FROM THE PIT

A good segment of the sports world is having itself quite a panic over the television "menace": as more and more promoters and arena owners cry out that the new entertainment medium is grabbing too many dollars out of gate receipts. What throws the whole thing into confusion, however, is the fact that there are powerful voices on the other side who are booming television as the greatest thing that's happened to sports since the coming of radio.

The problem, as recently stated by one promoter, is simply this: "If we sell television rights, nobody comes to the fight. The only way for us to make a profit is to hang out the 'no television' sign." And that's just what is happening.

There are plenty of television bans in other sports, but most of today's trouble is coming from boxing. Until the second Joe Louis-Jersey Joe Walcott championship, the promoters were quite chummy with the television people, but in that championship bout the gate took a big beating when the fans en masse decided it was easier and cheaper to get a ringside view of the fight in their own living rooms or in the taverns for the price of a few beers.

One Compromise

Ever since the Louis-Walcott fight, televised championships have become the rarity. Ray Robinson and others balked when prospective sponsors wouldn't pay over $50,000 in rights; only once last year--after a sellout house had been assured--did the TV camera follow championship boxing. However, there has been this one compromise: in general, only the setowners within a 50 or 75 mile radius of the stadium are done out of their television, for outside this area the promoters have no worries.

The television problem in football is less acute, but it's growing. Professional football a year ago reasoned the same way as boxing, and most teams boosted their attendance figures with bans on local TV. The colleges, however, have acted less quickly, largely because only he East had suffered attendance drops and because effective action against television would have to come from the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The eastern schools, Harvard included, are currently gathered in New York for their annual meeting, and it's expected that they will try to agree on a united stand against TV to bring to the NCAA's January meeting.

Television in Boston

If you want an all-over picture of sports versus television, Boston would serve well. This year the fans can no longer watch Arena wresling, Boston College football, or Boston Celtics basketball, but they could still follow Harvard football, Boston Bruins hockey, and, biggest of all, baseball.

That these latter events are still selling television rights indicates more than the simple fact that some teams haven't yet made up their minds on the television problem. It points up the cogent consideration that where television doesn't cut substantially into the gate there is quite a bit to be said for having it.

Such hockey officials as New York's John Reed Kirkpatrick and baseball men as Philadelphia's Connie Mack aren't at all worried about television--in fact the think TV is giving sports many new friends. Magazine surveys of both these sports have shown that fans still prefer to see the teams perform in the flesh, because hockey and baseball television is a far cry from the closeup coverage of boxing, wrestling, and football.

While the future of hockey and baseball television seems fairly well assured, it will be interesting to watch developments in boxing and football, for if there's much more curtailment in these fields, the setowners are bound to raise a howl.