with reasonable accuracy.  The district court's conclusion was based on the plain language of the February 14, 1966 Atlanta agreement.  Taxpayers disagree with the district court's construction of that agreement.  According to them, the Atlanta agreement conveyed to Five Smiths only the television rights under the four-year contract with CBS, and nothing more with regard to television revenues.


47
It will be recalled that the June 29, 1965 letter of understanding from Commissioner Pete Rozelle to Rankin M. Smith provided:


48
Smith shall receive one-fifteenth of any sum paid by any network for any single network television contract commencing in 1966 and a pro rata share each year thereafter while Atlanta holds a franchise.


49
And the formal February 14, 1966 agreement specified:


50
Smith shall be entitled to participate equally with allfour-year CBS contract.  They rely heavily on the assertion that none of the teams was under any obligation to continue with the pooling arrangement after the expiration of the CBS contract, and that each team was free to return at that point to negotiating an individual contract for the televising of its own home games, as had been the practice prior to 1961.  This argument is unpersuasive because it ignores, as the Government points out, the fact that the pooling arrangement was, and is, of substantial economic benefit to the NFL teams.  The antitrust exemption for professional sports teams was, in fact, intended to enable them to bargain collectively with the networks in order for the teams, especially the weaker NFL clubs, to obtain continuing