[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 191 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S17927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       IRONY ABOUNDS AS RETIRED OHIO SENATOR BEMOANS BROWNS' FATE

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is no one with whom I have 
served in my years in Congress for whom I have greater respect than 
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, our former colleague from Ohio.
  One of the few issues where we differed was on the antitrust 
exemption for professional baseball.
  The recent moves of professional football teams, particularly the 
movement of the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, suggests that the 
antitrust exemption for baseball may be a very good thing for 
professional sports, as well as the communities involved.
  Recently, a veteran sports writer for the Chicago Tribune, Jerome 
Holtzman, had a column about movement of the Browns and its 
relationship to antitrust baseball. I ask that this be printed in the 
Record. In fairness, I should add that the Chicago Tribune owns the 
Chicago Cubs, but I have no reason to believe that Jerome Holtzman is 
not writing from conviction.
  The column follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 21, 1995]

       Irony Abounds as Retired Ohio Senator Bemoans Browns' Fate

                          (By Jerome Holtzman)

       Put in a call Howard Metzenbaum, the recently retired 
     Democratic senator from Ohio, and had only one simple 
     question.
       After years of attempting to rid baseball of its antitrust 
     exemption, what were his thoughts about his beloved Cleveland 
     Browns moving to Baltimore?
       ``It's horrible,'' Mentzenbaum said from his office in 
     Pompano Beach, Fla. ``It's a travesty. No community was more 
     supportive of its team than the fans in Cleveland. I was back 
     in Cleveland for one day and the feeling of outrage is 
     unbelievable. And I've lived in Cleveland all my life--78 
     years.''
       Certainly, he understood the Browns are able to pick up and 
     hotfoot it to Baltimore because the National Football League 
     does not have an antitrust exemption.
       ``That argument can be made,'' he conceded.
       Yet, as the chairman of the Antitrust Committee of the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee, he helped introduce legislation 
     that sought to repeal baseball's exemption.
       Doesn't he see the irony?
       He is losing his hometown football team and if baseball 
     didn't have antitrust protection, Cleveland also would have 
     lost its baseball team. The Indians would have flown the coop 
     years ago.
       ``I can't argue that,'' he replied. ``They could have been 
     moved.''
       He launched into a meaningless panegyric about the 
     difference in ownership today compared with years ago:
       ``There are not the same kind of owners that were in the 
     field yesteryear. Now, you're talking about multimillionaires 
     who have a plaything. Before, it wasn't a question of making 
     money. It was the pride of having a team in your community. 
     Much of that doesn't exist anymore.''
       It certainly seems that way. But the senator is naive. If 
     he had read up on baseball history he would discover most 
     owners have been motivated by money, beginning with the 
     1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, baseball's first 
     professional team. To increase attendance, the owner 
     encouraged the players to open with a song:

     ``We are a band of baseball players
     From Cincinnati City;
     We come to toss the ball around
     And sing to you our ditty;
     And if you listen to the song
     We are about to sing,
     We'll tell you all about baseball
     And make the welkin ring.
     The ladies want to know
     Who are those gallant men in
     Stocking red, they'd like to know.''

       The only owner in my time who appeared mostly to be a 
     gentleman sportsman was the late Philip K. Wrigley, the 
     longtime caretaker of the Cubs. He didn't need the money 
     because the gum business kept him and his family in vittles.
       Metzenbaum was asked if, in his opinion, anything could be 
     done to prevent the Browns from moving to Baltimore?
       ``The league won't do much,'' he acknowledged. ``If push 
     comes to shove they'll probably be able to move the team.''
       But if professional football had the exemption, the 
     carpetbaggers couldn't move their franchises at will. They 
     couldn't transplant without the approval of a majority of 
     their fellow owners. And so the owners jump around like 
     flies, forever devouring the sweetest fruit, a movable feast.
       In the last 13 years, the Oakland Raiders have navigated a 
     round trip--to Los Angeles and back to Oakland. The Los 
     Angeles Rams are now in St. Louis. The Baltimore Colts are in 
     Indianapolis. The Phoenix Cardinals were previously based in 
     St. Louis. The Houston Oilers are enroute to Nashville. And 
     the shameless Mike McCaskey, president of our Bears, is 
     threatening to relocate to Gary.
       I can't resist mentioning all the baseball bashing since 
     the players' 1994 strike that forced cancellation of the 
     World Series. But which is preferable? A temporary baseball 
     shutdown, with replacements on the field, or no team at all?
       Because of its exemption, the baseball map is unchanged 
     since 1972 when the Washington Senators were allowed to move 
     to Texas. In the 23 years since, the San Francisco Giants 
     were denied a ticket to St. Petersburg, Fla. Minnesota's jump 
     to Tampa was aborted, as was the White Sox to Denver, 
     Oakland to Denver and Seattle to St. Petersburg.
       The Pittsburgh Pirates and Cleveland Indians, when both 
     were in poverty--the Pirates have yet to escape from the 
     poor-house--repeatedly have sought greener fields. But they 
     were ordered to stay put and could be sold only to local 
     ownership groups. The Houston Astros now are threatening to 
     move to somewhere in Virginia. Will they get permission? I 
     doubt it.
       ``Fortunately, because of the events of the last four 
     months everyone seems to better appreciate our position,'' 
     said acting commissioner Bud Selig. ``In all the times I have 
     testified in Washington, and especially before Sen. 
     Metzenbaum, I emphasized the exemption has been good for our 
     fans. It has enabled us to stabilize our franchises.''
       I mentioned that I was planning to speak to Metzenbaum, 
     formerly baseball's No. 1 congressional nemesis.
       ``Oh,'' said Selig, ``send him my best regards. And be sure 
     to tell him that in the 26 years I've been in baseball the 
     Indians tried to move out of Cleveland at least four 
     times.''

                          ____________________