Sport is Big Business and Hockey is a Sport

MR. MACDONALD:

In December 1968, the following statement headlined an article in Maclean's magazine: "I've been dealing with National Hockey League team owners and general managers for more than six years, and I've arrived at the conclusion that the way they like their players is big, fast--and uneducated."

The author of that statement would constitute an impressive one-man hockey team: blocking all the shots fired by his adversaries, providing a rugged defence to those whom he counsels, and driving forward with great skill through his opponents' weak spots. I refer, of course, to Mr. R. Alan Eagleson, whom we welcome to the Empire Club today.

Hockey may simply be a growth industry to the captains of the entertainment world but, for countless Canadians, it is part of the national identity. For one Canadian in particular, Alan Eagleson, it is a labour-intensive industry in which the condition of the labourer has, for too long, been ignored. He has led a rebellion against this condition at such an unstinting pace that he might well be described as "a rebel without a pause."

Born in St. Catharines, Ontario, Alan Eagleson was educated at Mimico High School, the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School, prior to his call to the Ontario Bar in 1959. He was also an accomplished athlete and still leads a strenuous life of golf, skiing, tennis and sailing--when he is not tilting at NHL windmills.

He might, at first glance, appear to be a somewhat paradoxical figure. He must surely be a trade-union organizer in the minds of NHL owners, for he directed the formation of the NHL Players Association in 1967. How does this reconcile with the fact that he was the Progressive Conservative Member of the Ontario Legislature for Lakeshore constituency in 1963-67 and became President of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Association in November 1968? In his view, the reconciliation is very simple. "The outmoded, medieval, master-and-serf attitudes toward players", to use his words, are reminiscent of those attacked by Disraeli in nineteenth-century Britain.

Alan Eagleson's concern for hockey in Canada is, in fact, a two-edged sword. Just as he is attempting to cut through some of the nets which entrap young players at an early age, he has been one of a small group of Canadians on the Board of Directors of Hockey Canada seeking to carve out a new role for Canada's national hockey team. His contribution to hockey, his public service, his numerous contributions to charitable work, and his coaching of minor league teams, not surprisingly, combined to earn for him a Vanier Award as one of Canada's Outstanding Young Men in 1968.

In the course of introducing over thirty speakers in a season, any President of the Empire Club becomes a considerable student of the biographical sketches of wellknown people. If you will forgive me, Alan, I believe one of the nicest understatements which I have seen in that context appears in your biography. Following references to the contract negotiations for Bobby Orr and the arrangements for Carl Brewer's release to Canada's National team in 1967, there appears an item: "he negotiated the retirement of Eddie Shore when Springfield Indians went on strike." As I recall the newspaper accounts of that episode, which suggested that the whole team was in rebellion against conditions verging on the inhuman, the phrase "negotiated the retirement" is surely a magnificent euphemism.

Our notice card this week contained a cryptic printing error. It was intended to ask: "Are those who become professional exploited or exploiters?", but the word "exploiters" became "explorers". There is no doubt that Alan Eagleson has explored some of the previously unmapped regions of professional hockey and we are delighted that he will now tell us of some of the strange territory in which he has pioneered.

MR. EAGLESON:

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "Sport" in the following manner:

"An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature."

It defines "Business" thus:

"The purchase and sale of goods or services in an attempt to make a profit."

I trust you will keep these definitions in mind throughout my comments today.

The major leagues in sport in North America include The National Hockey League, The National Football League, The American Football League, The National Baseball League, The American Baseball League, The National Basketball Association and The American Basketball Association.

The NHL employs 240 players; the combined AFLNFL employ more than one thousand; Major League baseball has over 600 players; Major League basketball employs over 500 players. These numbers do not include the thousands of professional athletes who earn their salaries at the minor professional and semi-professional level. In fact, there are several so-called "amateur" leagues that employ high-salaried players. Carl Brewer, for example, reportedly earned in excess of $25,000 for one season with the Muskegon Mohawks of the International Amateur League.

These businesses are thriving. Fan interest and television revenue have increased annually. It was announced this week that every NFL and AFL team will receive over 11/4 million dollars annually from television. Some teams draw capacity crowds to every game. In football, more than 85,000 people poured into Cleveland stadium to see an exhibition game last September. In baseball, the Montreal Expos drew one and one-half million fans in their first season. In hockey, seven NHL teams have standing room only available for the rest of the year. In basketball, the New York Knickerbockers draw capacity crowds wherever they play, and the Milwaukee Bucks, thanks to Lew Alcindor, have already passed their '68-'69 attendance and the season is only one-half completed.

Business is booming!

Inflation has set in in every sport. In 1963, the New York Jets franchise had a value of one million dollars; today's purchase price is reputedly 20 million dollars. The Philadelphia Eagles sold in 1964 for 5.5 million dollars and for 18 million dollars in 1969.

In hockey, expansion franchises were granted in 1967 for two million dollars. In 1970, Vancouver and Buffalo will pay in excess of six million dollars. I am sure that the owners of the Oakland Seals, whoever they may be, are happy to see that price established. Since they are reportedly losing over one million dollars per year in their operations, the inflated price will permit them to break even, if they can ever sell their franchise.

Do these facts and figures describe business or sport?

In the January 10, 1970 edition of Business Week, there is an article entitled "The Pro in Football Stands for Profits". The article points out that pro football is big business for the following reasons:

1. The value of pro football franchises has soared so spectacularly that owners talk of taking them public.

2. The gross from TV rights, concessions and gate receipts will top 80 million in 1970.

3. Player salaries have skyrocketed and the players' association is bargaining like a union with the owners.

4. Players are cashing in on their names and fame off the field.

The super bowl figures are the most startling in professional sport. The TV and radio revenue for the one game was 2.5 million; the gate receipts exceeded 1.5 million. The players' shares were $15,000 to each Kansas City player and $7,500 to each Minnesota player. Each Kansas City player earned an additional $25,000 for his playoff endeavours.

Maple Leaf Gardens Limited and The Canadian Arena Corporation in Montreal have earned millions of dollars for their shareholders. What could be more indicative of hockey being big business than the share splits, the dividends and the profits of those two companies. Are they business operations or are they sports operations?

In an article entitled "The Economics of the National Hockey League", Professor Jones of the University of Victoria summarized his paper in this manner:

"The NHL clearly possesses monopoly power and if the possession of market power is enough to warrant application of the Combines Act, then the NHL is liable. . . Whether it is desirable that the NHL be placed under the Act (irrespective of its market power) is another matter . . . . Nevertheless, what is clear is that a complete reappraisal of the Combines Act vis-a-vis professional sport should be undertaken."

I suggest to you, gentlemen, that the owners of professional sports enterprises have always considered themselves to be business entrepreneurs. They have taken political steps to ensure their preferred status and until recently they had been successful in running their businesses in a crude, cunning and defiant manner. Changes have occurred within the last few years which the owners really don't appreciate, but they are forced to accept them. The most significant change is at the player level. Three years ago, the Major League Baseball Players' Association realized it needed a little more muscle in its decisions. They hired Mr. Marvin Miller, who was then an Assistant to the President of the Steel Workers of America in the United States. They are operating their Association as a business, and Miller's impact has been astounding in player benefits.

Three years ago, the National Basketball Association players threatened to strike during the league play-offs. Why? NBA owners had increased the schedule without increasing salaries. Their Players' Association, headed by counsel, Lawrence Fleisher of New York, forced the owners to act reasonably.

Two years ago, the NFL Players' Association hired an eminent labour counsel, Mr. Dan Shulman of Chicago. Within six months, the strength of the organization resulted in a strike prior to training camp. The owners once again were forced to come into the 20th century and meet what seemed to everyone to be reasonable requests. It is unfortunate that the owners forced the players to go to such lengths. The owners refused arbitration by anyone except the NFL Commissioner.

Three years ago, the NHL Players' Association was formed. The owners reluctantly recognized the Association in June of 1967, but I am sure they realize by now that our Association has the interests of hockey at heart. Surely it is in the interest of the game itself to let a player have a copy of his contract. Prior to 1967, this was not permitted. Surely a major medical plan was a benefit to the sport and yet there was none until 1968, when the players demanded it. Why didn't the NHL owners take these steps on their own? Business reasons said No! Hockey is a business and a sport!

The players' associations are meeting as frequently as possible, and at least four times a year. As a result, we are able to join forces in many areas. In 1969, the players' associations in baseball, hockey and basketball jointly retained a Washington spokesman. He keeps us in touch with U.S. senators and congressmen. We will fight any attempt by professional sports owners to obtain anti-trust exemptions.

All players' associations are anxious to find a proper balance between employer and employee. The pendulum has swung for the past 50 years on the owners' side. It is now swinging back towards the centre.

Our society considers sports to be big business.

The National Labour Relations Board opened up organized baseball to Board jurisdiction on December 17th, 1969. It ordered a representation election among 24 American League umpires. The Board decision was the result of the September 1968 firing of two senior umpires who had been organizing their colleagues into a bargaining unit.

The Board stated in its Majority Report:

"Football and boxing have been held to be inter-state commerce and thus subject to Anti-Trust Laws. It can no longer be seriously contended that the Supreme Court still considers baseball to be outside inter-state commerce. We find that pro baseball is an industry and subject to Board jurisdiction."

This decision suggested that baseball's reserve clause would soon be under review.

The prediction was timely. Early this month, Curt Flood, a perennial all-star with St. Louis, was traded to Philadelphia. Under baseball's system, his alternatives were obvious. He could either report to Philadelphia or retire. Flood chose neither of these courses. He decided to challenge the reserve clause, which in baseball connotes total and outright ownership. If Flood had been in any other business but sports, he could have left his employer and sought employment elsewhere. In sports, however, this right is not available to the player. He must either go to the team to which he is traded or retire from the business in which he is well-trained and well-paid. Is this not inequitable in today's supposedly just society?

Flood's legal action has created reverberations around the world. All of the players' associations in the major sports have backed his stand. Editorials in the European Press have expressed disappointment in the fact that North American teams own players in the manner of feudal barons. The Russians have, of course, condemned the American way, suggesting that there is complete freedom in Russia.

The owners, of course, say the game would be ruined without the reserve clause. Professional football hasn't been ruined by the player's right to play out his option. Calgary Stampeders still made it to the western final last year without Pete Liske. Ottawa Rough Riders managed to win the Grey Cup without Bo Scott. Soccer thrives in Europe, even though a player has the right of self-determination.

The action by Flood is not surprising. It had to come. It might well have arisen in hockey last year if Bobby Hull had challenged Chicago's right to restrain him from employment away from Chicago. Carl Brewer took a stand in 1966 that benefited every pro athlete when he challenged the NHL.

Every sports executive has stated that the removal of the reserve clause would create chaos in sport.

In June 1969, the President of the NHL, Mr. Clarence Campbell said:

"If the NHL owners were to vote for an option clause (rather than the lifetime reserve clause), they would vote themselves into oblivion."

In January of 1970, the President of the American Baseball League said:

"The reserve clause is the backbone of baseball. Without it, the game would collapse."

In 1963, Mr. Alan Hardaker, Secretary of the English Football League, stated:

"Without the retain-and-transfer system, there would be complete anarchy in the football world."

The difference between Mr. Hardaker's statement and those made by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Cronin is that six years have elapsed since Mr. Hardaker made his remarks. His statement was made in connection with a lawsuit by a player named George Eastham. In that case, Mr. Justice Wilberforce ruled that the regulations of the English Football League relating to retention and transfer of players were an unreasonable restraint of trade and that the reserve clause was illegal.

This court ruling and the resulting changes in the operations of the English Football League have not spelled doom for English soccer. The players now have more rights, higher pay, and yet the standard of play has risen to the point where the English League is unquestionably the strongest in the world. Surely the statements by Messrs. Campbell, Cronin, and Hardaker reflect their concern for their businesses, not their sports.

In 1969, the Task Force on Sport, headed by Dr. Harold Rea, reported to the federal government in this fashion:

"The Task Force cannot approve of this (the NHL) reserve clause. We recommended steps be taken, if necessary, by legislation, to require its deletion."

Using this Report as a lever, the National Hockey League Players' Association convinced the National Hockey League owners that the matter had to be studied immediately. Three meetings of an owner-player committee on this topic have now been held. As counsel for the players, I insist that they act reasonably. I have convinced the players that management is entitled to a return on their investment. I have advised them that salaries can spiral upwards only if the owners continue to earn profits. The players recognize that management is a very important element in the business of hockey. I stress the word business because a player accepts the fact that, because he is earning his living from sport, it is his business. A player is required to meet schedules, obey rules and do certain duties--as is any businessman. It seems that management considers itself a business only insofar as its operations are directed to profit. They rush to hide behind the word "sport" only when they hear the words "anti-trust" or "combines". The President of the NHL told a Canadian TV network audience that the NHL head office was in Canada because our combines laws were so much easier on sports than American laws were. I had hoped he would have said the head office was in Canada because hockey is our game and because 99 % of all NHL players are Canadian.

Do his comments reflect the views of a businessman or a sportsman?

The NHL players in their discussions with management on the reserve clause acknowledge that owners may require more than one-year contracts. They insist that the present lifetime option is not a satisfactory system. There are many possibilities between these two extremes.

The obvious solution is the option clause. The owners argue that in such a situation the richest club would take all the best players and competition would be reduced. Facts do not bear out their comments. The Green Bay Packers, a club that had the lowest salary scale and the smallest stadium won the world championship three years in succession. Even with the lifetime option there has been little competition in several sports. In hockey, the Montreal Canadians and Toronto Maple Leafs have won the Stanley Cup in 13 of the past 14 years; in basketball, the Boston Celtics have reigned supreme for a decade; in baseball, we have seen the old dynasties of the Yankees and Dodgers.

The owners also suggest that a player would have a dual loyalty if he were allowed to play out his option. The NHL President stated in his reply to the Task Force that a player might not play to his best ability against a club he had signed to play for in the year following his option. He, in fact, admitted that his main concern was his lack of trust in the NHL owners. No player could ever be signed while he was playing out his option unless a dishonest owner broke the rules and offered such a player a contract. The theory of disloyalty to a club fails to recognize something that exists in the heart of every professional athlete the will to win. I have never seen an athlete who started a game without a keen desire for victory.

Major League baseball has only itself to blame for the suit by Curt Flood. For two years now, the owners have refused to bargain legitimately with the Major League Baseball Players' Association insofar as the reserve clause i5 concerned. The following proposals have been made and all of them have been rejected without discussion:

1. A player could be granted the right to play out his option, with a 10% reduction in salary.

2. A player could be given a long-term no-cut contract, subject to salary review annually.

3. A player could be given the right to be a free agent twice in his career, at least three years apart.

4. A player could be made a free agent if the club was not willing to give a 10 or 20 percent annual increase in salary.

5. A player could be made a free agent if he was demoted to a Minor League team.

Management states simply that none are acceptable. They say they cannot survive without the reserve clause.

Management's unyielding position proves they are in business, not in sports. If all they were concerned with was promoting athletic activities then they would not be concerned with such problems as the reserve clause. They are unyielding because they can see what the business results will be. The player will have more rights, so they assume, perhaps correctly, that costs will rise. Baseball management has acted unreasonably, and as a result, the Flood case is before the courts.

I trust that our hockey owners will see the merit in our suggestions. Sport is big business, and hockey is a sport!

I would now like to turn to international hockey. As a Director of Hockey Canada, I was very proud of our Board's decision to withdraw from international competition. The I.I.H.F. has allowed itself to become a political unit. In spite of an agreement that would have permitted nine minor professionals to play for Canada in 1970, this body changed its decision to satisfy the clamour from the Russians. They referred the matter to the original "Mr. Clean", Avery Brundage. Mr. Brundage, the President of the Olympic Association, obviously has not lived with Olympic athletes for several years. He seems to be convinced that all Russian athletes, for example, are amateurs. He suspects, on the other hand, that all skiers and hockey players, except those from Russia, are professionals. How could any player suddenly become tinged with professionalism at a tournament in Canada yet remain pure even though he played our professionals in Russia? That is a question Mr. Brundage has declined to answer.

The chief barker for the I.I.H.F., Mr. "Bunny" Ahearne, fell victim to the Russian plot. The Russians use their sports victories as propaganda tools. Every victory is followed with statements that echo the view that the main reason for their athletic prowess is the Communist system. Such statements have significant effects on European countries, most of whom cheer for Canada. A loss by the Russians in international sport often results in military demotions. This gives further proof to the suggestion that the military careers of athletes vary directly with success in their sports.

The Russians saw we could defeat them with our minor professionals and decided they had to save face. Ahearne cooperated because he could see his so-called world championship bursting in his face. Our team for 1970 might have defeated the Russians and this would have had severe political repercussions. It is my hope that Canada's next representatives in any world tournament will be the best Canadian players available. The Eastern Division all-star team that played so well last Tuesday would easily defeat the best Russian team. Until the Russians want to play our best, we should ignore them. They have improved and will improve even more by playing our best. At present, they fear us and fear defeat. I suspect that they will not challenge us for at least three years.

I visited Russia last year and met with the Canadian Ambassador, Mr. Ford. With his assistance, a meeting was arranged with the Russian hockey representatives, Mr. Storovoytov and Mr. Koval.

I read a prepared statement to them and agreed not to release it publicly if they apologized for remarks by Mr. Tarasov, the Russian coach. The apology was made and they advised me that Mr. Tarasov's remarks were his personal views.

As a Canadian, I was very upset to hear Comrade Tarasov make the same comments this year in Canada. To show all Canadians the stand taken by the NHL Players' Association last April in Russia, I quote from the statement given to the Russian Hockey Association representatives:

"I would like to thank you sincerely for arranging to meet with me today. As you know, last week in Sweden, I met with many other world hockey representatives, including Mr. Ahearne. I had expected to meet with you there but you asked me to wait until I came to Moscow. I bring you the best wishes of the National Hockey League Players' Association, of which I am the Executive Director. Our Association is much like a trade union and I know you in this country know and appreciate the value of the workers. Our Association has a good relationship with the owners and although I do not represent them in any capacity whatsoever, I am certain that they share most of the workers' views in this matter.

I have seen your team play several times in the last few years. You have many players of high calibre. Such NHL stars as Bobby Orr, Serge Savard, Derek Sanderson and Danny O'Shea have played against your teams and they have a great respect for your players. Our Canadian national team has praised your great precision play. The coach, Jackie MacLeod, states you are a good team. Many other NHL players who have seen you play are convinced of your abilities. Some Canadian reporters and broadcasters feel you are capable of playing against the professionals and doing well against them.

The members of our Association are predominantly Canadian. Many live and work in the U.S.A. but they remain Canadian. We have great pride in our country and it disturbs us when we read that Russia is reputed to be world champions. We feel that the NHL winners of the Stanley Cup are the world professional champions.

In spite of the praise you receive in some quarters, your version of world hockey is looked on with disdain in many others. The overwhelming majority of North American hockey fans, coaches, reporters, broadcasters and experts feel your team is quite inferior. They argue that an NHL team would wallop you by 7 or 8 goals in every game.

I do not share this disdain but I do state categorically that the NHL, in my opinion, is a much superior brand of hockey. Our professional players have great pride in their ability and are convinced of their supremacy.

The Czechoslovakian and Swedish teams feel you were lucky to win the 1969 world tournament. They feel you won the first game against the U.S.A. by a large score because the U.S.A. was unprepared. This does not matter to me. You are considered to be world amateur champions. You won the cup and no other aspect need be considered.

The I.I.H.F. rules were changed to allow six professionals to be reinstated just before the tournament. This will accomplish very little because unless and until the world champion amateurs meet the world's best professionals, your victories will always be suspect. Sweden and Czechoslovakia have both expressed an interest in playing the professionals and it would be unfortunate if the first European match did not include Russia, the amateur champions. There are many examples of games between amateurs and professionals. Canada's national team has played NHL teams from New York, Detroit and St. Louis in recent years. I.I.H.F. consent to such games has always been granted. Under your rules, you must make an application for such a game.

I have with me a news report in the Toronto Star dateline Moscow, January 11, 1969. It refers to an article by your Russian Coach Tarasov. The title was 'Pride or Cowardice'. I will read a few comments from that article.

Mr. Tarasov said:

'We have repeated our challenge several times now, we have tried to find words so strong that they would provoke a response.

We have said that we and not you are the champions .... Let's play and see if you can win from us and prove that you are the strongest in the whole world, not just in the western hemisphere.

Canadian amateurs are no longer a match for our team. Canada has only beaten Russia twice in the last three years, both times on a Canadian rink and with Canadian judging.

Russia is not afraid of playing by the rougher professional rules. We assure you that our boys will be able to knock the eagerness for rough-housing out of anybody who tries to play rough against a Soviet hockey team.

We are still the strongest team because we have the professionals.' (I wonder if Mr. Brundage has read this article.) 'It is time for Canadian team officials to forget their arguments against the match and let the world see a most interesting, most gripping spectacle that would afford enormous pleasure to everyone who has occasion to see it either in person or on television.'

Your coach made the challenge in that article and the players have responded. Our players are not cowards. They are proud men, and they are tired of these comments. They are satisfied that they can defeat your team decisively. The owners of the NHL are very interested in a game of this type. The Toronto management in January of 1969 predicted that the game of the century between the NHL professionals and the world amateurs would take place this year. This indication by one owner exemplifies the interest of most of the NHL owners. The owners have great pride in their product.

I am speaking for the workers and your system here in Russia recognizes their importance. We wish to give you the opportunity you say you have been denied the opportunity to play the world's best professionals.

Under the I.I.H.F. Constitution, your Federation has the right to apply for permission to play such a game. If you wish to play us, make your application: if you do not apply, we will presume you are afraid to play us. Gentlemen, it is your move. If you do not move, we will appreciate it if you cease making challenges which you are afraid to honour when they are met."

A copy of this statement was left with them. It is interesting to note that everything Tarasov requested, Hockey Canada did, and yet when the smoke cleared, Russia was running for cover behind Avery Brundage's cloak of "shamateurism".

Charles Hay as President of Hockey Canada took a firm and proper stand on the issue and I join with all the players in the NHL Players' Association in thanking him for it.

Mr. Eagleson was thanked on behalf of The Empire Club by Mr. C. C. Hoffman.