[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17866-S17869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

       By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Gorton):

  S. 1439. A bill to require the consideration of certain criteria in 
decisions to relocate professional sports teams, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                        fans rights act of 1995

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to address the situation we face in 
professional sports at the moment. What I am introducing today is a 
bill we call the Fans Rights Act. I believe we truly are at a 
crossroads in professional sports. When we talk about professional 
sports and introducing legislation, obviously the first question is why 
on Earth do we want to get the Government involved in professional 
sports? Keep our mitts out of that area. Stay away from it. We have no 
business getting into the area of professional sports.
  Yet, I would say that we are into a situation now that I think is 
very important. I think it is important for the country. It does 
involve professional sports. Why get Government involved? Professional 
sports, the way they are organized, do have to come to Government for 
antitrust exemptions and for permission to use broadcast money for 
various purposes and spread across interstate--a whole host of things 
where Government does, indeed, get involved.
  Beyond that, Americans are sports minded. Part of the fabric of the 
daily life of the United States is looking at the ball scores, looking 
at the scores on the weekends, and watching the professional sports 
teams operate. I think Senator Specter, at a hearing we had yesterday, 
put it well when he said, ``America has a love affair with professional 
sports.'' Indeed we do have a love affair with professional sports. We 
even have sports idols, of course, that are the role models for many of 
our young people. It goes into the whole fabric of this country. I will 
not belabor that idea any further.
  The shock waves of the Cleveland Browns' proposed move to Baltimore 
extend far beyond just the State of Ohio. Every community with a 
professional sports team needs to know this: Any city in America can 
fall victim to a bidding war in which the interests of loyal fans and 
communities are given very little consideration.
  Quite simply, if it can happen in Cleveland, where loyal fans 
supported the Browns through thick and thin, then, Mr. President, it 
can happen anywhere. Other communities may have been willing to grin 
and bear it, but in Cleveland, we are drawing a line in the sand and we 
are here to say that enough is enough.
  The new economics of sports is a zero sum game in which teams seem to 
bounce around the country and taxpayers too often are left holding the 
bag.
  Unfortunately, professional sports leagues, like the NFL, actually 
have little ability to regulate the movement of their own member teams. 
They cannot enforce their own bylaws that franchise holders agree to 
when they become members of the league. There is no process involved to 
allow a community to have any protection or input before such moves. A 
team simply picks up and goes, leaving behind fans, businesses, and a 
community that has invested vast emotional and financial support.
  Judging by the barrage of reports during football games each Sunday 
on nightly hockey broadcasts or in the sports pages each day, it would 
seem to lead us to believe that almost half of America's sports 
franchises are looking for greener pastures.
  Let me run through just a few of the things being considered right 
now.
  In Texas, the Houston Oilers have announced they are moving to 
Nashville. In Florida, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are rumored to be 
moving up to Orlando. The Chicago Bears are considering an offer to 
move over the border to Gary, IN.
  If that is not confusing enough, this past weekend various NFL 
commentators reported that:
  The Buccaneers will end up in Cleveland with the Browns' name;
  The Buccaneers will end up in Baltimore and the Browns will be sold;
  The Oilers transfer is not a done deal; and
  Both the Seattle Seahawks and Arizona Cardinals are talking about 
relocating to Los Angeles, which lost both its teams in moves before 
this season.
  Does anyone find it ironic that the Cardinals are talking about 
relocating to Los Angeles to replace the Rams who moved to St. Louis to 
replace the Cardinals after they moved to Phoenix?
  No wonder the sports fans find it tough to even follow those moves. 
These are the people we are concerned about, not just those in the 
skyboxes. We are talking about the average American whose family has 
supported a franchise through season tickets, parking fees, T-shirts, 
and paraphernalia through concessions for decades and decades and 
decades, because it is those people who are the true fabric of American 
sports.
  It is those people who are truly hurt when a flagship team like the 
Browns threatens to leave town.
  We are here today to say that it is time to give a voice to the fans 
of America. That is what the Fans Right Act we are introducing today is 
all about.
  I think the league knows they have a basic problem. We have talked to 
Commissioner Tagliabue about this, and actually the league does not 
have control over where these franchises go even though their own 
bylaws say that a vote of the league owners will determine where the 
teams go.
  The problem has been that a few years back one of the owners decided 
to move anyway, even though the league had voted against him, on a move 
of the Oakland Raiders to Los Angeles, in effect thumbing his nose at 
the league when they voted that he could not move. He was taken to 
court. The league lost, and there was about a $50 million penalty 
assessed against the league, even though their own bylaws that the 
owner had agreed to said that the league could control the move.
  That is the situation we find ourselves in.
  Let me hasten to add that this is not an antiowners bill in any way, 
shape, or form. It does not prohibit the owners from making money. It 
does not limit the amount of money they can make. It does not stop them 
from cutting the best deals they can with their host cities. It does 
not even bar them from moving their teams to the other locations if 
there are good reasons for doing so. But it does require them to play 
by the rules that they themselves set and vote upon. It lets the league 
have the final say whether a transfer will be made or will not be made. 
Right now the league does not have that authority because it has been 
taken to court and shown that they did not have it.
  I realize that professional football, like all big league sports, is 
a business. It is a big business. But a business is comprised of its 
owners, its workers, and its customers. Team owners have rights. They 
do not hesitate to enforce them. Team players have rights, and they do 
not hesitate to enforce them either. The third part of that is I 
believe the team customers--the fans--have some rights also, and that 
is what this addresses.
  I say it is time that we help them enforce those rights--not just in 
Cleveland but all across this great country. If it were just one move, 
well, all right. I would doubt that would be the subject of any 
legislation here on the floor of the Senate. But, as I indicated 
earlier, this has become a basic problem in professional sports, and we 
are trying to address that problem.
  So while we recognize that professional sports franchises are clearly 
business and we must consider profit, we also believe Congress should 
take a number of steps to, in effect, help the league in its ability to 
control the destiny of the league. That is a power they do not now 
have. It gives them the power to increase stability and ultimately 
preserve the integrity of professional sports.

  Let me turn to some of the details. We accomplish the first by 
providing sports leagues with a very narrow, limited exemption to 
antitrust laws if the league has voted to block a move. Let me read 
that again. We accomplish it by providing sports leagues with a very 
limited antitrust exemption if the 

[[Page S17867]]
league has voted to block a move. This exemption would say that if the 
league prevails, they could not be taken to court in a situation like 
that. And the exemption would shield sports leagues from the likes of 
the $50 million antitrust lawsuit that we saw the Raiders win in the 
1980's and from the types of lawsuits the NFL is currently fighting in 
court. What we are trying to do is let them run their own business but 
do it fairly.
  Yesterday, at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Commissioner 
Tagliabue asked for such an exemption so that the NFL could enforce its 
own bylaws. I discussed this with him in my office several weeks ago 
when I had written him a letter and told him what I was thinking about 
doing and the proposal we were about to make.
  So today we propose that Congress give the NFL and other sports 
leagues the legal ability to block the move of a team if they think it 
is not in the best interest of their sport. By law, we will require 
that these leagues abide by their own bylaws, which currently take into 
account fan loyalty and community support, their own bylaws that some 
owners see fit to not go along with even though they have agreed to 
those bylaws when they accepted the franchise in the league.
  Second, our legislation would also require that teams give 
communities at least 6 months' notice before a relocation can occur. 
This would allow communities facing a team relocation the opportunity 
to put together bona fide offers to purchase the team or induce it to 
stay. The sports league would be required to take these efforts into 
consideration as it considers a team relocation. And it would require a 
hearing so that people like Mayor Mike White in Cleveland and Art 
Modell, the owner of the Browns, could sit down together, with 
Cleveland and the Nation watching, and publicly discuss whether it is 
such a great idea for the Browns to leave Cleveland and what the 
reasons are for leaving.
  Third, our bill has a fair play clause. It says to owners thinking 
about moving their teams that no longer can they give a so-called 
relocation fee to the league, which I understand may be even 
distributed to the other owners before their vote, before the league 
votes on whether or not they should relocate.
  This is something Mayor White has talked a lot about, and my 
colleague, Senator Mike DeWine, made a strong case for it in 
yesterday's hearings and at a press conference we had this morning. I 
know he will make his own statement on that shortly. He is on the floor 
now. But there are two things you can say about it. First, it is just 
plain fair, and it makes sense to put that kind of a limitation, a fair 
play clause, in there.
  This bill sends a very clear message to the league and to the owners. 
``We are giving you the tools that you yourselves have said you need to 
put your house in order. We are giving you authority to enforce your 
own bylaws that you all agree to and say you will play by. Congress 
does not want to run your business.'' I do not want to be involved in 
running the business out there.
  I think this legislation is much needed so that it can bring some 
order to what is a rather chaotic situation in the league now. I hope 
that this will be looked at very, very carefully at the January 17 
meeting of the league in Dallas, which I believe is their current 
schedule.
  I believe this legislation, simple though it is, can fix the problem. 
It can fix the problem. Make no mistake, there are far harsher 
proposals out there that Congress may be inclined to consider. I know 
the distinguished Senator from Washington, who is in the chair right 
now and is the Presiding Officer of the Senate, has proposed some 
legislation in the past and has had experience with this in his home 
State in getting a team to stay and in setting up conditions that go 
along some of this same line. I know he feels that programs do not go 
far enough in what we are proposing here and has said so publicly this 
morning. So I am not telling tales that were private conversations of a 
day or two back.
  All I am pointing out is that there are harsher proposals out there. 
I do not want to see Congress forced to take these harsher steps, these 
tough steps. I would rather see the league take this authority we are 
giving them now and act on it, control their own league, and get on 
with the business of making sure that everything is very fair.
  Baseball has its own set of problems, of course, and there have been 
proposals in the past to take the antitrust exemption away from 
baseball. But the one thing to say about baseball is they have had 
authority to keep teams where they were and to not just float teams 
around willy-nilly, all over the United States.
  I was told this morning that it has been 24 years since a major 
league baseball team moved, that the new teams we have in the league 
are expansion teams. I have not checked that out, but I guess that is 
correct. It indicates that if you have authority to go ahead and run 
the league and to pass on the franchises and where they will be, there 
can be some stability.
  I will be introducing separate legislation which would allow a 
community to keep the team name in the event of a relocation. That will 
not be part of this legislation I have just submitted today. But the 
team name in the event of a relocation would remain, and the community 
could waive this right if it wishes to do so. I am working with 
Congressman Hoke in the House and Senator DeWine on that bill, and it 
will be introduced separately at a later date.
  I cannot think of any football team or any sports team for that 
matter that has enjoyed more loyal and fervent support from its 
community than the Cleveland Browns. Week in and week out, whether 
their record might be 13 and 3, or 3 and 13, just the opposite, over 
70,000 fans regularly pack Cleveland Municipal Stadium to show their 
support to the Browns.
  At the hearing we had yesterday, Senator Thurmond, who was chairing 
the hearing, talked about how in his home State of South Carolina there 
is a loyal band of Cleveland fans, ``dawgs'' as we call them around 
Cleveland, as they call themselves, and the ``dawg pound,'' as they 
call the area where this particular group always sits in Cleveland 
Stadium, and Senator Thurmond said they have 800 South Carolinians who 
are loyal Cleveland fans and meet every time there is a Cleveland game. 
I told him then I had not been aware that we have a remote dawg pound, 
as we call it in Cleveland, down in South Carolina.
  I relate that only to indicate the loyalty of Cleveland fans all over 
the country. So this move cannot take place because anyone thinks there 
has been a lack of fan support or lack of fan interest in the Cleveland 
area.
  Mr. President, with this legislation, we say to fans in Cleveland and 
across the country, any sport that boasts it is played in America and 
made in America, as football has been termed, should be operated fairly 
in America also. So I think once again we are at a crossroads in 
professional sports, and I think this legislation will take us down the 
right path from that crossroads. Let me just say for all of you outside 
of Cleveland who may be listening, it happened to us in Ohio, in 
Cleveland, and it could happen to you. I think the legislation we are 
proposing today will go a long way toward giving the National Football 
League the ability, the legal ability, which they do not now have, to 
control their own league. It gives them the legal ability, and I think 
they will use it judiciously and properly and stop some of this turmoil 
of disruption that we see in the league right now, the way it has been 
operating in the last few years.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am very proud to join my colleague from 
Ohio today in cosponsoring this piece of legislation. The senior 
Senator from Ohio has very eloquently outlined the need for this 
legislation. Let me also talk about a few items that I feel are 
important, because this legislation is not just about the Cleveland 
Browns. Really, this legislation is about how tax dollars are spent. 
This legislation is about equity. It is about fairness. It is a bill 
that would ultimately help protect professional football fans 
everywhere. The question is asked many times, particularly this week 
when we are talking in this city about important issues such as Bosnia 
and the budget, why should Congress even think about becoming involved 
in professional sports?
  I think the answer is threefold. First, in 1966, the NFL-AFL wanted 
to merge, 

[[Page S17868]]
and they came to this Congress to ask for specific exemption of the 
antitrust law, and that was granted. Later on, when they wanted to pool 
their resources, pool the TV money, again the NFL came to this 
Congress, to the House and the Senate, to the American people, and said 
we want special legislation. That legislation was passed and signed 
into law, and they operate under that law today.
  In virtually every move that is contemplated today in professional 
sports, certainly in regard to the purported move by the Browns from 
Cleveland to Baltimore, tax dollars are involved, Federal tax dollars 
indirectly, local tax dollars both indirectly and directly. No move 
takes place today without subsidization by the taxpayers. In the case 
of the Baltimore-Cleveland situation, you have the Cleveland community 
that has not only supported the Browns with its individual money by the 
people who go to the game, not only watch the game on TV, not only the 
great loyalty of almost 50 years of the Cleveland Browns fans, but the 
community through tax dollars has put tax dollars back into Municipal 
Stadium over the years, and there has been a contribution. And so we 
see that case now in Baltimore with additional tax dollars. Yes, I know 
they are called lottery dollars. They are. But again they are public 
funds that are used to lure Cleveland over to Baltimore. So public 
dollars are involved and involved in virtually every single move. And 
so these are three good reasons I believe why Congress is already 
involved in the NFL, already involved in professional football. The 
only question before us is to what extent we want to be involved.
  Senator Glenn has outlined the major provisions of this bill. The one 
provision which will give a limited antitrust exemption to the NFL 
owners if they turn down a move is, as Senator Glenn said, very 
limited, and it does have the effect, in my opinion, of facilitating 
the NFL in doing what they ought to do anyway, and that is, frankly, 
follow their own nine-point criteria. That is all anyone can expect 
them to do.

  When anyone looks at the nine-point criteria that the NFL drew up to 
guide them, that they did in lieu of the Al Davis case--and they drew 
up nine points, very objective criteria--it is abundantly clear that if 
you objectively apply the criteria, the Cleveland Browns would simply 
never be allowed to move. It is not even a close call.
  Here we have a community that has put an average of 70,000 people in 
the stands Sunday after Sunday after Sunday in good years and some 
years that maybe were not so good--almost 50 years of football 
tradition, NFL football in Cleveland.
  The day after it was announced that the Browns wanted to move to 
Baltimore, a day after the infamous press conference in Baltimore was 
held, less than 24 hours later, the voters of Cleveland, in Cuyahoga 
County, voted by a 72 percent margin to tax themselves to keep the 
Browns in Cleveland--72 percent in 1995, with the antitax climate that 
we have today.
  Here is a team that is rated No. 1 in the NFL, No. 1 in the NFL in TV 
penetration of their market. They get a bigger share of the TV market 
in the Cleveland area, throughout the Cleveland market, northeast Ohio, 
central Ohio, than any other team in the NFL.
  So if you look at the criteria that is applied, objective criteria, 
how well has the community supported the team, how willing is the 
community willing to try to negotiate and to provide the things that 
are needed for the team to solve any problems the team might have, when 
you look at all the criteria, it is abundantly clear, on an objective 
basis, the Browns did not qualify. It is not even close. Baltimore 
should get a team, but it should not be the Cleveland Browns.
  Let me turn, Mr. President, to another provision in this bill, and it 
has to do with something that I discussed yesterday with Commissioner 
Tagliabue when he testified in front of our Judiciary Committee, and 
that is this thing that is called the franchise relocation fee. This 
is, in essence, to boil it down, money that is given by the team that 
is moving to all the other NFL owners.
  The last time this was done, the amount was, if you count the direct 
money and the indirect money, $46 million. The last time there was a 
move in the NFL, $46 million, they spread it among the other NFL teams. 
These are the same owners, same teams that have to judge whether or not 
it is in the best interest of football and the fans for a team to be 
able to move.
  What this bill does is say you cannot have this franchise relocation 
fee. It is not right. It is not fair. It does not accomplish anything 
for the fans, for professional football, and certainly it does not make 
the decisionmaking process any more objective as carried on by the 
owners.
  The deal between the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore in Maryland 
provides a specific provision. In that contract it provides that up to 
$75 million can be used for a franchise relocation fee, up to $75 
million. I would submit, Mr. President, that it is not too far a 
stretch of the imagination to argue that the lottery funds, other 
public money, from Baltimore, from Maryland, will then go to the 
Browns, the Browns would then turn around and distribute this, on this 
relocation fee, to the other owners. I think it is abundantly clear 
what the problem is with this franchise relocation fee.
  Mr. President, we are not in any way with this bill arguing or saying 
that teams should not be able to move. Teams should be able to move. 
They should be able to move if the market is not good, if there are 
problems locally that cannot be resolved. What we are simply saying, 
though, is that the movement should be based on merit, and there should 
be some logic behind that.
  In yesterday's hearing, Mr. President, I talked with some of the 
witnesses, particularly witness Tagliabue, the commissioner of the NFL, 
about a couple changes I thought the NFL could make without any 
intervention by Congress. The franchise relocation fee is one. The NFL 
does not have to wait for legislation. They could do that tomorrow. 
They could change the rules and do away with that. And I think they 
should.
  Another thing that the NFL could do would be to change their very, 
very strange--I do not know, Mr. President, a better word to describe 
it--but the very, very strange structure by which they share revenues 
in regard to people who go into those coliseums and ballparks every 
weekend.
  Mr. President, if you or I buy a ticket, go in to see an NFL football 
game this coming Sunday, if we just buy a regular ticket, part of the 
money from that ticket will go to the visiting team, part will go to 
the home team. It is the way most professional sports divide the money 
up. The home team does get more, but there is a certain percentage. It 
works no matter where you buy the ticket. There is one exception to 
that.
  This has to do with the luxury boxes. If you are lucky enough to be 
seated up in a luxury box, in comfort, looking down, the money you have 
paid or the money someone else has paid for that luxury box, for that 
seat, whatever you want to call it, that all goes to the home team. 
Well, this was a decision made apparently a few years ago by the NFL.
  It did not take the owners and teams very long to figure this out. 
And so if you got extra money, if you got all the money from the luxury 
boxes, it put a premium on building more luxury boxes, in fact, put a 
lot of pressure on the teams to build these luxury boxes, because not 
only, Mr. President, do the teams get all of the money instead of just 
part of the money----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Not only does all this money for the luxury boxes then go 
to the individual owner of the home team, but it also has the effect--I 
will not take the time on the floor of the Senate today to explain all 
the math of this--but it has the effect of driving up these salary caps 
because that salary cap is based on total gross revenue and based on 
formulas. Basically, it is 62 percent times the designated amount of 
revenue.
  And so if one team, let us say team A, has no luxury boxes, but team 
B builds luxury boxes, not only does team B get all the money for the 
luxury boxes, not split at all with team A, 

[[Page S17869]]
who they might be playing that weekend, but team B, by getting that 
luxury box money, drives up the salary cap, not just for them but for 
everybody. So team A has their costs go up. So it is almost like being 
on a treadmill.
  The NFL has created a system by which everybody has a real incentive 
to go out and build luxury boxes. What that means is they are either 
going to build them in the home coliseum or the home park, or they are 
going to make the incentive to move somewhere else.

  So the NFL has created a situation with this structure that really 
puts a premium on movement, and I do not think it is in the best 
interest of football. Again, it is something that the NFL should change 
and can change themselves, and I think it is a fair representation of 
Commissioner Tagliabue's testimony yesterday that he simply did not 
disagree with this at all.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by stating that the thing that I have 
found most interesting in the last several weeks in regard to the 
controversy surrounding the Cleveland Browns' reported move to 
Baltimore has not been the reaction of fans in Ohio--and that has been 
absolutely unbelievable. People are up in arms. But we sort of expected 
that. What I think is interesting is that people across this country, 
who are sports fans, and who are not Browns fans, have looked at this 
and said this is not right, something is wrong, there is a problem. 
Maybe this move or attempt to move by the Browns to Baltimore is sort 
of, or should be, a wakeup signal to the NFL that something is 
absolutely wrong.
  Mr. President, the NFL has a nine-point criteria. I think they should 
apply that nine-point criteria to determine if this move--I think they 
would, if they applied the nine-point criteria, determine this move is 
not right, does not fit the criteria, and should not take place, and is 
not in the best interest of football.
  I believe that the bill that Senator Glenn introduced, that I have 
cosponsored, today will help in this situation. It will help the NFL do 
what it should do anyway, and is one more step toward trying to rectify 
a situation in professional football and other professional sports that 
is really very much out of hand and out of control.
  I will be talking more about this on the floor in the weeks to come, 
Mr. President. I thank the Chair and the Senate for the additional 
time, and I yield back.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1440. A bill to amend the Social Security to increase the earnings 
limit, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________