Skip to main content
Original Issue

The Question: Would subscription television help or hurt sports?

Mayor of New York
"Television has brought sports into every home and added much interest to home life. People who never saw big-time sports have become fans. A small TV charge might be the only way the minors and some big-league clubs could survive. In football, small colleges, never on TV, deserve a cut."

ELMER E. ROBINSON, San Francisco
"It would help. The subscription idea could expand the popularity of sports. It's always beneficial to have anything well-advertised. After people get accustomed to subscript ion TV, few will object to a small charge to see a great sports spectacle. But the charge should be small, say 25¢."

Mayor of Billings, Mont.
"Billings is the largest city in Montana. We are very sports conscious. We'd like to see the big sports events on TV and we're willing to pay. The World Series came to us a week late on a kinescope, and a bad one at that. Those who won't pay on TV can see our team play in the Pioneer League."

Mayor of Boston
"It will help. The revenue would be a blood transfusion for sports. TV keeps people away from sports, events. In Boston we used to see many busloads come to the ball parks from outlying areas. Now they watch games on TV. However, there should be no charge for hospitals and shut-ins."

Mayor of Los Angeles
"It will help. Lots of people want to go to ball games, but traffic congestion, parking problems and the annoyance of getting in and out of ball parks make it an ordeal rather than relaxing jaunt. If fans can pay a modest fee and see the games on television, they'll be glad to do so."

Mayor of New Rochelle, N.Y.
"If properly handled, subscription TV could be a great boon to sports. Revenue, earmarked for sound promotion, would, in effect, be a public subsidy. It would be one way to keep abreast of Russia's state subsidy of athletics and would allow sports to be kept in the hands of the people."

JAMES S. SMITH, Charlotte, N.C.
Carolina Textile Brush Co.
"It will help. The fact that we will be able to get the sports we want when we want to see them will be a boon to all sports. Also, when people have to pay a fee for a game on TV, some might rather patronize our own local ball games, which we wish they would do. It will be a boost all round."

Mayor of Sioux Falls, S.D.
"I'm sure the effect will be more helpful than harmful. Many more sports will be televised if the telecasts make a fair profit. Look how television has boomed wrestling. Most people are willing and expect to pay for something that is good. If it isn't they won't look anyway."

Mayor of Sarnia, Ont.
"I think this new wrinkle will hurt sports, generally. Coin TV or whatever system is used to make the viewer pay would reduce the coverage. The change-over would create resentment and lessen interest. Fewer people would look. What's wrong with the present system of sponsored telecasts?"

DR. ALTON N. ROBINS, Burlington, Vt.
Osteopathic physician
"We are in a rural district. The nearest big league ball park is 260 miles away. Most of us seldom have the opportunity to see a big-time baseball or football game. For us, subscription television would be a boon. Even in metropolitan areas a million persons can't crowd into a ball park."

Civil Defense director
"People down my way feel that the air belongs to the public. However, although hardly anyone would pay to see an outstanding dramatic show over a closed network, many would pay to see a championship boxing contest. If we have to, we'll probably pay gladly to see sports."




What five players would you nominate for the National Tennis Hall of Fame?