[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 38 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2329-S2331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 1625. A bill to provide for the fair consideration of professional 
sports franchise relocations, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.


        the professional sports franchise relocation act of 1996

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the purpose of my seeking recognition 
is to introduce legislation that would 
provide for an antitrust exemption 
for the National Football League on the subject of franchise moves, 
because that has become such a major 
problem in the United States. Note 
the recent move of the Cleveland 

[[Page S2330]]

Browns to Baltimore, and previous moves of the Cardinals from St. Louis 
to Phoenix, of the Rams from Los Angeles to St. Louis, of the Colts 
from Baltimore to Indianapolis, and the tremendous dislocations that 
these moves have caused not only to sports fans who have a very close 
relationship with their team --really, America is in love with sports 
and it carries from the high school to the college and professional 
level--but to all Americans. We have recently seen the Pirates saved in 
the city of Pittsburgh because of the ability of professional baseball 
to control franchise moves, which is not possible for professional 
football, because baseball has a generalized exemption to the antitrust 
laws, whereas football does not.
  This is a matter which has enormous financial implications for the 
cities involved. There are thousands of jobs involved in hotels, 
restaurants, commercial opportunities, and more than even the financial 
matters and the status as a big-league city. As a Senator from 
Pennsylvania, with major sports teams in my State, it is a matter of 
very, very significant importance. It first came to my attention 
personally in my early years in the Senate, back in 1982, when Dan 
Rooney, the owner of the Steelers, approached me with then-Commissioner 
Pete Rozelle seeking hearings in the Judiciary Committee on the then-
pending move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Senator 
Thurmond, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, scheduled those 
hearings. They were very important hearings, which, regrettably, did 
not stop the move of the Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. Then we 
have seen the Raiders move back from Los Angeles to Oakland, and it led 
me to introduce a series of bills, as others have, on this very 
important subject. These are delineated in a fuller statement, which I 
will have made a part of the Record at the conclusion of this brief 
presentation.
  I believe, Mr. President, that legislation is necessary in this area 
to provide stability for professional football. It is my hope, as we 
move through this legislative process, that we will receive from 
football, as well as from baseball, for the preservation of their 
antitrust exemption, some consideration that will result in the 
avoidance of some cities putting up vast sums of money, like Baltimore 
is putting up some $200 million to bring the Browns to Baltimore from 
Cleveland, according to press reports. This antitrust exemption 
applies, as well, to basketball and hockey. Again, it is very important 
to have stability in those leagues so they can avoid dislocations and 
having franchises moved because of the threat of judicial holdings that 
the antitrust laws are violated when the league attempts to block a 
team from relocating.
  My legislation does contain a provision that where a team moves and 
it leaves the city at a loss because of infrastructure changes the city 
has made, or contractual obligations, the moving team has to reimburse 
the city for its share of that public debt. This is an idea brought to 
me by the distinguished mayor of Pittsburgh, Mayor Tom Murphy. It is 
based on a resolution adopted by the Conference of Mayors. My bill also 
has a provision that requires that when a team moves from a city, if 
the league expands, that city will have the first opportunity--in 
effect, the right of first refusal--to be considered for an expansion 
team. The bill does not impose an obligation on the league, because 
there are many complicating factors that the league has to consider in 
deciding where a team should be located.
  But we have seen tremendous instability in professional sports with 
these franchise moves. My own concern arose a long time ago when the 
Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. I thought Los Angeles ought 
to have a team, but not the Dodgers. They ought to have had an 
expansion team. At the same time there was the move of the Giants to 
San Francisco from New York.
  This legislation builds upon previous bills of mine, which I have 
specified in my longer statement. It is a part of the process, and I 
believe we need to have a dialog with the commissioners on the whole 
variety of issues confronting sports, as I have with Commissioner 
Tagliabue, talking about, for example, the need for multipurpose 
stadiums--with objections now to using the Vet in Philadelphia or Three 
Rivers in Pittsburgh for multiple sports--using, for example a kidney-
shaped design to accommodate both football and baseball. We must try to 
see to it that we have stability and we do not impose enormous burdens 
on the taxpayers for new stadiums, but that we retain the big-league-
city status of current markets that support their teams and expand the 
leagues, where appropriate, and find some way to stabilize professional 
sports with revenue sharing and salary caps to protect small-market 
teams. These issues raise complex matters which are yet to be worked 
out, but this bill is a start to addressing some of the issues facing 
professional football, basketball, and hockey.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1625

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Professional Sports 
     Franchise Relocation Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) professional sports teams foster a strong local 
     identity with the people of the cities and regions in which 
     they are located, providing a source of civic pride for their 
     supporters;
       (2) professional sports teams provide employment 
     opportunities, revenues, and a valuable form of entertainment 
     for the cities and regions in which they are located;
       (3) in many communities, there are significant public 
     investments associated with professional sports facilities;
       (4) it is in the public interest to encourage professional 
     sports leagues to operate under policies that promote 
     stability among their member teams and to promote the 
     equitable resolution of disputes arising from the proposed 
     relocation of professional sports teams; and
       (5) professional sports teams travel in interstate commerce 
     to compete, and utilize materials shipped in interstate 
     commerce, and professional sports games are broadcast 
     nationally.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``antitrust laws'' shall have the meaning 
     given to such term in the first section of the Clayton Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 12) and in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.);
       (2) the term ``home territory'' means the geographic area 
     within which a member team operates and plays the majority of 
     its home games, as defined in the governing agreement or 
     agreements of the relevant league on July 1, 1995, or upon 
     the commencement of operations of any league after such date;
       (3) the term ``interested party'' includes--
       (A) any local government that has provided financial 
     assistance, including tax abatement, to the facilities in 
     which the team plays;
       (B) a representative of the local government for the 
     locality in which a member team's stadium or arena is 
     located;
       (C) a member team;
       (D) the owner or operator of a stadium or arena of a member 
     team; and
       (E) any other affected party, as designated by the relevant 
     league;
       (4) the term ``local government'' means a city, county, 
     parish, town, township, village, or any other general 
     governmental unit established under State law;
       (5) the terms ``member team'' and ``team'' mean any team of 
     professional athletes--
       (A) organized to play major league football, basketball, or 
     hockey; and
       (B) that is a member of a professional sports league;
       (6) the term ``person'' means any individual, partnership, 
     corporation, or unincorporated association, any combination 
     or association thereof, or any political subdivision;
       (7) the terms ``professional sports league'' and ``league'' 
     mean an association that--
       (A) is composed of 2 or more member teams;
       (B) regulates the contests and exhibitions of its member 
     teams; and
       (C) has been engaged in competition in a particular sport 
     for more than 7 years; and
       (8) the terms ``stadium'' and ``arena'' mean the principal 
     facility within which a member team plays the majority of its 
     home games.

     SEC. 4. ACTIONS AUTHORIZED.

       The antitrust laws shall not apply to a professional sports 
     league's enforcement or application of a rule authorizing the 
     membership of the league to decide whether or not a member 
     team of such league may be relocated.

     SEC. 5. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Notice.--
       (1) In general.--Any person seeking to change the home 
     territory of a member team shall furnish notice of such 
     proposed change not later than 210 days before the 
     commencement of the season in which the member team is to 
     play in such other location.

[[Page S2331]]

       (2) Requirements.--The notice shall--
       (A) be in writing and delivered in person or by certified 
     mail to all interested parties;
       (B) be made available to the news media;
       (C) be published in one or more newspapers of general 
     circulation within the member team's home territory; and
       (D) contain--
       (i) an identification of the proposed new location of such 
     member team;
       (ii) a summary of the reasons for the change in home 
     territory based on the criteria listed in subsection (b)(2); 
     and
       (iii) the date on which the proposed change would become 
     effective.
       (b) Procedures.--
       (1) Establishment.--Prior to making a decision to approve 
     or disapprove the relocation of a member team, a professional 
     sports league shall establish applicable rules and 
     procedures, including criteria and factors to be considered 
     by the league in making decisions, which shall be available 
     upon request to any interested party.
       (2) Criteria to be considered.--The criteria and factors to 
     be considered shall include--
       (A) the extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the 
     team has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the 
     community;
       (B) the degree to which the team has engaged in good faith 
     negotiations with appropriate persons concerning terms and 
     conditions under which the team would continue to play its 
     games in the community or elsewhere within its home 
     territory;
       (C) the degree to which the ownership or management of the 
     team has contributed to any circumstance that might 
     demonstrate the need for the relocation;
       (D) the extent to which the team, directly or indirectly, 
     received public financial support by means of any publicly 
     financed playing facility, special tax treatment, or any 
     other form of public financial support;
       (E) the adequacy of the stadium or arena in which the team 
     played its home games in the previous season, and the 
     willingness of the stadium, arena authority, or local 
     government to remedy any deficiencies in the facility;
       (F) whether the team has incurred net operating losses, 
     exclusive of depreciation or amortization, sufficient to 
     threaten the continued financial viability of the team;
       (G) whether any other team in the league is located in the 
     community in which the team is located;
       (H) whether the team proposes to relocate to a community in 
     which no other team in the league is located;
       (I) whether the stadium authority, if public, is opposed to 
     the relocation; and
       (J) any other criteria considered appropriate by the 
     professional sports league.
       (c) Hearings.--In making a determination with respect to 
     the location of such member team's home territory, the 
     professional sports league shall conduct a hearing at which 
     interested parties shall be afforded an opportunity to submit 
     written testimony and exhibits. The league shall keep a 
     record of all such proceedings.

     SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--A decision by a professional sports league 
     to approve or disapprove the relocation of a member team may 
     be reviewed in a civil action brought by an interested party 
     subject to the limitations set forth in this section.
       (b) Venue.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an action under 
     this section may be brought only in the United States 
     District Court for the District of Columbia.
       (2) Exception.--If the home territory of the member club or 
     the proposed new home territory of the member club is within 
     50 miles of the District of Columbia, an action under this 
     section may be brought only in the United States District 
     Court for the Southern District of New York.
       (c) Time.--An action under this section shall be brought 
     not later than 14 days after the formal vote of the league 
     approving or disapproving the proposed relocation.
       (d) Standard of Review.--Judicial review of a decision by a 
     professional sports league to permit or not to permit the 
     relocation of a member team shall be conducted on an 
     expedited basis, and shall be limited to--
       (1) determining whether the league complied with the 
     procedural requirements of section 5; and
       (2) determining whether, in light of the criteria and 
     factors to be considered, the league's decision was arbitrary 
     or capricious.
       (e) Remand.--If the reviewing court determines that the 
     league failed to comply with the procedural requirements of 
     section 5 or reached an arbitrary and capricious decision, it 
     shall remand the matter for further consideration by the 
     league. The reviewing court may grant no relief other than 
     enjoining or approving enforcement of the league decision.

     SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS.

       (a) Payment of Debts.--
       (1) In general.--Any team permitted by a professional 
     sports league to relocate its franchise to a different home 
     territory from a publicly owned facility that remains subject 
     to debt for construction or improvements shall pay to the 
     facility owner, on a current basis until the retirement of 
     that debt, its proportionate share, based upon dates of 
     facility usage during the 12 months prior to the notice of 
     the team's intent to relocate, of the existing debt service 
     on such obligations.
       (2) Effect on existing rights.--This subsection shall not 
     affect a stadium authority's rights, if any, to seek specific 
     enforcement of its lease or a club's rights, if any, to seek 
     a judicial determination that its lease has been breached.
       (b) Competition.--Any community from which a professional 
     sports league franchise relocates under this Act shall 
     receive 180 days' prior notice of any league decision to 
     expand and an opportunity to compete for such an expansion 
     franchise on grounds no less favorable than those afforded to 
     other communities.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall apply to any league action addressing 
     relocation of the home territory of a member team that occurs 
     on or after June 1, 1995, and to any lawsuit addressing such 
     league action filed after June 1, 1995.

                          ____________________