[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      A THREATENED BASEBALL STRIKE

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly about the threatened strike in baseball which is now set for 
August 12. I do so as a baseball fan of longstanding, and also as a 
Senator from Pennsylvania, which has two major league baseball teams 
and two cities--Philadelphia and Pittsburgh--which will be adversely 
affected very substantially by this strike, for thousands of baseball 
fans who will not be able to see the Pirates and the Phillies play in 
Three Rivers Stadium and the Vet, and for thousands of fans who will 
not be able to watch those games on television, hear them on radio, and 
for many whose livelihood will be at issue--vendors in ballparks and 
the restaurants adjacent to the parks and the hotels--and the very, 
very serious impact on those two cities from this threatened strike.

  Mr. President, America has long had a love affair with baseball, and 
I have long had a love affair with baseball, since my childhood when I 
grew up in the Wichita, KS. The main interest at the start of every day 
was to check the Wichita Eagle and see what the box score showed; as a 
youngster, as a delivery boy, stopping at the barber shop to see the 
great calendar that had the statistics of Ty Cobb's batting average and 
Babe Ruth's batting average.
  As a youngster, I found it inspirational to study the baseball 
players and see the tenacity and discipline and their character, and I 
think it has had a propound effect on Americans, and really worldwide 
in many, many ways, in being an example and providing a tremendous 
thrill when people would go to the park or listen on the radio, as I 
did as a youngster, or in the basement of the Wheeler Kelly Hagner 
Building, watch the scores on the big board.
  There may be some wagering, perhaps in violation of Kansas law. And I 
would see the squares on the innings when someone would hit a home run, 
an extra square, double square, or triple squares, on rare occasion 
when there were two home runs or three home runs an inning.
  All of that is now threatened by the baseball strike. I think it is 
especially troublesome, Mr. President, because baseball has a unique 
and a preferred status in America because it is a business which is not 
subject to America's antitrust laws. Every other business which exists 
in America has to function in a competitive way, and there may not be 
agreements in violation of open competition. Baseball is the one 
business, the only business, which does not have to abide by the 
antitrust laws of this country.
  It came about in a curious way when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes 
many years ago said that baseball was a sport and not a business. When 
Justice Holmes' decision was tested many decades later, the Supreme 
Court said, well, it is a business now, but we are not going to change 
its exemption from the antitrust laws because if Congress had wanted to 
do so, Congress could have done so. We are going to leave baseball in 
an exempt status.
  On the Judiciary Committee, I have considered the issue of taking 
away baseball's antitrust exemption and for a time considered taking 
away football's limited antitrust exemption.
  Unlike baseball, procedurally football has a limited antitrust 
exemption which applies only to pooling receipts on television. I was 
concerned about that when the Raiders moved from Oakland to Los 
Angeles. I was concerned about that when there was a threatened move of 
the Phillies from Philadelphia to Phoenix in about 1984.
  We have never changed the antitrust exemption for many, many reasons, 
but there has long been a concern in the Congress about whether 
baseball ought to continue to have that antitrust exemption.
  Just a few weeks ago in the Judiciary Committee, we took up the issue 
of taking away the antitrust exemption as it related to labor 
negotiations because the representation was made at that time that if 
we took that action, perhaps the baseball strike would not occur.
  There have been discussions on the floor of the Senate, since the 
announcement was made about the impending strike on August 12, that 
perhaps the Congress ought to consider some action to take away the 
antitrust exemption.
  I have been unwilling to do that, Mr. President, because if I were to 
support the antitrust exemption and taking away the antitrust 
exemption, and it failed in the committee most recently by only a 
single vote, or if we were to take away the antitrust exemption 
baseball enjoys more broadly, there would be a real threat that the 
Pittsburgh Pirates would leave the city of Pittsburgh, and that would 
be devastating for Pittsburgh. Right now, the representations are made 
that the Pirates lose $1 million a month, and there has been a city 
group coming in to take over the ownership of the Pirates to keep the 
Pirates in Pittsburgh.
  So with concern for the interests of Pennsylvania and the city of 
Pittsburgh, I cannot join in an effort to remove the antitrust 
exemption because of the risk that it would pose for the Pirates 
leaving the city. But from many points of view, the Pirates have left 
the city, in a sense, when free agency has taken away Barry Bonds to 
San Francisco and Bob Bonilla to New York and other star players so 
that the Pirates, which had enormous talent, and had those players 
stayed there, the Pirates would have been a pennant contender and would 
have been a much, much stronger team.
  Mr. President, I think that all parties to the dispute, the owners 
and the players, ought to be aware of the concern which exists in the 
Congress about the impending strike and the concern that exists as to 
whether we ought to continue the antitrust exemption.
  It may well be that Congress will act if there is a strike. I think 
that there is going to be enormous public reaction. Right now, it is 
just speculative as to whether the strike will take place on August 12. 
But since the strike was announced, I have contacted representatives of 
the players and representatives of the owners in an effort to see if I 
could be helpful in settling the strike, or if there is anything that 
the Judiciary Committee could do, or others in the Senate could do, to 
settle the strike.
  I am advised there is nothing that we could do, and from the 
discussions which I have had over the course of the past 3 days, it 
seems to me that we are headed for a baseball strike and for a 
disruption which may end the rest of the season and may eliminate the 
league championship playoff games and the World Series.
  I think, Mr. President, that the parties may well kill the goose that 
lays the golden egg. If we were to eliminate the antitrust exemption, I 
do not know what would happen. I do not know if baseball could survive 
in its present form even if the players and the owners got together. 
There are enormous salaries, and a key point of disagreement is whether 
there should be a salary cap. The players make gigantic sums of money, 
millions of dollars a year, and the owners have tremendous revenues, 
although the owners claim that there are some 19 teams which are on the 
verge of bankruptcy and there is a dispute as to whether those 
financial figures are accurate because it is complicated.
  There are many third-party contracts, where the Atlanta Braves have 
an agreement with the television network and the Chicago Cubs similarly 
have an agreement. And I do not know, Mr. President, who is right and 
who is wrong. It may be that both parties are wrong in subjecting the 
fans to the threat of this kind of a strike.
  I have long believed, Mr. President, that sports are unique, and that 
baseball is affected with a public interest and that football is 
affected with a public interest.
  Some have analogized sports to public utilities, and that may be 
going a little far. If you have a railroad strike, the Congress can 
intervene and stop the strike. Nobody is suggesting that the nature of 
baseball reaches the level of a railroad or a public utility, to that 
extent.
  But it is my hope that the players and the owners will find an 
agreement. When you talk about free market, you talk about the very 
basic American attitude, and it is a principle of allowing people to 
earn as much money as the market will permit.
  But I would suggest that there may be some outer limits of public 
tolerance, and public tolerance is reflected in the unique special 
position which baseball has as a result of the antitrust exemption. And 
if the public clamor is sufficient and the congressional outrage is 
sufficient, we may find that antitrust compensation removed. And then 
we would in fact have a situation where the parties who benefited from 
the goose which laid the golden egg would have in fact killed the 
goose.
  So I hope there will be a consideration, and I have taken the 
initiative in talking to representatives of the players and 
representatives of baseball, because the game ought to be preserved, 
and perhaps arbitration would be the way. But the parties ought to come 
together and realize the public interest and the public concern and 
avert the strike.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania yields the 
floor.
  The Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. Lautenberg] is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator indicate the length of time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Probably less than 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.

                          ____________________