Tonight, from Boston, The Advocates. With Howard Miller and William Rusher and the moderator, Michael Dukakis.

Good evening, and welcome to The Advocates. Every week at this time we look at an important public issue in terms of a practical choice. Tonight our issue concerns the Olympic games — specifically, our question is this: "Should the Olympics be open to professional athletes?" Advocate Howard Miller says "yes."

A small group of self-selected men, in the name of false virtue penalize Olympic athletes by requiring hypocrisy and penalize everyone by denying excellence. With me tonight to urge an Open Olympic Games are Olympic skier and member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness, Suzy Chaffee; gold medal winner in the hammer throw in the Olympic Games, Harold Connolly; and TV sportscaster and columnist for the Boston Globe, Bud Collins.

Advocate William Rusher says "no."

In a world that sometimes seems money-crazy, the Olympics stand as a great and honorable tradition of amateur athletics. With me tonight to support that tradition, are Harold Zimman of the U.S. Olympic Committee, Congressman Bob Mathias of California, and the one-and-only Jesse Owens.

Thank you, gentlemen. And now for some background on tonight's question. The recent expulsion of Austrian skier Karl Schranz from the -winter Olympic games has stirred new controversy over the Olympic eligibility rules. Olympic rules state that an athlete must observe the traditional Olympic ethic, which means he or she must not earn income from any sport; cannot have been a professional or semi-professional athlete; cannot have coached a sport for pay; and cannot permit his or her photo to be used for advertising purposes. Schranz was disqualified by the international Olympic committee because his photo was used to promote some ski equipment. French skier, Annie Famose, was disqualified a few days later by the International Ski Federation for a similar incident involving Radio Luxembourg. Since it's well known that many skiers and other Olympic athletes make a good living from sport in one way or another, it is probably fair to say that Mr. Schranz and Miss Famose were chosen as examples. To illustrate the Olympic committee's insistence that the ideal of amateurism is central to the Olympic Games.

Avery Brundage, chairman of the IOC and arch champion of amateur competition is so dismayed at the scandals, the obvious and not-so-obvious violations of the Olympic rules, that he even suggested that the winter games be canceled. Tonight we consider a challenge to at least part of the traditional ethic of the Olympics — specifically, a proposal that would follow the lead of international tennis, golf, and open the Olympic games to all athletes, including professionals. Under this proposal the Olympic committee would retain control over an athlete's conduct during the games, but eligibility for participation would no longer depend on some so-called standard of "amateur" standing. Now to the cases. Mr. Millar, why should the Olympics be open to professional athletes?

The international Olympic committee chooses itself and perpetuates itself. Its rules are absurd; athletes cannot receive money for coaching, unless it's beginner; they cannot train full time over 60 days a year; they cannot receive money for anything at all connected with athletics; there can be no athletic scholarships for those who compete in the Olympic games. That absurdity of course leads to widespread hypocrisy and even perjury on the part of many Olympic athletes. And when enforcement comes, it's swift. Jesse Owens lost all his gold medals from the 1912 games because he'd accepted fifty dollars for a semi-pro game years before. Paavo Nurmi, the great Finnish runner was disqualified from the 1932 Olympics because of too high a previous expense account. And that's why Karl Schranz could not compete this year. Of course Japan spent 60 million dollars to build facilities for the Olympic games and American television networks spent six million dollars to televise, and probably make a profit from them. Apparently everyone benefits from honest payments in the Olympic games except the athletes themselves who are responsible in the final analysis for the success of the games. And what are the results? The best are disqualified. Let's see for example what the American basketball team would be if we had a genuine open Olympic games.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this in Johnny Most introducing the United States open Olympic basketball team. At the forward, from Ohio State and the Boston Celtics, John Havlicek. From Houston University and the Houston Rockets, Elvin Hayes. And from Detroit University and the Seattle Supersonics, Spencer Haywood. At center, from Kansas and the Los Angeles Lakers, Wilt Chamberlain. And from UCLA and the Milwaukee Bucks, Kareem Jabbar. At the guard, from the University of Cincinnati, and the Milwaukee Bucks - the Big O - Oscar Robinson. From Southern Illinois University and the New York Knickerbockers, Walt Frazier. And last but not least from the University of West Virginia, and the Los Angeles Lakers, Jerry West.

Of course it was Jim Thorpe who lost his medals in 1912 because he accepted the fifty dollars for a semi-pro game but even Jesse Owens or Bob Mathias or any other athlete would hove lost his too if he'd accepted fifty dollars for a semi-pro game. To talk to us about the results of those rules, I've asked to be with us tonight Miss Suzy Chaffee.

Welcome to The Advocates.

Suzy Chaffee is an Olympic skier and a member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness. Miss Chaffee how did we get these rules of what an amateur is and what are their effect?

Well it's unfortunate that the public has been greatly deceived that amateurism is a good force in the world. It's actually left over from the nineteenth century, when sports were reserved for the aristocracy and rules were made to keep out the lower classes and the poor. As a result of this rather inhumane, unrealistic set of rules, it doesn't give all the people in the world an equal opportunity to enjoy competition in sports.

What is the effect on athletes who compete in the games and sign oaths that they've complied with the rules? Have they?

I'm an example from the U.S. Ski Team representing the majority of athletes who sort of buck the rules that athletes can train full time for competition only 50 days a year. Which would not be an example of Olympic excellence and no one would want to see the games if that were carried out. Most of the male athletes of the United States receive scholarships. Of course, women don't have this opportunity. The third thing is that governments support the majority of teams all over the world except in the United States and this is probably why we are a fourth rate power in the world.

And when most athletes say they have complied with the rules, have they in fact complied?

Yes, in fact this present amateur system is very conducive to perjury and if the youth of the world who are having to compromise themselves to be able to compete in the most significant event in the world have to sign an oath saying that they had obeyed all these rules then this thing is in fact condoning perjury and making the youth of the world feel that they're going to have to start off their life compromised and it gives a false sense of values for the rest of their lives.

Miss Chaffee, Mr. Rusher has some questions.

Miss Chaffee, you are the author I believe of a ten-point plan for an Olympic awakening. Is that right?

That's true.

I'd like to discuss with you your ideas of improving the Olympics. You define in your ten-point plan, as I understand it, about five different types of athletes: the Olympic purist - I guess that's self-explanatory - the amateur, the professional, the commercial athlete, and then a category that you call practitioners of out-and-out commercialism. Which of these, if any, 'would you ban from the Olympics?

'well these athletes as I said - now that I represent the majority of athletes that have actually signed this as well as the press to back them up so they won't be bad-mouthed by the Brundage side - uh - they have - uh, we feel that we want an overall responsible plan which would not - would keep up the beautiful tradition of the ancient games, where open competition was the cause that they were so successful...

Yes, but which of these five categories...

Which of these categories...uh? Well, the category of cut-and - out professionalism, of course. And we feel that the person who wins the Olympics would not receive a cash award but would receive a cultural thing and bring some culture back into the Olympics.

I want to come to the award you speak of. You speak also of open competition involving minimal use of drugs. What is 'minimal use of drugs'?

Well, aspirin, vitamins...

Hormones?

I am not a great authority on this. I think this should be very carefully looked into because the present system has not been ...

Dexedrine?

...HAS not been good.

Pot?

I mean the Olympic committee has suggested that the present system is not working and they have to go over it. And this is what the athletes hope is done.

As you said your-self, you propose that cash awards not be given in the open Olympics that you propose but original works of art should be given instead. Why not cash?

Because cash...I think it's similar to the Academy Awards where the award should be the greatest thing in the sports world where one doesn't receive cash but one receives the greatest esteem in the world. If it is in fact the highest standard of excellence in the world - which we would like - and it is - if does have integrity, which the present system does

There's cash in tennis, in golf...

Why do you like cash?

I wouldn't my dear lady. But I was trying to find out why you wouldn't like cash, if you are in favor of professionalizing the Olympics to some obscure degree, which I frankly don't understand.

Well, frankly, we - in having the highest esteem -that is in fact a great thing. But bringing this cultural work of art would be done by the best artist in the world… it would be worth something.

It would be a subterfuge in any case if you can give more and more expensive works of art instead of cash. You could give some guy who won the prize a picture of Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer, or something like that, couldn't you?

No, because in sports there's a need to bring back arts to sports and raise the level of for instance then the Duffy trophies that are given out this way today...I think by having copies of this trophy given out to the Olympians.

Mr. Rusher, I'm going to have interrupt at this point. Miss Chaffee, our time has run out. Thank you, very much for being with us on The Advocates.

Thank you very much.

The Olympic committee would of course retain their jurisdiction over the taste of what occurs at the games but they could not bar someone because he had received payment for being an athlete - being the best in the world. To talk to us today about how the rules hurt athletes I've asked to join us tonight, Harold Connolly.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Connolly.

Harold Connolly is a gold medal winner in the hammer throw in the Olympic games. Mr. Connolly, how do these existing rules hurt you and other athletes?

Well I don't think too many Americans are conscious of the struggles of an American hammer thrower, but I'm somewhat representative of other athletes under our system. I, and others, have to train many hours after eight hours of work each day. I have to climb over fences into vacant lots in order to be able to practice for my events, and frequently an athlete has to practice early in the morning before he goes to work. And since I graduated from college I haven't received a single communication or any support from any administrator or official in the Amateur Athletic Union or the Olympic committee, or from Olympic coaches. They haven't spoken to me. They don't even care what I'm doing until I make the team again.

Well now, you have to hold down other jobs. One of the things the rules prohibit is commercial advertising for example. How would being able to do a commercial on television help you?

Well, right at this moment, in the case of myself and my wife, we’re both trying to make the United States Olympic team again. We’re the parents of four children. I think just one washing machine commercial and the few thousand dollars it would realize for us would make the task a hell of a lot easier and it gripes me a little bit to see our staunch supporters of amateurism – like Mr. Owens and Mr. Mathias -- when they finished their days of competition they did cigarette commercials that were shown during the 1964 Olympic games and Mr. Owens has done whiskey commercials. It's alright for him but it's not alright for us.

Your wife competed for another country - you're familiar with athletes in Communist countries. What kind of conditions do they work under?

This will have to be a very short answer, Mr. Connolly.

Well all I know is that when they visit this country and see the conditions under which I have to train - and other American athletes - they're absolutely astonished and I can assure you and the listening public that they in no way have to struggle. It's a part of their society and the fabric of their life. They're highly supported from all sides.

Mr. Rusher, some questions for Mr. Connolly.

No, not necessarily well off.

Take these girls from Northbrook, Illinois who won gold medals for speed skating in Japan this month. According to Time Magazine they had to travel to the Olympic rink in Wisconsin, in a carpool operated by their parents. One of them, Dianne Holum, worked as a waitress last year to support her training, and some Northbrook mothers take similar jobs for that purpose. Well — so that if a town even like Northbrook can produce two Olympic winners like that you can't say that it is impossible by any means for Americans to do very well indeed. Although Miss Chaffee described us as a 'fourth-rate power' we have won more Olympic gold medals than any other country, isn't that so?

That's a misconception because you start counting them from the modern Olympic games, let's say from 1960 on...

I'm not counting the ancient Greek ones.

You're counting back to 1896 when we dominated the games, but the tables are turned now. And as far as those people from Northbrook, Illinois you are not privy to the actual situation under which they trained and you might be very surprised to see the support they got from that community. It might go way beyond the Olympic rules.

Were Floyd Patterson, and Cassius Clay, and Joe Frazier from wealthy families?

They may not have been from wealthy families

They got their start in the Olympics.

Professional supporters may have been supporting them.

Yes, undoubtedly. Undoubtedly there was help given to them. But isn't there a difference between a subsidy given for the purpose of getting to the Olympics or getting to a game or getting your training even, and getting a profit from making a living out of a sport? For example, you --when you won the gold medal for the hammer throw in 1956 — you were not a wealthy man, were you? And you managed to do it.

And I'm not today.

And you're not today. Would you tell me just how much money could a professional hammer thrower make?

In our society?

In your society?

Well, one beer company asked me to do a commercial recently and they assured me that the shot would be far enough away that I wouldn't be recognized. And I refused.

How about professional weightlifters? How much could they make?

It's very difficult to say, but a hell of a lot more than they're making now.

How about professional fencers? These are all Olympic disciplines, you know.

And they might very well make a great deal more....

And professional marathon runners — do you see a big future in that, if they went pro? Why don't you turn pro? How old are you?

I am forty years old.

Forty years old. And with a wife and four children? And you're still trying to get back into the Olympics. Why don't you turn pro?

Because perhaps my presence in the Olympic games will initiate some changes.

How will it do that?

I think if people speak what they really believe in sooner or later people listen and changes will come about.

Can you tell me if the British have ever asked to have their professional soccer players admitted to the Olympics?

Ask the soccer players?

Ask the British.

Ask the soccer players.

The British haven't is the answer to the question.

But the soccer players may very well like to be.

I have no doubt that some would. It would be obviously easy to have -- and delightful to have the best of both possible worlds but there are plenty of them who don't also.

A world without hypocrisy is what I'd like to see.

So would I. Tell me, do you believe that -- to nail the point down — that in professional competition you could make a living? As a hammer thrower?

I wouldn't want to.

What would you want to do?

I'd want to remain as a teacher, but have more support for my efforts at my hobby, which is hammer throwing.

Get more outside help. How much do you think — wouldn't it be true that if the Olympics were professionalized in the way that you propose ....

You don't know the way that I propose.

Well, in the way that Mr. Miller proposes. You may have a secret way. I know the way that he proposes. In that way, if the Olympics were professionalized wouldn't it simply harm those disciplines — those sports disciplines — which are not the big spectator sports, the one that don't draw the large...

I think it could only help the whole Olympic movement.

No further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Rusher. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. All right, Mr. Miller.

The implications of the cross-examination of course go precisely to the point. There probably is no big money for hammer throwers or discus throwers or fencers. That's not the reason to professionalize. But as Mr. Rusher said the difference between subsidy and profit. It's not because there's a profit. It's because basic elements that athletes are entitled to as subsidy — money for coaching, money for expenses -- as he himself said, a subsidy to become an athlete is what defines a professional in our society. It's precisely because there may be no profit and because a subsidy is required that we must open the rules of the Olympic games. What happens today? Many countries simply don't participate in some sports. Canada for example, which is one of the originators of hockey, does not send a hockey team to the Olympic games because it cannot send its best. Let's see who Canada could send, if it would send its best.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, here is the starting lineup for Canada in this opening round of the Olympic tournament. In the goal, veteran Jock Plant of the Toronto Maple Leafs: at defense, the sensational Bobby Orr of the Boston Bruins and Brad Park, the fine young defenseman of the New York Rangers. At center, the highest scorer in the NHL, Phil Esposito — also of the Bruins. At left wing the Golden Jet, Bobby Hull, of the Chicago Blackhawks, and at right wing, the breakaway threat from the Montreal Canadiens, Yvan Cournoyer.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. We'll return to you later for your rebuttal case. And now we turn to Mr. Rusher who will tell us why professional athletes should not be permitted to participate in the Olympic games.

In a world that seems to be growing increasingly materialistic, increasingly cynical, the Olympics for over 50 years have upheld the ideals of excellence for its own sake, sport for the clean and wholesome sake of sport itself, without fat six-figure contracts or indeed any reward at all except a medal. Now, I have nothing in the world against professional sports or against professional athletes. They usually are the best in their fields and deserve every dollar they earn. But is there any reason we cannot preserve in the Olympics an opportunity for non-professionalism too? For those athletes, in those sports such as fencing and weightlifting, that cannot attract huge throngs of paying spectators, and for those amateur athletes in every sport who will train for long weeks and months and have perhaps a magnificent hour as a gold medal winner and then go on to lead ordinary lives in other careers. It has been a little sad to see here tonight the other side's desperate effort to downgrade and deprecate the Olympics; to accuse them of encouraging hypocrisy, dishonesty, even perjury. It is almost as if the professionals feel impelled to prove that the whole world shares their materialistic standings and that the proud title of "best athlete" must always and everywhere come to mean the "best athlete money can buy." It doesn't have to be that way. Thank God it isn't! To discuss the modern Olympics as they really are I call first upon a member of the U.S. Olympic committee, Mr. Harold Zimman.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Zimman.

Mr. Zimman is a sports publisher and as I said a member of the Olympic committee from right here in Massachusetts. Mr. Zimman what about these charges of secret subsidy and hypocrisy and perjury?

It just isn't true. The rules allow for certain subsidies. In fact, the college scholarship, the special service athlete who's in the special service ....

In the Army?

In the Army or in the other branches of the armed forces. That is an indication of an opportunity to have the poor kid be able to excel or at least bring his activities to a level, hopefully good enough to make the Olympic games in whatever discipline he may be concerned with. One thing that they are concerned with is the commercialization — the profit from participating in sport.

Well, what would be so wrong about letting professionals, people who are in athletics for a profit, participate in the Olympics? .

It would destroy the Olympics.

Why so?

The concept. The small nations would be wiped out. The young athlete would not have the opportunity. There would also be the problem with developing the kind of interest in the minor sports that the Olympic program now includes -- those sports that don't have a large paid spectator appeal.

And what about the charges that the Russians, for example, don't obey the rules anyway — that their athletes are really pros in disguise and it's unfair to exclude our pros .

Well that just isn't true either. That same kind of subsidy that is available to the college scholarship winner or a man in the service or the boy that has a program provided for him on the local level is the same kind of activity that is provided for the athlete from Russia.

They don't have these luxurious country homes and limousines?

No, they do not. And it is a myth to continue to say that the rules that govern the participation in Olympic sports are closely guarded by the international federation's governing the individual sport.

Mr. Zimman, Mr. Miller's got some questions for you Mr. Miller.

Mr. Zimman, let me read to you from rule 26 of the eligibility code for the Olympic games - rule three, A3. A competitor is permitted to accept scholarships granted in accordance with academic and technical standards, dependent upon the fulfillment of scholastic obligations and not on athletic prowess." Is that the kind of scholarship you’re saying that permits us to support our athletes?

Why certainly.

Dependent on scholastic obligations? An athlete who gets an athletic scholarship at a university may not compete in the Olympic games?

There are no athletic scholarships. The structure of the scholarship provided for need usually is the scholarship that the athlete is able to use to perfect his talents and bring him to athletic capabilities for the Olympic games.

It is your testimony that in the United States, there are no athletic scholarships? Is that what you're saying?

There are no athletic scholarships? Yes.

None.

There are no athletic scholarships.

And the football team at the many universities - none of them are on an athletic scholarship? No track...

The NCAA meeting in January of this year, in Miami, went on record as not allowing an athletic scholarship per se. Need....

And the kind of integrity you call for by the Olympic rules is an integrity that says no athletic scholarships....

Are you impugning the integrity of the colleges that make up the NCAA?

Yes.

You are? All of the colleges?

Let me read to you from rule 5 if you're....

Gentlemen, let me interrupt for second. I take it, Mr. Zimman that what you're saying is that we do give scholarships to people who are athletically good but what you're saying is that we require ...

That isn't the criteria. The criteria is need.

Well then let me read to you from something where there may be even less doubt to the extent that there may be any in the other. Rule 5 reads, "For national aggrandizement governments occasionally adopt methods and give athletes positions in the Army/ on the police force, or in a government office." Positions in the Army. The rule then says, "recipients of these special favors, which are granted because of athletic ability are not eligible to compete in the Olympic games." You told us the Army is a way of supporting athletes. Is it?

The Army

Special Services of the Army - you said that....

The Special Services of the Army has in it, built in, a service that requires them to perform other duties than improve on their specialty.

Are there men who get in the Special Service who don't happen to be good athletes? Are you saying that this rule...

Yes, yes, of course....

You're saying that this rule is complied with when an athlete is put in Special Services and goes to the Olympic games. Is that complying with this rule?

Yes.

It does? Explain to me how small nations are going to be wiped out? In fact, if they had the capacity to support their own athletes won't it strengthen their ability to compete in the Olympic games?

Small nations will not have the opportunity of developing the kinds of support that will be possible to the professional athlete in a country that has the additional capacity to make this possible.

I see.

And so, for that reason, the country that has -- that are just interested in participating now — and there are a hundred and thirty nations that are now affiliated with the International Olympic Committee, more than are in the UN. And they wouldn't be interested — that number of nations — to participate in the games if it wasn't something that they felt was worthwhile and that had value for the young people of their countries.

Let me ask you....

No, I have to interrupt. Mr. Zimman, I've run out of time. Thank you for being on The Advocates.

Thank you

All right, Mr. Rusher, another witness

In 1948, at the age of 17, a young man from Tulare, California, startled the world by winning the gold medal at the Olympic Decathlon in London - ten track and field events. Four years later, at the 1952 Olympics in Helsinki, he did it all over again, setting an Olympic and world record. He typifies all that is best in the modern Olympics. He is with us tonight, the distinguished United Slates Congressman from California, Bob Mathias.

Welcome to The Advocates Congressman.

Congressman Mathias, why, in your opinion, should professionals be kept out of the Olympics?

Well, I think first of all, the spirit of amateur competition is completely different from professional competition. And when I had the honor of competing in the Olympic Games — well, I did it for the love of sport and not for money. I think today we can all say that materialism is creeping into everything we do and I honestly feel that we need to keep and honor and respect something — some value, especially for our young people coming up, something of value that is not money oriented.

What would be the effect of professionalizing the Olympics in your opinion, sir?

I think eventually it would do away with the Games,
it would kill the Games. And the reason I say this — say the
pros were admitted to the Olympic Games, a red hot promoter
could organize another meet during the Olympic Games and pay-
more money and steal the competitors away. In other words 
they'd pay you more money

You could have rival Olympics running against each other,

Why not, why not?

But shouldn't the Olympic medals go to the very best athletes?

I certainly agree with that, and I think they should go to the very best amateur athletes. The pro's can organize their own sports events and give medals away, or money, or --like Miss Chaffee said -- they can give away works of art, whatever they want.

Was anything though, really accomplished in your opinion by the exclusion of Karl Schranz from the Games, in Japan?

I'm not familiar with the facts, but evidently he did violate the rules and regulations of the Olympic Committee. He should have been discharged if he broke the laws, like everybody should. I recall a year after I competed in 1952, I was approached to make a motion picture, called the Bob Mathias Story I knew If I made that film I would become professional, and 1 couldn't compete in the 1956 Games. I made the picture, I knew what I was doing - I became professional, so I knew it. And Karl Schranz knew the same thing when he did it.

Lastly, is Avery Brundage the big villain that he is so often depicted as being?

This will have to be a very short answer, Congressman.

I don't agree with Mr. Brundage on every point, but we do need a strong man in that position, and he is very strong.

Thank you. Mr. Miller.

We can agree he's very strong! Congressman Mathias, tell me how you'd enforce these rules. Do you think Jim Thorpe should have been denied all his medals because of $50 in a semi-pro game?

At that time, he violated a rule and he should have been kicked out.

He violated the rule, and that takes care of that?

That's right.

Let's talk about the effects in track and field, for example, your area. What would be harmful in allowing a person to be paid for coaching track and field athletes and still participating in the Olympic Games?

Well, I think this is one of the regulations that perhaps should be changed. Now the reason I think we're discussing today is, if it's money in the pocket, if you make a profit in sports, then you're professional. Like was mentioned earlier, I think it's fine to get subsidized. We're doing that today — every country in the world is being subsidized in one way or the other. But when you get paid for a commercial or for running track and field, you're then a professional.

O.K., so we can agree on one thing at least. Those rules that do not permit countries to subsidize their athletes ought to be changed. You ought to be able to coach and get paid?

I think that's a very reasonable thing and, as has been mentioned, some things are out of date.

What about training more than sixty days full time a year. Certainly we ought to permit our athletes to do that too?

Listen, I trained about the same time. I went out
 for football, basketball

But you trained more than sixty days full time a year?

For track and field, for the Olympic Games, I trained sixty days.

More than sixty days?

About sixty in track and field.

OK, you're very cautious because you know about your answer on Jim Thorpe. Tell me, in fact, don't the rewards shift the interest of our young athletes? In fact, haven't many sprinters, the outstanding sprint runners now, gone into professional football as ends, because of the rewards in football? And isn't that hurting our track and field program?

I don't believe so. For example, when I quit, perhaps I might have tried out for the 1956 Games. I also might have been over the hill. Now Bob Hayes, who's a great football player now, won. He's Olympic champion. One hundred meters, two hundred, the relay. Maybe he was smart enough to get out while he was ahead and go ahead and turn pro.

But in fact, all the successful Olympic athletes do make a killing don't they?

No, they don't.

I mean the Peggy Flemings and the others, they are the ones — their Olympic success does guarantee the kind of profit you're talking about. The only thing that's prevented is the ordinary athlete getting what he deserves.

Mr. Miller, can you name on your five fingers other athletes, Olympic champions, who have made out?

Well, I could name you.

Keep going.

I could name Miss Fleming.

I would like to interject at this point to say that Congressman Mathias was elected by the people of his district.

I consider it a compliment to your success and a compliment to the Olympic Games.

Well thank you, but what I was trying to say was that not many people can really -- once they win the Olympic Games it's difficult to go out and capitalize on that. You really can't name a lot of people.

Well, tell me about the problem of equipment, for example. Do you think that athletes ought to be able to accept equipment and give endorsements for it?

I think so. In college — you know, in football -- I got the pads, the shoes and everything. In track I got the shoes. This is part of the subsidation and I think that's fine.

So the only thing you object to is the question of profit?

Yes.

And if, in fact, an athlete has the capacity and can make a great deal of money as a basketball player, for example, what then would be harmful simply in making him whole? Not giving him a profit, but saying he'd be making several thousand dollars playing for the Los Angeles Lakers, so during that period, because you're giving up that income, we're going to make you whole and permit you to play in the Olympic Games. Anything wrong with that?

Another short answer, Congressman.

Well, I'm not sure, but let me go back to

No, I'm sorry, because that happens to be very
 important, the way we've broken it down. You say subsidy OK,
profit, no! I want to know about the person who is making
money as a professional basketball player, but in order to
play in the Olympic Games, he has to give up that salary.
Anything wrong then, with simply compensating him for that --

Mr. Miller, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave that question to Mr. Owens.

I don't agree with that.

Thank you, Congressman, thanks for being with us. Mr. Rusher, another witness.

And now, let us consider one of the great moments in sports history.

Greatest headlines of the century Dateline - Berlin, August 1st, 1936. The eleventh Olympiad was to be held in Berlin hosted by a man whom the entire globe had good reason to fear - Adolf Hitler. The Brandenburg Gates were draped with swastikas the day of the initial parade. At the Games themselves, America won the majority of the gold medals in the track and field events while Germany amassed the overall highest total of points. The undisputed star of the competition was Ohio State University track star, Jesse Owens. The "Buckeye Bullet" took gold medals in three events — the one hundred and two hundred meter men's sprint and the running broad jump. But Hitler was to snub Owens, as he did all of the American winners. He officially announced that he would forego meeting the victorious athletes of the various events because it was impossible for him constantly to remain at the stadium. And failure to greet all, he said, would arouse ill-feeling.

Ladies and gentlemen -- Mr. Jesse Owens.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Owens

Mr. Owens is now in private business in Chicago. Mr. Owens, should the Olympics go professional?

Well no, I don't really think they should. I think that the Olympic Games, built upon the premise on which it was built and may I preface this by saying that the Olympics really belong to the young. As we look down through the years at the number of young men that have participated in this particular sport, we're looking at the average ages. I remember 1968 — just about the average age of our swimmers at that time was fourteen point some years. The average track age was about eighteen point nine. And I remember when I was a child, there was a man that came to our school at that time known as the world's fastest human being, und he talked about the Olympic Games of 1928 in Amsterdam, Holland, and I wanted to be very much like that man. And eight years later, I was in Berlin, using him as a model, to the things that I wanted to do.

Would the incentive to you and other young people like you have been less if we admitted pros to the Olympics?

Well I think that when we take away the incentive as far as youth is able to achieve — a fourteen-year-old, a fifteen-year-old, a sixteen-year-old, a seventeen-year-old child and then you're going to replace him with a man that has matured to the point of where he is now receiving gratuities for the job he is doing representing this country, then I think that we're losing some of the things that young people of this nation would aspire to be. I think that, when we get down to the point where we're paying for everything that we have --we have chaotic conditions, we have them now in our professional sports.

What other results might there be if we admitted pros to the Olympics? With respect to other countries, for instance.

Well, I'd say that — all right, take for instance a country like Kenya.

A small country.

A small country. Came out of the 1968 Olympic Games with several gold medals - Mexico City, won its first gold medal in 1968. There are other countries that won their first gold medal. This is a great thrill to the people of that country. Here they are competing against the best that the world has to offer as far as the amateur sport is concerned, in a sense, as we understand it today.

Thank you, Mr. Owens. It's time for Mr. Miller and some questions from him.

Mr. Owens, there was a time in this country when football was only an amateur's game played in the colleges. Then the pros came along and we now have widespread professional football in this country. Do you think that's been harmful to the country?

I don't think that professional football — because it's a profession. You see, you've got to understand one thing Mr. Miller. Before you became a law professor, you had to study somewhere, didn't you? Before you started getting paid, you had to study something in order to be able to achieve this point to be a law professor at your university.

And before professional football was a profession, it was played simply in the colleges, just as track and field would become a profession, as professional football did, if it went professional.

That's right, when he has finished his amateur days. When he has finished his apprenticeship. If it so happened that he can move over into another field, another area, then he becomes — and that is his profession. Then he is entitled to be paid in that sense — if you're going to do it day by day to the point where you're not going to do anything else.

Well you don't think there would be anything wrong, for example, with widespread professional track and field in the country?

You can't make money out of it, that's why it's not here now.

Well, maybe one of the reasons you can't make money at it is because the incentives don't exist.

The incentives are there. The incentives are there, but from the standpoint of promoters and promotions and stadiums, people — the number of people to do it is not there. You will not go to a track meet if you see one man win the 50 yard dash every week, or sixty-yard dash. You would not go to a track meet if you saw the same pole vaulter win every week. The competition isn't there.

Tell me now, what would happen to the games if a pole vaulter or a hundred-yard dash man, or someone who was getting his expenses paid and perhaps even a little more so that he'd choose that. How would that hurt the Games? What would happen to the Games that would be harmful? Who wouldn't go that now goes?

The whole connotation of inspiring a youngster that's sitting in this audience — let's say for instance — in 1968, 90% of the youngsters that went in 1968 will not go in 1972. Why, because youth takes over. There is many a youngster that is striving today to make that team. We have ten sprinters in this country today that are able to do 9.3 or better - we're going to pick four.

But some of the best sprinters are playing professional football.

Well, after they've finished their days in college.

And sometimes before.

You see, you have to have apprenticeship somewhere.

Well, we're not talking about apprenticeship

Yes we are - we've got to talk about something. How are you going to be — are you going to come out of the cradle and be a professional?

Well, let me ask you this. Did professional football hurt the development of college football athletes?

College football helped professional football.

And didn't professional football help

It provided for professional football the stars that it has today.

Exactly. And didn't the development of professional football help college football bring more people into the amateur college game?

There are more kids out for athletics today than ever before - and you've got two factors.

Professionalism is one.

That's right, and you've got amateurs for the other.

OK, but doesn't professionalism aid the amateurism?
Don't more kids play college football and basketball.

No, you’re wrong. The amateurs aid the professionals. This is where you get your ball players, this is where you get your baseball players, this is where you get your basketball players. And they have to be a feeder group in order for that professional rank to exist.

And you think there'd be as many college students, as many kids interested in football, playing college football today, and college basketball today and as much national interest if 
there were no professional game?

Listen, you've got — how many professional teams have you got in the country, how many have you got?

Well, thirty or so pro-football teams

How many men have you got on the teams?

Well, we can do the multiplication - thirty-three times thirty is nine hundred and ninety.

All right, nine hundred. How many college teams have you got throughout the country?

Well, you have several hundred - times ten is fifteen hundred.

All right, this is what I'm saying. This is the feeder group to the professionals.

Well now that we know the mathematics of the question… the question is, do you think that without — we still have professional football the way it was — do you think we'd still have the same number of college teams without professional football?

Why, certainly.

Tell me about — do you agree with Congressman Mathias and perhaps with what Mr. Zimman implied, that it maybe all right — and Mr. Rusher implied — it maybe all right to subsidize athletes so that they are able to compete?

This will have to be a very short answer.

Well, I can't answer that shortly, because it takes time to answer that question. Because it's unfair to the child that is in college today trying to get an education, and his education is hinged upon the need and the help that he can get in being able to continue that education. Because from there is coming the leadership of this nation and those children are in our institutions of learning today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Owens, for being with us on The Advocates. Mr. Rusher.

Cynicism is so easy and we heard it tonight in respect to the Army program to help the athletic members of the Army. I think it is worth noting that one soldier was sent from Vietnam to Sapporo to play on the American hockey team in the recent Olympics and I don't think he was just loafing or on any special cushy assignment in Vietnam.

Thank you, Mr. Rusher. And now let's return to Mr. Miller and his rebuttal argument in favor of opening up the Olympics to professional athletes.

The example of what our words do to us is Mr. Zimman's testimony that there are no athletic scholarships or the ones in the Army program are not there because they are athletes. Of course they are a.id of course they are athletic scholarships. We go through all of these contortions and even Congressman Mathias thinks there ought to be a subsidy — there ought to be different rules, we ought to allow coaching. Of course we should and today we don't. The result is harmful. To talk to us directly about that harmful result, I've asked to join us tonight, Bud Collins.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Collins is a TV sportscaster and columnist for The Boston Globe. Mr. Collins is there widespread evasion and so-called under-the-table payments to Olympic athletes?

Well, I don't know if you can say that of Olympic athletes themselves, Howard, but I think what really makes me upset about the whole thing is this term 'amateur'. You show me a true-blue amateur, I'll show you a virgin hooker…it's as simple as that. It just doesn't exist. And these people like Avery Brundage -- you know Avery Brundage of course is J. Edgar Hoover in disguise -- he died many years ago and they've perpetuated the myth of Avery Brundage. But these people are trying to perpetuate something that Mr. Mathias holds dear, we all hold dear, but it's a phony concept. There is no amateurism. We don't respect amateurism really and we spend most of our time' trying to get around it to preserve an appearance of amateurism. Now Harold Connolly couldn't make any money as a hammer thrower. And he got very upset, Jesse, when you said the Olympics were for the young. He's forty years old and he's going back there this year. Maybe forty is young the whole thing about Harold Connolly being professional — he doesn't want to be a professional, he wants to be an athlete. He wants to put forth excellence and honesty. When he tells his kids -- I'm sure Harold Connolly if someone came up here and questioned him closely could show somewhere he had probably broken one of these Olympic rules. But he's been very clever and skirted them as all athletes must skirt them and all Harold Connolly wants to tell his kids is that he's been the best in what he's doing and that he’s been honest about it and has said he’s an athlete, not an amateur.

In fact, Mr. Collins, does success in the Olympic games yield later material success?

Oh sure, they must — just as success in the Olympics has yielded success to Mr. Mathias now. Who would vote for him? Who would ever have heard of him if he hadn't been in the Olympics? And I don't mean that certainly as anything derogatory. Why shouldn't he capitalize on his excellence as an athlete? Anyone who saw him in London in 1948 as I did would have been very thrilled by his performance. But why call him an amateur? He was a professional athlete. He was given a scholarship to perform. Nothing wrong with that! Nothing wrong with that! That's where I think we have to differentiate here.

Well, would being more candid about letting professionals participate, being more candid about what we're doing, would that cut down on participation as has been implied or would that really increase it?

Oh no, because everyone know that no matter what his course in life was — whether he signed with the Boston Celtics, the Montreal Canadiens, the Cleveland Indians, he could still someday compete for this country if he were the best. And he might not be the best certainly. But I think what we want to see in the Olympics is the best of everyone gathered in a great festival. Certainly Mr. Mathias and Mr. Owens who've been part of this know that there's nothing like this festival of great athletes from all over the world gathering together.

Mr. Collins, let me break in at this point because Mr. Rusher wants to ask you a few questions.

Yes, Mr. Collins, you saw as we all did, that spectacular example of athletic overkill at the beginning of Mr. Miller's case where he showed us the imaginary 'open' basketball team. You remember that?

Pretty good team.

It certainly was. But isn't it a fact that the U.S. amateur Olympic basketball team has won every Olympic basketball competition ever held?

Absolutely! And I don't think that's our point... Yes sir, go right ahead.

What could the pros have done? Run up the score?

Who cares? These are all pros too, that's our point. These boys are subsidized to play basketball for their colleges.

Why was it necessary if we have won every single basketball competition from the beginning, to put on the team that Mr. Miller showed at the opening?

To have the best there. You're being nationalistic, we haven't been. We don't care about gold medals.

I'm not being nationalistic, I'm merely inquiring what they could have done?

They would have won...they would have won, to answer your question.

Do me a favor, let's be internationalistic. What would have been the effect on other countries?

Well, they're using their best and we'd be using our best.

Yes, and they would be absolutely out of the competition, As far as that goes, further than they are today.

I doubt it.

Well, now, come on! You think they'd beat the pros by more than they beat the amateurs?

There’re only forty minutes in a game.

So that the pros could only run up a certain score. Tell me - er - how many tennis tournaments, now that tennis is open, have been won by amateurs? Or, are won by amateurs?

Well, tennis is no longer open. Tennis is having its problems too. But tennis has come out with one good thing Mr. Rusher,…

I'd like you to answer the question.

Yes, one major tournament in that span -- Arthur Ashe won the U.S. Open....

One out- of five hundred?

That's right. One of about five that year. Then they all.

I said five hundred!

Well, you're wrong.

No, I'm not. I'm quoting at least, if I'm wrong

William F. Talbot, chairman of the 1972 U.S. Open Championship is wrong, because he's the one from whom I have the information.

He's wrong.

He's wrong, and you’re right? I'll go this far with you and say one of you is wrong, Mr. Collins.

Fair enough.

Tell me, when did an amateur last win an open golf tournament in the United States? If you're an authority on these things.

I'm not an authority because I can't remember back that far.

Exactly! Fifteen years ago.

Is that when it was? Thank you.

Uh huh. Fifteen years ago. So this is what happens to amateurs when we open up the games.

Wait a minute I What has happened to amateurs?

What has happened to amateurs in the case of tennis
 with which you're familiar.

No, nothing has happened to amateurs. They have their own competitions for purebred amateurs but the best rise up to the top in open competition, which is what we want from the Olympics.

What is the Olympics but an open competition for purebred amateurs?

But, it isn't. We've proven that.

Well, yes, but it certainly is not for those who are in the game for profit is it?

We have said nothing about being in the game for profit, we have ...

Well, I have, however.

You have, but we have said we want the best. That's all.

Should the Golden Gloves admit pros?

No.

Why not?

Because it's for people who get absolutely no compensation I believe. But we have shown that the athletic scholarships, and the subsidy by countries — which Mr. Mathias says we should have, and we agree that we should have.

How about college athletics? Should they be open to pros?

They're all pros now!

All pros now. That's a pretty sweeping statement.

Well, anybody you care about.

You're an expert at the sweeping statement — "ALL PROS NOW!" How about Little League baseball? They're "ALL PROS NOW” too ?

You betch your life. You see that's where we want honesty, Mr. Rusher. They're all pros from Peewee football, Pop Warner football ....

I must say, Mr. Collins, that with the particular jaundiced view you have of life and of people, I don't think there’d be an awful lot to lose by opening the Olympics to pros. Let me ask you one last question. You say that admitting pros to the Olympics would insure that the best athletes would win, but don’t you think that the best athletes ...

Would attend - not win.

The best, presumably would be competing but it would be the best money could buy.

No, I don't think so...

Because some of them wouldn't compete. The price wouldn't be high enough.

Possibly so.

And so you'd have the spectacle perhaps of a planning an Olympic team with Bobby Orr on it but Bobby Orr holding out for a hundred thousand but Texaco wouldn't pay him that - would only pay him seventy-five or something like that.

They'd have to find another hockey player

They'd have to find another hockey player and he wouldn't be the best, wind up with less than the best.

On that note gentlemen, I'm going to have to interrupt. Thank you very much. And Mr. Miller, you have one minute to summarize your case

Of course those horrors simple don't occur where there's international professional competition as in World Cup soccer which does not have competing promoters, luring the players away. What are the goals of the Olympic games? Suppose we could say they are honesty and excellence: the way the games are run now, they are unfortunately neither honest nor excellent. And it is not cynicism to say so, it is simply to call for those standards. Honestly requires doing what in fact Congressman Mathias, and apparently Mr. Rusher, do want to do, which is to subsidize they can compete in the Olympic games. That major revision in the Olympic rules and what today would call 'professional'. Excellence requires letting everyone compete and have the best man win. Those goals of honesty and excellence are what the Olympic games are about and when we remind ourselves of that and move them to that we shall have better athletes and better games.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Rusher, you too have one minute to summarize your case.

We have been speaking tonight mostly about the modern Olympics. And I hope that you have not allowed all the charges of hypocrisy and secret subsidies to distract you entirely from the proud and wholly honorable record of the great Americans like Bob Mathias and Jesse Owens who never took a dime for their magnificent achievements and who have appeared here tonight to ask your vote against this proposal. But in closing let me tell you a little bit about the ancient Olympics. They were held uninterruptedly for eleven hundred years. In the beginning, like the modern Olympics, they were for amateurs only. But after the conquest of Greece by Rome, the Romans slowly muscled their way into the games and began that very process of professionalizing them that has been urged upon you tonight. By the fourth century of the Christian era, the scandals and controversy had become so widespread that the Emperor Theodosius finally had to abolish the Olympics altogether. Let's not make the same mistake all over again. Let the professionals have their own contests, but let's keep the Olympics as they are and were always meant to be!

Thank you, gentlemen. Now it's time for you at home to act and to express your views on tonight's question. The question you'll be voting on — and first let me add that you should write to us at The Advocates, Box 1972, Boston 02134 — but the question you'll be voting on is this: "Should the Olympics be open to professional athletes?" Send us your yes or no vote in a letter or»on a postcard. We will tabulate your views and make them known to members of Congress and to the White House and others concerned with the issue. Every one of your votes is important. So remember that address, The Advocates, Box 1972, Boston 02134. Recently The Advocates debated the question: "Should gambling be legalized?" Of the more than 2100 viewers across the country, who sent us their votes, 903 - or 41% - were in favor of the proposal, and 1268 - or 58% - were opposed. Eleven expressed other views. And now let's look ahead to next week.

(Promo for Statewide School funding show)

Thanks to our advocates, and to our witnesses. I'm Michael Dukakis. Please join us again next week at the same time. Thank you and good night.

The Advocates as a program takes no position on the question debated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more clearly. This program was recorded.