1

Little League HITS!: The Case of Little League Baseball's Change in Structure and Ideology from 1939-1956

Introduction

In 1939, America’s favorite pastime of baseball entered Williamsport in a way that had not

been seen before. Interestingly, baseball in Williamsport is not noted for being played by professionals

and adults; it is instead known for being played by eleven and twelve year old boys from all over the

world. Upon remembrance of a fleeting childhood wish that originated when Stotz himself played

unorganized baseball, standing in the right field patiently waiting for a turn to bat at the plate, Carl

Stotz founded Little League Baseball (LLB) in 1939.1 After its founding, Little League (LL)

established its community and volunteer based ideals under the leadership of Stotz in Williamsport and

surrounding towns. Following World War II, the concept of LLB caught like wildfire across the

nation. In five years, from 1946 to 1951, LL experienced national growth out of state, and boasted

more than sixty four times the amount of leagues it originally had in 1939.2 During the immediate

postwar period, as more and more requests for information to set up leagues flooded Stotz, he quickly

realized that the operations and funding of LL needed assistance.

The period between 1948 and 1950 proved to bring about major changes within the structure

and operation of LLB. In 1948, Stotz sought out and received financial assistance from United States

Rubber Company (USRC), which became the first national sponsor of LLB and its national

tournament. The significance of the sponsorship was that LLB took its first step in its dependence on

big business. Furthermore, due to the massive growth of LLB and in order to protect LLB’s name and

interest, in 1950, LLB became incorporated under the laws of New York. The result of LLB becoming

a business was the process of professionalization in which business ideals did not mesh with Stotz’s

volunteer ideals.

1 Carl Stotz as told by Kenneth Loss, A Promise Kept: The Story of the Founding of Little League Baseball, (Jersey Shore: Zebrowski Historical Services Publishing Group, 1992), 3. 2 Carl Stotz, At Bat with the Little League (Philadelphia: Macrae Smith Company, 1952), 266.

2

In the mid 1950s, these changes within LLB led to a bitter conclusion and separation between

Stotz and LLBI. The wounds never healed between the two parties as Stotz never again returned to

events involving LLB, but the organization moved forward without their founder nonetheless. These

wounds that still remain open resulted in previous historians of LLB “tiptoeing” around the divorce

and attempting to keep the image of LLB clean and neat by reiterating and highlighting only the upside

of the Stotz and his LLB organization. However, this work differs as it not only directly discusses the

reason for Stotz’s split, but also suggests that these changes occurred due to LLB undergoing the

process of professionalization.

Historiography

LLB proved to be a very new topic within the historical analysis of sports. Nonetheless, its

youth did not take away from its importance as LL experienced massive growth during the mid

twentieth century. However, the topic is hindered somewhat because of its adolescence considering

not as many historians have approached it. Although baseball is a highly popular sport, historical

research on the topic did not even begin until the 1960s.3 Because baseball is America’s pastime, it is

essential to see how LLB emerged and developed from major league baseball in Williamsport in 1939.

In addition, LLB is very much different from baseball in its purpose and structure. While baseball

proves to be a professional business in which the best athletes play, it is interesting that LLB has taken

on a great deal of change in the area of professionalization itself. With LLB beginning under the sole

leadership of Carl Stotz and developing community and volunteer-driven ideals, it transformed into an

incorporated business that functions more as a bureaucracy.

G. Edward White’s Creating the National Pastime focuses on major league baseball, but more

specifically the reasons why baseball emerged during the first fifty years of the twentieth century as

America’s pastime. White comments that in many ways, the fact that baseball distanced itself in

popularity from other sports would appear to be not very promising. Some of White’s reasons for

3 John P. Rossi, The National Game: Baseball and American Culture (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2004), vii.

3

making this claim include the difficulty of the playing the game, other sports are more challenging

aerobically and baseball games can experience lapses without any action. Therefore, White argues that

the popularity of baseball is because it was launched as a national icon in the midst of the Progressive

Era. “Its internal legal and economic structure, its business expectations, its conception of city

ballparks, its attitudes on race and ethnicity, its myths, its aspirations, and its idealized image of itself

as a sport and a ‘pastime’ for its followers were characteristic of that era.”4 Stotz’s organization was

born out of the Progressive Era, and Stotz chose to organize baseball over other sports for adolescent

boys to participate in.

The next authors are Gerald Bazer and Steven Culbertson, who look specifically at how MLB

existed in the midst of World War II. In their article, “Baseball during World War II,” Bazer and

Culbertson look at the decision of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to allow baseball to continue

being play despite the ongoing war. Bazer and Culbertson argue that the decision to continue baseball

directly influenced those affiliated or who came in contact with baseball during this time period, such

as players, soldiers, baseball officials, American allies, etc. Although they do not make note of the

work of other historians before them, this work will be very helpful in looking at the growth of LLB

following World War II. MLB grew a great deal following World War II, and interestingly, LLB also

experienced a robust growth of leagues that began to spread across the nation. This work will help put

into context how baseball survived the war and what was experienced by LLB during the war.

Moving away from MLB and focusing specifically on the topic of LLB is where historians

Lance and Robin Van Auken and Gary Alan Fine carve their insight into the topic of baseball.

However, they are very different in the message they intend to get across to the reader. Beginning with

the Van Aukens, it is important to note that Lance works for LLBI in the press relations department;

therefore, he has a great deal of insight and resources at his disposal for writing his book. However, it

4 G. Edward White, Creating the National Pastime Baseball Transforms Itself: 1903-1953 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 7.

4

also provides an interesting look as to how he and his wife used these resources to write the book, Play

Ball! In this work, Lance and Robin Van Auken more or less gives the story of the founding of LLB

instead of claiming an argument or taking a stance on an issue surrounding LLB. The Van Auken’s

work is a comprehensive history of the significant events surrounding the founding and growth of

LLB, as well as how this affected American society. This work will be extremely useful in giving

basic background information as I focus on the events that led to LLB’s transformation from a small

grassroots organization to a corporation under the state laws of New York.

Gary Alan Fine’s With the Boys looks at how preadolescence culture develops. This work

proved to be extremely useful considering it focused on LLB providing the opportunity for

preadolescent boys learn to interact with one another while also develop friendship. This is relevant

considering one of Stotz’s values he strongly held was that young boys learn to mature into productive

citizens while turning down the temptation of delinquent behavior. As a result of this focus, Fine’s

work diverges from the other historians’ works as it focuses not on the sport or the story, but on the

boys that participate. This focus meshes well with the ideal of Carl Stotz, who strongly believed that

LLB should only concern itself with the boys that played. Fine chose LL because of the game’s

symbolic importance to American culture and what it meant to be an American boy.5

Historian Jonathan J. Brower also deals with psychological issues in youth sports in his work,

The Professionalization of Organized Youth Sport: Social Psychological Impacts and Outcomes.

Specifically, LLB exemplified Browser’s argument that professionalization of youth sports created a

situation where youth experience pressures and strains because the youth sports too closely resembled

their professional counterparts.6 Browser suggests that these pressures placed on young players

originate from various people associated with LLB such as parents, umpires, and coaches. Stotz and

LLBI feared that this aspect of professionalization might filter into their organization; therefore, they 5 Gary Alan Fine, With the Boys: Little League Baseball and Preadolescent Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 3. 6 Jonathan J. Brower, “The Professionalization of Organized Youth Sport: Social Psychological Impacts and Outcomes,” American Academy of Political and Social Science 445 (Sept., 1979): 39.

5

conducted research that examined boy’s stress resulting from playing LLB. Historians David Whitson

and Donald MacIntosh were similar to Brower in that they also focused on the professionalization of

sports; however, they differ in that they examined the professionalization of amateur sports in Canada.

Specifically, MacIntosh and Whitson argue that high emphasis and concentration on international

success has taken away resources from and been a detriment to sport programs at the scaled down

regional level within Canada.7 Macintosh and Whitson’s work is useful to the analysis of LLB

because they suggest the idea of reclaiming an organization from the professional bureaucracy that has

its own vision for sports. The structure of LLBI proved to become very similar to a bureaucracy, and

in the process this organization began to implement their own ideals and visions within LLB.

Although the research and work of historians who have focused on the topics of LLB is

relatively new, it is clear that there has been some attempt to be discussed historically. It appears that

many historians have focused greatly on baseball’s effects on American society and culture, or have

looked at the broad, overarching story of the significant events that have made up LLB. However, it is

clear that there is much that has been not discussed in the historical arena of LLB, and even more that

has been blatantly skipped over due to the high sensitivity surrounding the divorce between founder

and organization. It is my hope that my research can find connections between the struggle between its

grassroots, volunteer-driven beginnings and the nationally sponsored and incorporated business that

developed in the 1950s. While historians of LLB highly praised the works of the organization, they

also have been very selective and timid in their discussion of the break between Carl Stotz and LLBI.

Through the analysis of newsletters, newspaper articles, Stotz’s books, and interviews, this paper will

take the first step into the complicated and hushed over topic of LLB. This content/discursive analysis

analyzes the people who were involved with LLBI, and portrays what it meant to

7 David Whitson and Donald MacIntosh, “Rational Planning vs. Regional Interest: The Professionalization of Canadian Amateur Sport,” Canadian Public Policy 15, no. 4 (Dec., 1989): 446.

6

them be involved with this organization. Specifically, this work will pay close attention to the

language and materials used by these people to consider how notions of childhood, volunteerism, and

professionalization are created.

Stotz’s Memoir of Little League Baseball’s Founding

In A Promise Kept, a work written by Carl Stotz himself, Stotz takes the reader back to a warm,

August day in 1938. Carl Stotz shared a piece of American pride and pastime with his readers as he

described himself in the act of playing catch with his two close companions: his nephews Jimmy and

Harold “Major” Gehron. On a poor toss to Stotz from Major Gehron, Stotz recalled dashing quickly

toward the misguided ball in order to prevent the bad throw from entering the yard of a next door

neighbor. However, in his dead sprint and sole focus on catching the ball, Stotz collided with a lilac

bush that rested in his path. The result was Stotz tripping, stumbling and badly cutting up his ankle as

the rigid branches penetrated his sock and tore through his flesh. Having to attend to his inflamed and

bloody ankle, as well as experiencing enough pain to prevent him from further playing catch; Stotz

remembered taking a seat and rested on a step of the neighbor’s porch.

The activity of playing catch proved to be very typical activity of baseball for young boys of

the early twentieth century. Organized baseball for youth was not available at this time; therefore,

playing catch, pickup games, and sandlot baseball were the only ways in which boys could participate

in America’s favorite pastime. As a result, with Stotz having daughters but no sons, Stotz shared his

love and passion for the game of baseball with his two nephews, as the three often attended baseball

games played by the Williamsport Grays, a local class A minor league baseball team. Attending minor

league baseball games was another way in which young boys could enthusiastically support the game;

however, not all boys were as fortunate to have a minor league baseball team in their area such as

7

Stotz’s two nephews did. Nonetheless, as Stotz received inspiration for what he referred to as a

“magic moment,” young boys who wished to play organized baseball soon had a savior in Stotz.8

At this moment, as Stotz relaxed on the steps of the neighbor’s porch, Stotz claimed to have a

flashback to when he was a young boy impatiently waiting his turn at bat while playing right field,

thinking to himself, “When I grow up, I’m gonna have a baseball team for boys, complete with

uniforms and equipment. They’ll play on a real field like the big guys, with cheering crowds at every

game.”9 Little did Stotz know at the time that this fleeting childhood wish would eventually become a

reality; nonetheless, Stotz turned to his two nephews, who had approached their uncle to ensure that he

was not hurt badly, and asked them “how would you like to play on a regular team, with uniforms and

a new ball for every game and bats you can really swing?”10

One might then pose the question the significance of baseball in America during the late 1930s,

as well as why would Stotz choose baseball over other sports. Historian G. Edward White, author of

Creating the National Pastime, provided valuable information as he argued that baseball was the

national sport and icon in America that was born out of the Progressive Era. The Progressive Era was

highlighted by the economic, political, social and moral changes that were occurring in America from

1890s to the 1920s. White argued that baseball during the Progressive Era was not a likely candidate

to emerge as a national icon. Specifically, White believed this because of the game’s slow pace, its

portions of time that include little or no action, and the poor aerobic exercise it offered to players.11

However, baseball emerged as the pastime nonetheless due to its ability to protect itself from Congress

and the courts in the midst of violation of antitrust laws, its tremendous coverage by American media,

and its representation of the economic and outdoor leisure values and sediments that were held

Americans of the Progressive Era in the form of large, beautiful ballparks.12 Evidence of Stotz’s

8 Carl Stotz, A Promise Kept, 3. 9 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 3. 10 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 4. 11 White, 4. 12 White, 6-7.

8

connection to Progressive Era ideals was seen as he noted the importance of local media in sparking

interest in LLB where leagues were present, as well as his tremendous pride in his field and its

facilities being the best in the nation. With Stotz growing up in the Progressive Era where baseball

being wildly popular in America, with Stotz playing the game as a young man himself, and because

Stotz was connected to his nephews through baseball as all three were passionate about the game, the

decision to for the boys to play baseball made sense.

Over the course of the next year, Stotz tirelessly altered rules and equipment so that they were

more suitable to the young boys, and found managers and umpires that were willing to help his cause.

The initial role of managing the three teams belonged to Stotz, Bert Bebble and George Bebble, with

Stotz’s brother-in-law assuming the position of umpire. On the surface, the fact that Stotz found a few

members of the community to help his cause did not appear that spectacular of a feat. However, the

task of finding managers and an umpire for the new league proved to be significant for molding Stotz’s

ideals with regard LLB in two ways: community support and volunteerism. In an issue of Little

League HITS!, a monthly newsletter send out to various Little Leagues with the purpose of updating

one another on current LL events, an example of the importance of volunteerism and community is

seen in a league from West Pittston, Pennsylvania. Looking to build an outfield fence, the league was

able to receive a donation of seven railroad boxcars from the local railroad. With the help of the

volunteering roofing and machine shop that donated essential materials, the railroad boxcars were

dismantled in three days and the league was ready to begin construction of the outfield fence. The

director of the Pittston league wrote, “The cooperation of everyone concerned was terrific. Using the

activity as a measuring stick, it is obvious that our League will be a success in this, its initial year.”13

This quote indicates the very important fact that the success of LLB was heavily rooted in the amount

of volunteer support from the local community. The same held true for Stotz as his brother-in-law, and

George and Bert Bebble proved to be the first members of the community to volunteer to help Stotz’s

13 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 2, no. 1 (1951) 2.

9

youth baseball organization. More importantly, Stotz’s selection of help by means of volunteers from

the community set precedence for all leagues that followed Stotz’s as a means of operation.

In addition to volunteers, Stotz recognized the need of local sponsors in order to help raise an

appropriate amount of funding, as he was paying for expenses out of his own pocket. However, the

task of asking businesses to financially support a new league in the aftermath of the Great Depression

proved to be a daunting task. In his attempts, the discouraged but persistent Stotz heard 56 turn downs

from various businesses in and around Williamsport that he asked for sponsorship. Finally, the

situation brightened as Lycoming Dairy Farms became the first sponsor by writing a check for thirty

dollars, agreeing that “We’ll go along, for the boys.”14 After convincing another Williamsport

business, Penn Pretzel Company, to make a sponsorship in two installments, Stotz set his sights on his

employer: Jack Lundy of Lundy Construction. Realizing the need for three teams in order to make a

competitive league, Stotz needed one more sponsor for a team and was able to come through as Jack

Lundy went along with a contribution.15

Stotz Establishes Little League Ideals

Throughout the first season, Stotz began to realize the great potential of the league in a variety

of areas aside from its obvious intentions of providing the opportunity for young boys to play

organized baseball. The league provided the opportunity for players to form closer friendships as they

shared a common interest in playing ball together, while learning to mature into men in the process.

Gary Alan Fine, author of With the Boys, described the experience of young boys playing baseball

from a sociological/psychological point of view. Fine claimed that in preadolescence, boys are

introduced to same-sex groups, cross-sexual interaction, school and family life. Within the same-sex

group, Fine claimed that preadolescents interacted with two different groups, a chum and a gang.

Specifically, the chum was a close friend or confidant whom the preadolescent learned to be sensitive

14 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 18. 15Lance and Robin Van Auken, Play ball! The Story of Little League Baseball (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001), 28.

10

to and put trust in, while the gang allowed the preadolescent to learn how to act appropriately in a

social group.16 Fine argued for the importance of friendship as social ties may sometimes took

precedence over the relations of kin, especially upon the realization that both groups often held the

preadolescent to

different expectations.17

With the LL team serving as a “gang,” boys learned to interact and get along in an appropriate

social setting. In another book written by Stotz, At Bat with Little League, Stotz explained that while

the characters, events and locations were fictional, “…the heart of Little League Baseball is in the

pages you have just read… .”18 Stotz contended that LL provided players happiness through the

formation of close friendship, “After two hours of good stiff batting practice, the Davidsons watched

their son laughing and shrieking with the others, as the seven boys cooked and ate unbelievable

quantities of hamburgers.”19 In Little League Baseball HITS!, a young baseball player responded to

his a father, who had asked his son if he wanted a ride to practice, “Thanks, Dad, but if I drove up in

that bus all the kids would think me a sissy. Besides, I’m in training and gotta dog trot over.” 20

Clearly this instance provided a glimpse of how young boys established friendships with their peers

while competing together. Both examples also provide the reader with valuable information about the

concept that LLB was more than just a phenomenon, but an idea with visible benefits.

Fine also touched upon the idea that LLB provided the opportunity for adults, specifically men

coaching the teams, to teach values that encouraged boys to be upstanding citizens.21 The idea of

young boys cooking hamburgers by themselves and the example of a young ball player taking

initiative to run to practice in order to stay in shape both suggested this promotion of maturation. LLB

16 Fine, 9. 17 Fine, 8. 18 Stotz, At Bat with Little League, 261. 19 Stotz, At Bat with Little League, 89. 20 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 2 (1950) 2. 21 Fine, 1-2.

11

not only encouraged playing ball and gaining friends, it also proved to help mold young boys into fine

men.

In addition, Stotz also realized the league’s ability to help bring the community of Williamsport

closer together as local coverage praised the efforts of the league. Baseball players and fans were not

the only group within the Williamsport community to be intrigued by the mission of Little League; the

local Rotary Club and local churches were also sold on the product of the league as it proved to be a

terrific remedy for juvenile delinquency within the city.22 Stotz’s At Bat with Little League painted a

picture of the league’s ability to serve as a remedy for delinquency when he described a young boy

who had just got in trouble with a sheriff for attempting to break into a parked car. The disappointed

sheriff slumped in his seat, verbally bouncing ideas off of a younger police officer in the room:

What’s wrong with this town? What have we got here for boys anyhow? Take Curly Lauer. He runs the streets - plenty of get-up-and-go and nothing to use it on. Now they caught him trying to break into Len Owens’ parked car. Len had been Christmas shopping and had a bunch of stuff in it - kit of tools, portable radio. The poor kid hasn’t had a decent Christmas…23

This passage indicated Stotz’s belief that without any structure or activities to occupy active young

boys, they were bound to end up entertaining themselves in mischievous ways. Furthermore, this

quote implied that boys at a social disadvantage, such as this one broke into the car in an attempt to

steal Christmas gifts, are at further risk for such behavior. In addition, one can see how LL fit

perfectly into the role of providing a community an opportunity to reach out to their young boys. Of

course, the way in which members of that community became involved was taking on volunteer roles

within their newly established leagues.

In and around Williamsport, word of mouth and media coverage served to spark

interest in the league, which eventually led to a strong desire in the surrounding areas to set up their

own boys’ baseball leagues. When word of mouth reached these areas, they set up their own

22 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 47. 23 Stotz, At Bat with Little League, 25.

12

independent leagues based on the ideas given by Stotz. Going along the same story line in At Bat with

Little League book, after the sheriff questioned why the young boy broke into the parked car, he

realized a solution to the problem of keeping boys active in the form of LLB. Specifically, the sheriff

looked to contact LLB as he stated:

I know I kept that thing - that magazine article of Little League baseball It told where to write for particulars, and all that. Should have written when I first read about it. Maybe if I had, Curly wouldn’t be in this mess now.24

The sheriff’s statement is very telling of the important role that media coverage in the form of

newspaper and magazines held in the growth of LLB. Specifically, these magazines and newspapers

gave interested readers essential information for forming leagues, specifically, how LL was successful

and useful, and who to contact in order to begin a league.

One of the main concerns for Stotz was to give many boys the opportunity to play baseball;

however, he realized that having too many boys on each team created a situation where playing time

would have to be shared, thus taking away from the playing time of each individual boy. As a result,

Stotz decided to implement the school-attendance boundaries as a way of determining who would be

eligible to play in the league. Another reason for deciding on this method was because, according to

Stotz, “the fairest system would be one that would provide an opportunity for boys who played

together at school or in the same neighborhood to play together on the baseball diamond.”25 This

action promoted the growth of more leagues within the area, as Stotz advised interested boys and

parents to consider beginning leagues within their own areas. More importantly, a closer look at

Stotz’s method of determining boundaries indicates the first step taken in the individual and

autonomous direction that Stotz believed individual leagues should be headed in. With Stotz enjoying

the help of volunteers at a local level in his league, in cahoots with wanting neighborhood boys to play

24 Stotz, At Bat with Little League, 26. 25 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 48.

13

on in the same league, Stotz heavily favored the idea of independent leagues run by volunteers within

their communities.

During the 1940 season, when the number of boys interested in Little League grew enough to

require a fourth team, the structure of Little League’s operation began to mature as well. At this time,

Stotz, who held sole leadership of the league up until this point, convened a meeting to discuss the

management and direction of the league. At this meeting, three original managers and their wives, as

well as the new manager for the forth team and his wife, officially declared a constitution and rules for

the organization, “Little League.”26 This meeting proved to be significant, as those that signed the

constitution assumed a position that closely resembled a board of directors. This group functioned to

solve problems and provide guidance in the midst of obstacles that created confusion within the new

league. In addition, the board of directors also gave financial advice as the annual budget had gain

approval by the board. With regard to the 1940 season, the board approved Stotz as the purchasing

agent, allowing him to make all decisions with regard to their projected $260 budget.27

Looking at the board of directors in further detail, it was essential to note that the

original cast was composed of volunteers from the community which the league operated. A high

amount of volunteer influence on the board was something strongly supported by from Stotz.

Evidence of Stotz’s ideology of volunteer support was later seen when Stotz sued LLBI as he

suggested that at least half of the board of directors be elected by volunteer league workers, and that

this system of election be adopted by these league workers.28 As Little League later expanded into a

large incorporation that encompassed more leagues and a national sponsor, the board’s representation

also expanded to include businessmen and other men that Stotz’s believed held high status but low

LLB knowledge. The important concept taken from this is one of foreboding; because Stotz favored

26 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 53. 27 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 54. 28 Staff Representation, “Stotz Rejects Arbitration in Controversy,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, December 7, 1955.

14

representation and influence from local volunteers on the board, when the board had to include more

business-oriented and other high status individuals, there were disagreements to be had.

Leading up to and during World War II, the threat of another world war proved to put off the

spread of Little League as the nation and its communities shifted its focus away from leisure.

Williamsport proved to be no exception to the rule; during the 1940 season, Stotz discussed the

difficulty of purchasing uniforms for the players because the government, “…was purchasing huge

amounts of uniform material and sporting-goods items for use in military training camps.”29 In

addition, Little League was left with no playing field at the conclusion of summer in 1941 as

Lycoming Motors increased the size of their plant nearby the Little League field.30

At the professional level, there was debate as to whether baseball should continue

to be played in the midst of the war. In “Baseball during World War II,” Gerald Bazer and Steven

Culbertson discussed the reaction and encouragement of President Roosevelt with regard to the

continuance of baseball during the war. In addition, they commented on the play of baseball within the

United States, as well as the participation in baseball from soldiers who were serving their country

overseas. Specifically, Bazer and Culbertson argued that with the continuance of baseball was a

foregone conclusion as President Roosevelt informed baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain

Landis, “I honestly feel that it would be best for the country to keep baseball going.”31

World War II clearly had its effects on major league baseball as many of its players were called

to serve. LLB was similar to the major leagues during the war period as they continued to play even

while America’s soldiers fought against the Axis powers. Just as MLB players were called into action,

many prominent LL adult volunteers picked up big guns instead of ball gloves and left Williamsport to

serve their country. Of these volunteers, none were more significant than Vance Gair, who

volunteered as an umpire, as well as manager and board director George Bebble. Interestingly the

29 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 54. 30 Van Auken, 44. 31 Gerald Bazer and Steven Culbertson, “Baseball During World War II,” Nine 10, no. 1 (n.d): 114.

15

founder of Little League himself received an invitation to war in 1944; however, after the revision of

draft regulations Stotz’s service was no longer necessary.32 More importantly, World War II affected

LLB as it took the role of a leash that held back the growth of LLB. However, after that leash broke at

the conclusion of the war, LLB’s tremendous and rapid growth forced Stotz to quickly make colossal

decisions concerning the direction of LLB.

Little League Steps into the National Spotlight

Little League had twelve leagues in 1946, all of which were located in the state of

Pennsylvania.33 However, even though only three more leagues were added for a total of fifteen in

1947, LLB made significant national strides that year as Hammond, New Jersey became the first area

to hold a league outside of Pennsylvania. 34 Prior to 1947, the only tournaments held within

Williamsport involved play between the different league champions within Williamsport, which

determined the “city champion.”35 However, with more teams beginning to expand throughout

Pennsylvania and into the bordering state of New Jersey, opportunity for a different tournament

presented itself. As a result, 1947 marked the first national championship tournament of LL teams that

was hosted by Original Little League (OLL), Stotz’s league, in Williamsport.

An important development from the first tournament was the fast realization that a national

sponsor was necessary to help absorb some of the many costs associated with the tournament. Even

with a supportive local community, Stotz needed extra help in order to continue to host tournaments in

Williamsport. On December 3, 1947, Stotz traveled to New York City to make his pitch for a national

sponsor to Pepsi Cola and United States Rubber Company. Although Stotz’s offer for a national

sponsorship opportunity was not accepted by Pepsi-Cola, he mentioned that the meeting “improved my

preparation for the unscheduled interview I hoped to have that afternoon with Charles Durban at U.S.

32 Van Auken, 47. 33 Stotz, At Bat with Little League, 265. 34 Stotz, At Bat with Little League, 265. 35 Van Auken, 52.

16

Rubber.”36 According to Stotz, Charles Durban, the assistant advertising director, realized that Stotz

wanted no personal gain from the relationship; therefore, he accepted U.S. Rubber’s role of national

sponsor for LLB by pledging $5,000 to be used to finance all team expenses for the national

tournament.37 After achieving his primary goal of obtaining a national sponsor, Stotz explained to

U.S. Rubber that sneakers were not effective footwear for boys. The company came through by

creating a safe and practical rubber-cleated shoe that would be more practical for the players.

The relationship between LLB and the big business USRC was a very crucial turning point in

the management and direction of LLB. Even after the introduction of a national sponsor, LLB

functioned through the dedication of its volunteers; however, the national sponsorship was the first

time that LLB became dependent on a big business. As noted by Karen Stotz Myers, daughter of Carl

Stotz, “My dad’s theory all along, which predates this [the introduction of the national sponsor], is that

sponsors put up the money but they have nothing to say with the running of the league, or the

planning,”38 Specifically, Stotz took pride that Little League relied on the hard work of volunteers in

their previous endeavors and accomplishments. An example of the necessity of volunteers was seen as

Stotz strove to improve the field and facilities, specifically the clubhouse, for the 1948 national

tournament. In A Promise Kept, as Stotz explained, “Once again, a volunteer donated his time and

energy to Little League. Architect W.D. Shollenberger drew up the plans, and volunteers from the

Trades Council turned them into a building.”39 Therefore, while LLB still emphasized volunteer work,

the national sponsorship was the first step taken by LLB in its transition towards a more business-

oriented organization. Initially, U.S. Rubber Company did not have a say in the running of the league

when they became the national sponsor in 1947; however, this was the first step in what can best be

described as a “snowball effect” which eventually led to U.S. Rubber having a seat on the board of

directors and a say in LLB. Further down the road, this idea of a business oriented organization would 36 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 128-129. 37 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 130-132. 38 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 39 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 138.

17

have even larger implications when LLB became incorporated; however, the necessity of a national

sponsor was high due to the massive growth of LLB and the resulting financial and time burden that

was placed on Stotz.

Stotz’s knowledge and experience in setting up leagues proved to be highly valued information

as leagues from around the country continued to contact Stotz asking for his wisdom. According to

historians Lance and Robin Van Auken, authors of Play Ball!, noted that with these requests from

other leagues pouring in, “Carl struggled to juggle the ever-increasing requirements of Little League

with his ‘real’ job at Confair Bottling, where he received a promotion to plant and office manager.”40

After the 1948 national tournament, Stotz made a trip to New York City and was presented an offer

from U.S. Rubber to become LL’s first national director (president) and first employee.41 Stotz

accepted the $100,000 offer over ten years, which proved to be significant on a number of different

levels. By accepting the offer, Stotz had the advantage of having an occupation that dealt with the

time-consuming nature of LLB, as well as having his expenses paid for when traveling across the

country in response to people interested in starting their own leagues. This decision also made sense

given Stotz’s past experience with job security when he first founded LLB in the late 1930s/early

1940s. Karen Stotz Myers stated that with bad working conditions as a result of the Great Depression,

“Dad had a job, he worked two weeks here, he didn’t have a job. Men were out of work.”42 Although

Stotz was able to find a source of income after losing his job with Pure Oil Company in 1938, whether

working at a local hardware company, drawing out plans for the construction of homes, or filling in at

a sales counter, the offer from U.S. Rubber gave him job security while working for his passion:

LLB.43 Interestingly, Stotz admitted that he probably would have lost his job and experienced more

hardship in the job market had it not been for his employer’s, Dick Confair, patient and understanding

40 Van Auken, 60. 41 Van Auken, 61. 42 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 43 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 10-11.

18

with Stotz’s demanding commitment to LLB.44 The significance of Stotz’s decision to take the offer

also proved to have implications as LLB’s ties with the large business became further intertwined. The

operations of national tournament as well as the founder himself were both financially dependent on

U.S Rubber.

The Incorporation of Little League Baseball

In 1949, Stotz still remained busy as he was still in sole control of the decision making of LLB,

was still active in supporting Original Little League (OLL), and simultaneously traveled nationally to

promote LL to other areas. Karen Stotz Myers remembered the great commitment her father made to

traveling to spread the word of baseball as she recalled:

He had like 246 speaking engagements in one year. I remember traveling with him that one two week vacation…He would have a breakfast meeting; we would drive to another town. He would have a lunch meeting; we would drive to another town and he’d check us into a motel and then he’d go to an evening meeting…45 *IS THIS HOW TO PROPERLY CITE BLOCK QUOTES?*

The amount of travel and speaking engagements Stotz took on were clearly a great deal of work to

handle himself; furthermore, this did not include the time Stotz spent working on his OLL at the local

level. In addition, as Stotz traveled throughout the country sharing his knowledge to interested

listeners, he and LLB began to receive a great deal of personal publicity. In A Promise Kept, Stotz

described his television experience as he was interviewed by popular sports broadcaster Bill Stern, was

interviewed on the show “Manhattan Spotlight,” and also was interviewed on the show “We the

People.”46 In addition, Stotz noted the significance of radio interviews, as well as printed publicity

which came from Post and Life, the first photo-journalism magazine.47

In midst of Stotz’s business and steady national publicity, historians Lance and Robin Van

Auken suggested that Charles Durban realized this, and thus sent U.S. Rubber employee Jack Kuhn to

44 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 120. 45 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 46 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 155. 47 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 156.

19

discuss the future of Little League with Stotz.48 The meeting that ensued between the two men proved

to be significant as U.S. Rubber first introduced a plan for the future of LLB that conflicted with

Stotz’s original ideals of independent leagues. In A Promise Kept, Stotz complimented those who he

dealt with at U.S. Rubber, claiming they were very pleasant people whose interest in LLB was more

than casual.49 Nonetheless, it is clear that Stotz disagreed with Kuhn’s idea to establish LLB as a

central organization that controlled its paying members, the leagues that evolved from it. This differed

greatly from Stotz’s idea of autonomous leagues operating independently of one another, which was

the case until LLB’s incorporation in 1950. Stotz later looked back on the meeting by stating, “Our

discussion ended amicably. In retrospect, though, I can see that it was the beginning of a deep

philosophical conflict…sadly, such honest differences continued and grew.”50 Why Stotz did not

remove his ties with USRC at this moment is uncertain. Quite possibly, Stotz believed himself to be

obligated to USRC because they were LLB’s national sponsor as well as his employer. More likely,

Stotz may have brushed the incident to the side under the confident assumption that LLB would always

be his organization to control. Nonetheless, the relationship between the two parties continued to

develop as LLB’s transition into a centralized business drew nearer.

The half way mark of the twentieth century proved to be a vital one as LLB became

incorporated in January of 1950. In the first newsletter sent by Little League Baseball, Inc (LLBI),

Little League HITS!, LLBI explained that the organization was a corporation that operated under the

laws of the New York State.51 According to Myers, Stotz “did not want to particularly become

incorporated. That was being pushed on him by U.S. Rubber.”52 The fact that LLB was born in

Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and then became incorporated under the laws of New York confirmed the

influence of U.S. Rubber on the act of incorporation of LLB. Although Stotz did not want the

48 Van Auken, 68. 49 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 158. 50 Stotz, A Promise Kept, 160. 51 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 1 (1950) 1. 52 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009.

20

company to become incorporated, in similar fashion to bringing on a national sponsor, he realized that

it was a necessity. Specifically, the incorporation of LLB proved to legally protect the name,

objectives and activities of the game.53 This necessity of legal protection was attributed to the massive

growth and wide national scope LLB covered as there were 1,327 teams and 306 leagues in 22 states

during 1950.54 When LLB became a corporation, Gary Alan Fine described the organization as a large

bureaucracy, with the individual leagues operating as branches underneath the central guidance of

LLBI.55 All leagues were previously independent while the name “Little League” referred to the name

given to Stotz’s first league. However, prior to 1950, “Little League” was often used as a generic term

to describe leagues that used Stotz’s model for young boys playing baseball. This is the reason Stotz’s

league was eventually called Original Little League, to help differentiate his league from others. Upon

incorporation, “Little League” became the official name all leagues operating under Stotz’s

organization.

Karen Stotz Myers claimed that her father immediately became disenchanted when LLB

became an incorporation because, “it wasn’t very long until various people were put on the board who

knew nothing about LL, and he [Carl Stotz] always felt that the people who ran LL should be those

people who, he called them field men, were out on the field working with the young boys.”56 The

board of directors, which had previously been composed of volunteer/field men that were active in

within the autonomous leagues, shifted gears when LLB became a corporation to a more business-

oriented composition. All throughout the existence of baseball for young boys Stotz had highly

praised the effort of volunteers. He believed them to be the most effective decision makers for a board

of directors as they best understood the daily management, operation, effort required to instill

functional leagues. As a result, with twelve members on the board in 1950, the fact that only two

53 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 1 (1950) 1. 54 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 3, no. 1 (1952) 1. 55 Fine, 7. 56 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009.

21

assumed a role of volunteering within the organization was not ideal for Stotz.57 The other ten men

came from backgrounds such as director of a film studio, president of the National Baseball League,

vice president of the Baseball Hall of Fame, and assistant advertiser at U.S. Rubber Company.58

The LLBI was a thriving organization with a great deal of proven success and potential. As a

result, people from backgrounds other than youth baseball realized this potential and stepped into the

large national spotlight along with LLBI. For example, Emerson Yorke, owner of a film studio,

created a sound motion picture of the 1949 Little League national tournament called, “Little League

Series.”59 While this gentleman had a great deal of knowledge of film and was useful in bringing good

publicity to LLB, did this man’s film expertise make him qualified to have a vote in the decisions

made by the corporation? Paul Kerr came from a baseball background as he was Vice President of the

Baseball Hall of Fame; however, did this knowledge of MLB and the Baseball Hall of Fame make him

an effective decision maker concerning young boys who played baseball as opposed to professional

men? The point is not analyze whether these men were effective decision makers, but rather to gain an

understanding of why Stotz highly regarded the role and knowledge of volunteers within his

organization.

Upon incorporation in January of 1950, Stotz proved to hold the role of both commissioner and

president of LLBI. However, due to the heavy burden of balancing the business administrative aspects

with the baseball administrative aspects of LLBI, a committee was formed that prepared a plan to shift

Stotz’s dual-focus to strictly on baseball and not business.60 U.S. Rubber employee, Charles Durban,

succeeded Stotz as the new president of LLBI, while Stotz held his position as commissioner and

assumed the head of a committee designed to set up and maintain the rules of LLBI.61 With the role of

president of LLBI having the role of leader of the business side of LLB, it was never the ideal position

57 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 1 (1950) 1. 58 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 1 (1950) 1. 59 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 1 (1950) 3. 60 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 3 (1950) 4. 61 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 3 (1950) 4.

22

for Stotz to hold. Although Stotz could have held onto the position, considering he was the founder

and ultimate decision maker until the incorporation in 1950, it was clear that the role was not ideal for

Stotz. Looking at the preferences of Stotz discussed throughout this work, it was clear that he did not

prefer the big business aspect of LLB considering his wariness in taking on a national sponsor and

corporation. Furthermore, Stotz’s preferences laid with the insight and of volunteer men who were

directly involved with the running of leagues, as opposed to big name men who had come to find a

position on the board of directors. Clearly, Stotz was more inclined to drop the business-oriented

presidency and focus on the baseball-oriented role of commissioner. In addition, it is important to note

that Stotz did not give the presidency up to some “regular Joe” for the sake of being able to strictly

concentrate on the baseball aspects of LLBI. Charles Durban became the new president, a person who

Stotz had developed a trusting relationship with since Stotz first met with Durban and brought on U.S.

Rubber as the national sponsor.62 Of course, the transition was significant considering that in the same

year Stotz had agreed to the incorporation of LLB, he had already given the position of greatest

influence within LLBI: the presidency. Slowly but surely, Stotz’s influence on decision making within

the organization was becoming quite significantly less.

Historians Lance and Robin Van Auken wrote that Stotz was hesitant to become incorporated

and anticipated trouble in the form of U.S. Rubber dropping the national sponsor. As a result, in an

interview given by Karen Stotz Myers to Lance and Robin Van Auken, Myers claimed that “[Charles]

Durban checked with the legal department of U.S. Rubber and assured all that ‘it would revert to Carl,’

which of course didn’t happen.”63 On March 2, 1950, Durban sent Stotz the contract proposed

between Stotz and LLBI, and specifically wrote:

Our legal counselor in talking about it says that even though there is a lot of red tape to go through to dissolve a corporation and that if somebody on the board had it in mind he could create legal obstacles, still, says Mr. Dole, “Mr. Stotz would be entitled to demand that the corporation relinquish all control over Little

62 Van Auken, 70. 63 Van Auken, 70.

23

League Baseball in his favor regardless of completion of formal dissolution.’ In Other words, this contract would assure you of regaining Little League regardless of whether the corporation actually dissolved or not.64

While keeping the assurance of Durban in mind, it is clear to see that although Stotz recognized the

possibility of future differences between his ideals and those that belonged to the new board of

directors, he remained confident that he was in control of the destiny

of LLB based off of Durban’s word.

Carl Stotz vs. Little League Baseball Incorporated

In 1952, illness forced Durban to turn the presidency of LLBI over to Peter J. McGovern, an

executive at USRC.65 Stotz’s underlying fears of his organization slipping away from him became a

reality under the presidency of McGovern. In an Play Ball!, Van Auken described that Stotz disagreed

with McGovern on many issues, and this proved to be problematic, because McGovern had a firm hold

on the board of directors. However, Stotz and McGovern were able to agree that LLB should always

be aimed toward the players. Evidence of McGovern’s ideal was seen in a statement he released to

local leagues as McGovern said, “We believe the only thing of real importance in Little League is

whether or not the youngsters for whom the program is designed are getting a chance in a safe and

beneficial program… .”66

Disagreements arose when deciding how LLBI would reach that goal. In reference to

McGovern, John “Jack” Lundy, sponsor of one of the first three original teams and eventual member

on the board of directors, claimed “The man was not forceful, but [he was] commanding. Mr.

McGovern was an autocrat. He ran the thing as he pleased and the board of directors went along with

him. Whatever he wanted, we did. Whatever he suggested, we did. Nobody ever took exception to

64 Kenneth Loss, A Promise Kept, 176. 65 Van Auken, 66 Peter McGovern, Little League Baseball, Inc. November 22, 1955, Little League Museum Archives, South Williamsport, PA.

24

what he did.”67 Of course, the person that did disagree with McGovern was Stotz, but his one vote did

not hold up against the other voting members of the board.

As active commissioner, Stotz believed that he had the “…power to grant and cancel franchises

and to make rules of play for Little League teams throughout the word.”68 However, with Stotz

traveling across the country for extended periods of time, LLBI staff “made rule interpretations

without consulting their commissioner” due to pressure from newly formed leagues looking to

franchise.69 With his power within LLBI dwindled to a vote on the board of directors, and with staff

taking on these responsibilities, Stotz became increasingly frustrated. According to Lance and Robin

Van Auken, the “final straw” that broke Stotz’s back came when he returned from a promotional tour

in Europe in June of 1955. Upon his return, Stotz found that his personal secretary had been

dismissed, mail intended for him had been opened, and that LLBI had been granting charters to

leagues, a responsibility that belonged strictly to Stotz.70

On November 21, 1955, Stotz filed a $300,000 suit against LLBI for breach of contract. According

to the Sun-Gazette, a local Williamsport newspaper, the nine-page document contained two major

points:

1) That the original by-laws and contract assured Stotz a permanent job as head of Little League Baseball for life, that the by-laws were changed and that other people were given his duties. 2) That he was told that the by-laws would never be changed from their original method of electing directors, but that they were changed.71

Stotz was correct in his argument that the by-laws were changed; however, LLBI issued a statement

claiming that Stotz, “was present and voted for the change in by-laws to which he now objects.”

Interestingly, the language suggested that Stotz voted; however, it did not disclose information on

whether Stotz voted for or against these changes. Even if Stotz had voted against this change, the

67 Van Auken, 70. 68 “Papers Filed in Stotz Suit Bring Denial by McGovern,” GRIT, November 27, 1955. 69 Van Auken, 72. 70 Van Auken, 73. 71 “Carl Stotz Sets Up Own Little League,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, November 26, 1955.

25

votes of other members on the board of directors would have outnumbered Stotz, thus, making the

change nonetheless. Stotz’s suit was based on the assurance from Durban that he would take back

control of LLB if he so desired.

In addition, Stotz attempted to set up another “rival” league and organization that was to

operate through OLL. Already receiving support from Montgomery LL and Old Lycoming LL, Stotz

called a meeting in Pittsburgh on December 10th and 11th in 1955 in order to make volunteers of LLB

from across the nation aware of his new organization.72 In addition to his requests of returning to the

original by-laws, Stotz made an offer to settle the dispute with terms that dealt with salary provisions,

protection of employees returning to LLBI without bias after the controversy, and more volunteer

influence on the corporation. Specifically, local newspaper coverage from December 7, 1955 claimed

that these new terms centering on more volunteer influence were:

1) Provisions for membership in the corporation by volunteer league workers upon approval of the board of directors to be elected by volunteer league workers. 2) Not less than one-half of the board of directors to be elected by volunteer workers in accordance with a system of election to be adopted by the volunteer league workers.73

LLBI rejected Stotz’s new terms that attempted to bring a settlement and bring more volunteer

influence into the organization. In addition, LLBI filed for an injunction against Carl Stotz to prevent

him from setting up this “rival” league, and also requested a transfer of the case from the Williamsport

court of Lycoming Country to a local Federal District Court in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.74 The reason

for the transfer was because the name of LLB was a New York corporation that involved federal

trademarks.75 Specifically, LLBI asked for the injunction “as a means of restraining Stotz from

appropriating the good will of the organization, using the name Little League Baseball and the forming

of other diamond circuits for boys; also from disclosing confidential information.”76 The court issued

72 “Stotz Disclaims One-Man Little League Rule,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, November 28, 1955. 73 Staff Representation, “Stotz Rejects Arbitration in Controversy,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, December 7, 1955. 74 “Little League Baseball Sues to Enjoin Stotz,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette (n.d.: printed before December 5, 1955). 75 “Judge Suggests Out-of-Court LL Settlement,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, December 5, 1955. 76 Staff Representation, “Restraining Stotz,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, December 6, 1955.

26

this injunction, and its impact is explained by Karen Stotz Myers: “He could not associate his name

with anyone or anything having to do with a baseball program for boys for ten years.”77

Stotz believed that mass support at the local level would triumph over the national corporation. A

statement released by his lawyer prior to LLBI’s request for an injunction noted that, “Stotz regrets the

corporation’s attempts to silence him. He knows the feeling in the country at a local level is such that a

national program cannot be controlled by the corporation as long as the feeling exists.”78

Unfortunately for Stotz, when the judge issued the injunction, he was legally unable able to rally his

volunteers and local support, as he was banned from promoting the interest of any other organization

besides LLBI. Stotz was unable to attend his Pittsburgh meeting to persuade the volunteers against

franchising their leagues with LLBI. The predicament faced by Stotz was explained by Myers as she

said, “The leagues started writing him again. He wasn’t allowed to go out and talk and have a meeting

and say what he was going to do…he couldn’t do anything.”79 Myers quote indicates the extent to

which the court issued injunction tied the hands of Stotz. He was basically rendered impotent was he

was no longer able to associate himself with any league franchised with LLBI, or establish a new

league outside of LLBI. Myers quote directly touches upon Stotz’s frustration as he experienced an

inability to help anyone associated with boy’s baseball leagues that reached out to him.

The two sides announced an out-of-court settlement on February 3, 1956. Stotz was

outmatched throughout the case, as LLBI had corporate lawyers while Stotz had only one lawyer. In

addition, Stotz’s lawyer was overwhelmed in his attempting to take on a massive corporation while

working pro bono, especially as his wife suffered from cancer throughout the dispute.80 Actual details

concerning the settlement are not known for certain considering both sides only disclosed the fact that

Stotz was no longer associated with LLB.81 Myers said that these hushed settlement terms were “that

77 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 78 “Stotz Organization Readies Answer to Injunction Request,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, November 30, 1955. 79 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 80 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 81 “Silence Continuing in Little League Pact,” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, February 4, 1956.

27

Little League not leave Williamsport, that its founder-ship not be contested, and that they drop the

lawsuits on all the men [those that wanted to join another organization with Stotz] around the

country.”82 In Play ball!, the Van Aukens explained another stipulation that Stotz held,

one that Stotz had always been a strong proponent for since the incorporation: more voting

representation from league volunteers on the board of directors.83

Prominence of Professionalization

While the transition and fight over the ideology of Little League Baseball was essential to the

city of Williamsport, the story can be unfolded in a way that represents much larger implications. The

LLB story represents an interesting case study in professionalization. Historians David Whitson and

Donald MacIntosh, whose work is concentrated on the professionalization of Canadian amateur sport,

note the importance of reclaiming an organization “from a professional bureaucracy who have their

own vision of what sport is about, and have developed their own stake in the current high performance

system.”84 This idea would have been representative of Carl Stotz because LLB grew to become very

similar to a bureaucracy. Specifically, LLBI was the highly centralized component which controlled

the leagues that functioned independently, yet, they were still franchised and under the corporation’s

control. Although Stotz attempted to regain control from the corporation that “had their own vision of

what sport is about,” he failed in his attempt and LLBI developed their working ideology for LLBI.

There was also evidence of another type of professionalization with LLBI. Historian Jonathan

J. Brower argued that professionalization at the youth level, which occurred because the youth sports

are closely modeled after the adult professional sports, created pressures and burdens from coaches,

parents, umpires, and spectators on the youth that participated. Furthermore, he argued that although

the youth are experiencing these pressures, they are consciously unaware of these strain and stress.85

These pressures can emerge from coaches who envision themselves as major league managers and set 82 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009. 83 Van Auken, 85. 84 Whitson and MacIntosh, 446. 85 Brower, 41.

28

unattainable goals for the team. Parents who wish to vicariously live through their children who play

LLB can also emerge as sources of pressure. Specifically, these parents of place highly intense about

their children’s play, and often times critical. Although Browser argued that this treatment of players

is unfair, the teams and players that are under the constant pressure to be better generally do improve

and win more often. However, winning was not a reason or driving force that led to the founding of

LLB, but served as an additional benefit for the team that performed well. Although both Stotz and

LLBI had their differences, both agreed that LLB’s purpose was to serve the players. Therefore, both

parties would strongly disagree with Brower’s statements concerning the harmful affects of LLB

because they believed LLB provided tremendous social opportunities for young boys while preventing

delinquency. In 1952, while Stotz was still associated with and working for LLBI, Little League HITS!

provided readers with a survey conducted by the Fresno Recreation Department that studied the

benefits and liabilities surrounding boys playing LLB. This survey provided statistical evidence that

boys playing LLB overwhelmingly bettered in various social areas of their lives, and were relatively

unaffected emotionally as a result of playing. Out of 150 surveys returned to LLBI, 140 claimed that

playing LLB did not make young boys nervous and 145 claimed that playing LLB did not make the

young boys grouchy.86

The components of integrity and competence that are associated with professionalization are

extremely essential when looking at both Stotz’s and LLBI’s view on how LLB should operate.

Specifically, LLBI believed that the process of becoming of becoming professionalized included

bringing aboard business men and other high status individuals onto the board of directors. While the

business men had the experience, skills, and competence needed to run a business such as LLBI, and

while the other high status individuals had climbed to the top of the social and professional latter in

their respected fields, Stotz believed they were not competent because they did not have LL knowledge

and experience. On the flip side, Stotz believed that professionalization of LLB should include

86 “Little League HITS!,” Little League Baseball, Inc. 3, no. 4 (1952) 1.

29

composing the board of directors with volunteer and “field men” who had first hand experience in

operating and managing leagues. However, LLBI believed that these men were not competent because

they did not have the knowledge to make decisions concerning an incorporated business.

Karen Stotz Myers shared made note of this mindset as she claimed that LLBI people

“described him [Carl Stotz] as a country bumpkin from a little town of Williamsport.”87 There are a

few likely possibilities that would explain how Myers came to know this description of her father. The

first is that Stotz somehow came to find that individuals from LLBI use this term in reference to him,

and then told his daughter. The second possibility is that Stotz used this term because he assumed that

people from LLBI perceived him in that manner. Third, someone who was associated with LLBI or

knew people involved in the corporation informed Myers that her father received this description.

Lastly and least likely, Myers herself heard someone from LLBI call her father a “country bumpkin.”

that she heard this information from someone who had been associated with LLBI. Nonetheless, the

term “country bumpkin” also represented the idea of Stotz’s interaction within the large corporation.

Specifically, this name embodied how the professional values of LLBI eventually smothered his own

personal ideology for the operation of leagues. Clearly, the founding and development of Little

League Baseball not only provided intrigue and insight in one specific area of local sports history, but

also the analysis professionalization of sports that occurs at a local, national and international level.

87 Karen Stotz Myers, interviewed by Author, October 16, 2009.

30

Bibliography

Bazer, Gerald and Culbertson, Steven. “Baseball during World War II.” Nine 10, no. 1

(n.d.): 114-128.

Brower, Jonathan J. “The Professionalization of Organized Youth Sport: Social

Psychological Impacts and Outcomes.” American Academy of Political and Social

Science 445 (Sept., 1979): 39.

“Carl Stotz Sets Up Own Little League.” Williamsport Sun Gazette, November 26, 1955. Fine, Gary Alan. With the Boys: Little League Baseball and Preadolescent Culture.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

“Judge Suggests Out-of-Court LL Settlement.” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, December 5,

1955.

“Little League Baseball Sues to Enjoin Stotz.” Williamsport Sun-Gazette (n.d.: printed

before December 5, 1955).

“Little League HITS!.” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 1 (1950) 1-3.

“Little League HITS!.” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 2 (1950) 2.

“Little League HITS!.” Little League Baseball, Inc. 1, no. 3 (1950) 4.

“Little League HITS!.” Little League Baseball, Inc. 2, no. 1 (1951) 2.

“Little League HITS!.” Little League Baseball, Inc. 3, no. 1 (1952) 1.

“Little League HITS!.” Little League Baseball, Inc. 3, no. 4 (1952) 1.

Little League Online. “The History of Little League.” http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_

More/About_Our_Organization/historyandmission.htm.

McGovern, Peter. Little League Baseball, Inc. 22 November 1955. Little League

Museum Archives, South Williamsport, PA.

Myers, Karen Stotz. Interviewed by Author. October 16, 2009. “Papers Filed in Stotz Suit Bring Denial by McGovern.” GRIT, November 27, 1955.

31

Rossi, John P. The National Game: Baseball and American Culture. Chicago: Ivan R.

Dee, 2004.

Staff Representation. “Restraining Stotz.” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, December 6, 1955. Staff Representation. “Stotz Rejects Arbitration in Controversy.” Williamsport Sun-

Gazette, December 7, 1955.

“Silence Continuing in Little League Pact.” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, February 4, 1956.

Stotz, Carl. At Bat With Little League. Philadelphia: Macre Smith Company, 1952.

Stotz, Carl as told by Loss, Kenneth. A Promise Kept: The Story of the Founding of Little

League Baseball. Jersey Shore: Zebrowski Historical Services Publishing Company, 1992.

“Stotz Disclaims One-Man Little League Rule.” Williamsport Sun-Gazette, November

28, 1955. “Stotz Organization Readies Answer to Injunction Request.” Williamsport Sun-Gazette,

November 30, 1955. Van Auken, Lance and Robin. Play ball! The Story of Little League Baseball. University

Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.

White, G. Edward. Creating the National Pastime Baseball Transforms Itself: 1903-

1953. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Whitson, David and MacIntosh, Donald. “Rational Planning vs. Regional Interest: The

Professionalization of Canadian Amateur Sport.” Canadian Public Policy 15, no.

4 (Dec., 1989): 446.