale to both the American public and foreign countries in recognized competition with professional sports.
I quote again from their manual, and I am quoting at this point from the annual report for 1975–76:
The new NCAA line of athletic shoes will appear in selected Montgomery stores. In addition to shoes, the association expects to market hosiery, athletic accessory bags, bathing suits, tennis shorts, golf shirts, windbreakers, blazers, and golf caps. The NCAA products are being marketed in the Far East with initial reports indicating more than adequate sales. The Association is attempting to complete a contract for the marketing of T-shirts to a major retailer in the United States. Discussions are currently being conducted with other companies to market additional items of clothing. The Association may also be able to have a weekly college football highlight show viewed on a coast-to-coast airline.
The next year they came back in their report and they reported progress on their marketing:
The Association has already received income and royalties from sales of athletic shoes primarily through Montgomery Ward. He noted that the performance was better than either the NBA or the NFL achieved in their first years of operation. Additional royalties had been received from sales of NCAA to produce T-shirts and the royalties have been received in the first three months of this contract.
The Association is investigating the production of pajamas and the establishment of an official ball program in several sports and is striving to produce quality merchandise in each area.
The NCAA through the advisory investment trust has invested in utility companies, I.T. & T., Weyerheuser, Coca-Cola, Gillette, Pillsbury, Warner-Lambert, Eastman Kodak, J. C. Penney, Sears, General Motors, General Electric, IBM, Texaco, and others, many of whom are primary sponsors of NCAA televised competition and the NCAA requires that “Only sponsors approved by the NCAA Television Committee may be used by the network for any program telecast.”
At this point it is interesting to note several facts about the NCAA television contract with ABC. On April 16 through 17, 1977, the executive committee of the NCAA was advised that a survey of NCAA members reflected 62 percent favored splitting the NCAA package between two networks. The committee wanted authority to negotiate with ABC and possibly other networks prior to July, when it is anticipated the NFL was to negotiate with all three networks. The committee was further advised that all three networks had expressed interest in the NCAA package. On April 18 through 20, 1977, the executive committee was again advised that “the majority favored dividing the television package between two networks.”
Irrespective of the feelings of the membership, in May 1977:
ABC was afforded an exclusive 30-day negotiating period from May 18 through June 16. On June 9, 1977, a 4-year contract for $118 million was entered with ABC, apparently without any consideration of other networks and which was two years longer than all prior TV contracts the NCAA had ever executed.
It would appear that the NCAA has exceeded, if not thwarted, its stated purposes. The association has actively and aggressively exploited collegiate football and thrust itself full speed into the commercial marketplace. The NCAA is a massive, commercial, tax-exempt empire which does not radically distinguish itself from professional athletics.
I would point you back to the comments that were made in their annual reports about the competition with the NFL. By controlling and monopolizing collegiate competition, the NCAA only assures that the association and its institutions reap the financial benefit. By restricting the amount of scholarships and the number of coaches, the marketing and advertising of products, the television of competition, and the ownership of rights in the NCAA in restraining athletes, they corner the market.
The amateur athlete does play for pay. I don't care what they say. But the pay is for others. Collegiate athletes will compete for pay exceeding $118 million in 1977 through 1981. The coaches can do commercials and be paid, based upon their public following and using the name of the institution with their consent. The NCAA can market products and use the athletes' images to do so. There is no amateur football, only a distinction between who gets paid.
There are some other ironic things. I do think there is an additional fallacy, aside from their stated purposes. NCAA would suggest to you that they are a voluntary association. I would state that the NCAA is by no means voluntary. The NCAA has, in defense of its arbitrary and unreasonable rules and methods, consistently given the unchallenged response that it is voluntary. The NCAA's tentacles have so dominated, monopolized, and controlled collegiate football that many