45

Social Stratification In New YorkCity Athletic Clubs, 1865-1915

by: J. Willis and R. WettanQueens College, N.Y.

Perhaps insufficient credit has been given in the past to therole of athletic clubs in the development of sport in the UnitedStates. Sports historians, with the exception of Betts andKrout, have but mentioned the athletic club phenomenon ofthe late 1800’s and early 1900’s.1 This is indeed unfortunatesince the athletic club movement did much to popularize andlend respectability to amateur athletics, especially track andfield, at a time when this sport was largely the province ofpromoters and professional pedestrians. The athletic clubs ofthis era also organized and provided most of the leadership inthe formation of national athletic organizations to governamateur sport and provided the first amateur competition atthe national level in swimming, wrestling, boxing and track andfield. Moreover, athletic clubs of the late 1800’s were responsi-ble for many innovations in sports equipment and facilities inthe United States being the first to introduce such items asthe spiked track shoe, the first cinder track, the use of lanes andstaggers as well as many other “firsts.”2

This is a study of the athletic clubs of New York City duringthe years 1865 to 1915. In the period studied, most organi-zations in New York City which called themselves athletic clubshad track and field as their central sport although some clubssponsored competition in other sports such as rowing, baseballand football. The era examined encompassed four phases ofathletic club development: a period of initial development, theera of the large, powerful and exclusive athletic clubs, years oftransition, and the rise of neighborhood and occupationallysponsored athletic clubs. Of special concern was the social classmake-up of the athletic clubs and the struggle among the eliteclubs for status and prestige.

INITIAL DEVELOPMENT

Although predated by numerous boat, cricket, baseball, andethnic clubs such as the Caledonian Society, the athletic club

1 John R. Betts, America’s Sporting Heritage: 1850-1950 (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1974).PP. 98-101; John A. Krout, Annals of American Sport (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), pp.185-189.

2 Frederick W. Janssen, History of American Amateur Athletics (New York:. Charles R. Bourne, 1885),pp. 37-38.

46

movement in the United States in reality began with the found-ing of the New York A.C. in 1866. After a rather tentativebeginning the club had grown to fourteen members by 1868when it was incorporated and had become a viable organizationof over forty members by 1870. The decade of the 1870’s inamateur sport was dominated in every way by the New YorkA.C.

FIG. 1 New York Athletic Club, Clubhouse, 1885.

As the leading club, the New York A.C. sponsored manycontests including the first open competition in 1868 and thefirst national championships in track and field in 1876 through1878. Athletes competing for the New York A.C. won a dis-proportionate share of the individual and team titles contestedduring these formative years. Other clubs however werebeginning to organize and compete during this period, the mostnotable of which, were the Manhattan A.C. and the HarlemA.C. in 1876, and the Scottish-American and Staten Island Clubs

47

the fol lowing year, None of these clubs could ser iouslychallenge the athletic supremacy and influence of the New YorkA.C. until after 1880.3

The distinguishing characteristics of the clubs of this periodwere their small size, rarely more than forty or fifty members,their minimal investment in facilities and equipment, and thefact that almost all athletic club members were active athletes.All of these characteristics were to undergo major changes inthe years which followed.

THE ELITE ATHLETIC

Prior to 1880 athletic clubs essentially functioned to promotethe athletic participation of their members. Shortly thereafterthe clubs began to acquire more and more of the characteristicsof social clubs. As this trend accelerated clubs became moreselective of membership and seemed to develop an insatiablepenchant for luxurious clubhouses and other trappings whichsymbolized wealth and success. The race for status, prestige

FIG. 2 New York Athletic Club — Gymnasium, 1885.

3 lbid., pp. 24-28.

48

and the title of the “leading” athletic club narrowed to theBerkeley A.C., the Manhattan A.C. and the New York A.C. bythe late 1880’s. Not all of the clubs of the period fell into thepattern outlined above. The American A.C. which was madeup largely of members of the YMCA retained their primaryfocus on athletics as did the athletic clubs which developed fromlocal units of the New York State National Guard. There werehowever several clubs which tried to establish themselves amongthe elite athletic clubs but which faltered rather quickly. Mostnotable of these were the Harlem A.C., the Williamsburg A.C. ofBrooklyn and the Scottish-American Club.

The New York A.C. was the first in the city to build anelaborate clubhouse. After almost twenty years of movingfrom one leased gymnasium to another, the club opened thedoors of its five story $150,000 clubhouse in 1885.4 This elegantbuilding immediately became the envy of all other athletic clubsin the city and set the standard for other clubs to emulate.Two other clubs were not far behind in opening facilities oftheir own. The Staten Island A.C. announced the purchase ofits new grounds and fifteen room mansion in March, 1886followed by the opening of the Manhattan A.C.’s clubhouse onFifth Avenue in November of the same year.5 The BerkeleyA.C. opened the doors of its commodious building in 1888.6 Tobe considered a leading club, it was absolutely essential to havea clubhouse with at least the following features: gymnasium,swimming pool, club rooms and dining rooms. In addition, someclubs had bowling alleys, rifle ranges, Russian and Turkishbaths, sleeping rooms, billiard parlors, ballrooms, and theaters.7

Invidious comparisons between clubs were common. Whenthe New York A.C. opened its clubhouse it was proclaimed tobe “. . . a clubhouse such as no other athletic organization in theworld can boast of.”8 When, after only two years the Man-hattan A.C.’s facility proved to be somewhat less imposing thanthey wished, the club announced plans to build a new clubhousewhich would be “. . . the largest, handsomest and best appointedin the United States.” Included in the plans was a pool whichwould be more than twice as large as that of the New YorkA.C.9 When the new building was completed two years later itwas described by the press as “. . . a magnificient and palatial

4 New York Times, March 21, 1885, p. 3.5 lbid.. November 18, 1886, p. 8.6 Berkeley Athletic Association, Berkeley Athletic Club, (New York: Berkeley Athletic Association,

1888), p. 8.7 New York Times, February 6, 1885, p. 2.8 lbid.9 Ibid., July 15, 1888, p. 9.

49

clubhouse . . . which ranks today as the finest athletic clubhousein the world. From roof to cellar everything’s complete and thebest. The art ist ic decorat ions throughout are worthy ofstudy.”10 In every respect this clubhouse went beyond the NewYork A.C.’s. Its 1500 seat concert hall and dining hall werewithout peer. The gymnasium was described as the “. . . finestin the world, superior in every way to that of the New YorkA.C., the Columbia A.C., the Boston A.C. and the HarvardGymnasium.” One unprecedented feature of the gymnasiumwas an arrangement representing a sloop with its complete rigand wheel for the teaching of yachting. The roof contained agarden and outdoor dining area which could be converted to askating rink in the winter.11 Although not quite so lavish asthe above, the Berkeley A.C., the Staten Island A.C. and theCrescent A.C. of Brooklyn were above the ordinary with respectto club facilities.

FIG. 3 Crescent Athletic Club — Summer Home, 1891.

10 Spirit of the Times, December 6. 1890. p. 767.11 Ibid.

50The standard for outdoor facilities was also set by the New

York AC. As early as 1870 the club had a boat house on theHarlem River. In 1874 the club purchased a plot of ground atMott Haven where, at considerable expense, the land was leveledand a one-fifth of a mile cinder track was built, the first suchtrack in the country. The club also built “. . . grandstands suit-able for the fair sex, dressing houses for contestants [and] . . .a tall fence capable of baffling the most athletic efforts of thesmall boy.”12 The purchase of Travers Island in 1888 as asummer home and country club completed the list of “essential”facilities for the New York A.C. By 1913 Travers Island repre-sented an investment of a half-million dollars and was modestlydescribed as “. . . probably unequaled in the world.”13

FIG. 4 Berkeley Athletic Club — 1888.

No club could seriously rival the total facilities of the NewYork A.C., however some clubs tried to outdo their chief com-petitor in one department or the other. One claimant for honorsas the outstanding track in the country was the Berkeley Oval.Club members bragged that it “. . . has no superior in Americaas a field for such games, and art has aided nature in makingthe grounds beautiful.”14 This claim was quickly countered bythe declaration that, although the Berkeley Oval was charming,it in no way could match the beauty of the scenery nor theathletic conveniences of Travers Island.15

The Manhattan A.C.’s entry in the outdoor facilities sweep-stakes included a one-quarter mile track with the first 220 yard

12 New York Athletic Club, Opening Reception of New Club House. (New York: New York AthleticClub, 1885), p. 4.

13 New York Times, July 18, 1913, p. 9.14 Spirit of the Times, June 20, 1891, p. 992.15 Ibid. , June 27, 1891, p. 1012.

51

straightaway in the country.l6 A few years later the club leaseda larger plot of ground which permitted the construction offacilities for tennis, lacrosse, baseball, football, bicycling, andshooting as well as track and field.17 Not to be outdone withregard to a summer home and country club, the Manhattan Clubpurchased Berrian Island, a forty acre plot adjacent to LongIsland with the intention of developing a complete country homeand yacht basin.l8 The comparative wealth in terms of propertyowned and number of members of the most elite clubs is shownin the following table.l9

TABLE 1Value of Property and Number of Members

of Five Athletic Clubs in 1896

THE SOCIAL ELEMENT

A primary reason for the intense interest in property andfacilities of a non-athletic nature among the elite athletic clubswas the broadening of scope to include more and more activitiesof a social nature. As athletes became too old to compete manyof them wished to remain active in matters of the club. Thebroadening of social opportunities permitted this type of associ-ation. The increased emphasis upon the “social element” un-doubtedly helped to swell membership rolls by attracting non-athletic members. The growing social nature of the athleticclubs accounted for much of the demand for ever-increasingopulence.

Another facet of the broadening of scope had to do withincreasing pressures for women to be involved in club activities.Activities for the entertainment of the “fair sex” includedskating and sleighing parties, concerts, tennis and even “ladiesdays” in which women took possession of club facilities. Clubsdiffered in the degree to which they permitted participation by

16 New York Times, June 17, 1883, p. 5.17 lbid., March 8, 1891, p. 2.18 Spirit of the Times, October 11, 1890. p. 480.19 Frederick W. Janssen, “Athletic Clubs in the United States,” Select Organizations in the United

States, William V. Miller, editor. (New York: The Knickerbocker Publishing Company, 1896), p. 224.

52

women. The Staten Island Cricket and Baseball Club and theBerkeley A.C. built elaborate facilities exclusively for the use oftheir ladies. The latter club assisted also in setting up theBerkeley Ladies A.C. which was a first class athletic club inevery respect.20 The Staten Island club also built tennis courtsexpressly for female enjoyment. The ladies of the BrooklynA.C. were permitted to take “absolute possession of the billiardand bowling facilities on Mondays and Fridays.” This was onearea in which the New York A.C. was not a pioneer, permittingwomen in their clubhouse only twice each year.21

FIG. 5 Berkeley Athletic Club — Theatre, 1888.

The trend toward increasingly more social affairs withinathletic clubs disturbed many members who were concernedprimarily with athletic competition. The internal dissensionbrought about by these two basically different orientations wasa major source of controversy. The New York A.C. was badlysplit into two factions along these lines in 1886. The athleticfaction wanted to regain the athletic supremacy which had been

20 Berkeley Athletic Association, The Berkeley Ladies Athletic Club (New York: Berkeley Athletic As-sociation. 1891), p. 7.

21 New York Times, December 25, 1886, p. 2.

53

lost to the Manhattan A.C., while the socially oriented groupwas seeking to expand their activities still further.22 The Man-hattan A.C. was not without similar difficulties. Growing dis-satisfaction with the social element surfaced in 1891 shortlyafter the club had moved into its palatial new clubhouse onMadison Avenue causing no little controversy among club mem-bers.23 The Brooklyn A.C. expelled one of its members, AustinF. Remsen, who had voiced his protest of the encroachment ofthe social element by singing “objectionable” songs in the clubparlor when ladies were present. Remsen filed suit for rein-statement citing many friends among the athletes of the clubwho objected to the introduction of the social feature into theclub.24

One of the most vocal critics of the social element wasFrederick W. Janssen of the Staten Island A.C. who stated thatthis factor slowly but surely caused a club to become athletic inname only. Janssen, who blamed this factor for the demise ofthe Harlem A.C., the Scottish-American, the Williamsburg A.C.,and other clubs, warned of its dangers.

The social element in clubs is like ‘dry rot’ and eats into thevitals of athletic clubs, and soon causes them to fail in thepurpose for which they were organized. . . . It is like anoctupus that squeezes the life-blood out of the organizationby burdening it with debt. Palatial club houses are erectedat great cost and money is spent in adorning them that, ifused to beautify athletic grounds and improve tracks, wouldcause a wide-spread interest in athletic sports and furtherthe development of the wind and muscles of Americanyouth.25

In spite of formidable opposition and the prophetic pleading ofJanssen, the social feature was too deeply ingrained to beeradicated. This ultimately proved to be one of the primaryfactors in the bankruptcy of several clubs in the followingdecade.

CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS

The recognition of social position as a requisite to belongingto the elite athletic clubs is evidenced by the membership

22 lbid., March 4, 1886.23 Ibid., March 23, 1891, p. 5.24 Ibid., April 20, 1887. p. 8.25 Frederick W. Janssen, History of American Amateur Athletics, p. 103.

54

policies of the leading clubs. The classic description of thepurpose of social clubs of the 1890’s was also appropriate incharacterizing the membership policies of the elite athleticclubs, that is, clubs were formed not primarily to get people inbut rather to keep people out.26 The prototype, as always, wasthe New York A.C. which required a “. . . written application,dated, stating full name, residence, and place of business of thecandidate, signed by the members proposing and seconding him,with such references and remarks as they may have tomake . . .”27 Such information allowed the membership com-mittee to accurately place an applicant in the social hierarchyand determine if he met club standards. The importance of“social position” of applicants is reflected in the comment of amember of the Manhattan A.C. “I have no aspersions to caston men who work for their living with their hands, but they arenot exactly desirable members for a club which wants to estab-lish itself on the plane of social c1ubdom.”28

Another effective membership screening device was theinitiation fee and yearly charge employed by most clubs. It wasreasoned that if the costs were kept high enough undesirablesand men with “unclubbable” qualities would be discouraged.The costs of belonging to selected clubs is summarized in thefollowing table.

TABLE 2Initiation Fee and Yearly Charge of Various C1ubs27a-g

26 Cleveland Amory, Who Killed Society?. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 196.27 New York Athletic Club. New York Athletic Club Constitution and By-laws . . (New York: New

Athletic Club, 1886) p. 11.28 New York Times, March 23, 1891. p 5.27a Club Men of New York (New York: The Republican Press, 1893).

b Knickerbocker Athletic Club, Club Book (New York: Knickerbocker Athletic Club, 1899, p. 48.c Berkeley Athletic Club, op. cit., p. 19.d Cresent Athletic Club, Club Book (Brooklyn: Crescent Athletic Club, 1891). p. 20.e Actor’s Amateur Athletic Association of America, Constitution, By-laws, Rules and Alphabetical Lists

of Members, (New York: Equity Press, 1889), p. 7.f Jansen, History of American Amateur Athletics, op. cit., pp. 63-72.g St. George’s Athletic Club, Minstrel Entertainment and Reception (New York: St. George’s Athletic

Club, 1895). No page numbers.28 Janssen, op. cit., p. 72.

55

In marked contrast to the elite athletic clubs, the club whichcatered to working class athletes made membership as easy aspossible. The Williamsburg A.C., which competed quite success-fully in athletics for a time, had no initiation fee and dues ofonly one dollar a month. Provisions were also made for thosewho found the one dollar too much to pay out in one lump sum;they were permitted to pay twenty-five cents per week. Un-fortunately lower class clubs such as the Williamsburg A.C.had great difficulty staying in operation during this era whichgreatly reduced the opportunities for athletes without means.Janssen, summing up the situation, stated that many would-beathletes were unable to compete because of the prohibitive costof belonging to athletic clubs leaving the clubs more and moreto the wealthy and often the athletically undistinguished.29

Of all of the athletic clubs in the city, the one with the mostrestrictive membership policies was the University A.C. whichwas patterned after the prestigous University Club. The Uni-versity A.C. required that all applicants have a degree from auniversity or college. Although not an official policy, thespecific college or university was undoubtedly important to theclub’s membership committee. Information from the clubroster or member’s alma mater revealed about eighty percentwith degrees from Ivy League schools.30 As a final measure ofassuring that the club would retain its exclusiveness and remainaloof from the “ordinary” type of athletic club, the UniversityA.C. announced that it had no plans whatsoever to enter the racefor the club championship nor become a member of the AAU.31

Its avowed aim, according to the club constitution, was to“. . . furnish athletic facilities for its members, and to cultivate

a love of athletic sports in the amateur spirit without a trace ofprofessiona1ism.”32

Probably the ultimate in class consciousness was the practiceof screening spectators at some athletic events. Spectators atthe annual athletic games and ladies day events at TraversIsland were admitted by invitation only.33 The annual athleticcarnival of the Manhattan A.C. was also attended by invitation.Over 15,000 people were present for the carnival in 1891.“Everyone who entered the gates did so by invitation of the

29 Ibid., p. 103.30 University Athletic Club, Constitution, By-laws, Rules and List of Members (New York, University

Athletic Club. 1893). pp. 31-46.31 New York Times, January 3, 1892, p. 19.32 University Athletic Club, op. cit., p. 7.33 Spirit of the Times, June 27, 1891, p. 1012.

56

club and the crowd was therefore a fashionable one. The affairwas given a social character in this way.”34

The question as to which athletic club of this period was inreality the most exclusive or prestigious was one of consider-able interest to the writers. Of the original clubs which werecompeting for this distinction only the New York A.C., theManhattan A.C. and the University A.C. remained in seriouscontention by 1892. The Staten Island A.C. had suffered aserious loss of membership and was no longer considered amongthe elite clubs while the Berkeley A.C., one of the stronger clubsof the 1880’s had merged with the University A.C. and was nolonger in existence. Supporting their claim to distinction, theUniversity, Manhattan, and New York A.C.’s were the onlyathletic clubs included in the reference Club Men of New Yorkwhich purportedly included only the “leading” social and literaryclubs in the city. This work provided information concerningclub members’ place of residence, occupation and social clubmemberships.35 Utilizing systematic sampling procedures,representative samples of each of the three clubs were comparedon the dimensions of social club membership and occupation inan effort to determine the most elite of the three leading clubs.

The first approach to the ranking of the three elite athleticclubs was a comparison of the number and prestige of othersocial clubs to which athletic club members belonged. Therationale for this analysis lies in the fact that in this period itwas considered quite fashionable to belong to several clubs.36

Illustrative of this, William R. Travers who was president ofthe New York A.C. during this period, belonged to twenty-sevensuch clubs. Presumably the more exclusive the club the moredesirable it was. The two most prestigous social clubs of theperiod were the Union Club and the Knickerbocker Club. To beconsidered for membership in either of these clubs usually re-quired a long period on a waiting list, sometimes for as long asten years, in addition to impeccable credentials. Membershipin one or more social clubs of somewhat less prestige such asthe Union League, the Metropolitan Club, the Century Club orthe Calumet Club served to fill one’s time while awaiting in-duction into the two elite social clubs. A comparison of mem-bership in social clubs of members of the three leading athleticclubs is contained in Table 3.

34 New York Times, September 20, 1891, p. 2.35 Club Men of New York, loc. cit.36 Amory, op. cit., p. 193.

57

TABLE 3

Of the dimensions commonly used in stratification studies,only occupation was feasible in this study. Sociologists havefrequently used occupation as a measure of prestige and/orsocial class. In order to get an objective measure of occupation-al prestige, he Scale of Occupational Prestige developed at theNational Opinion Research Center (NORC) was utilized.37

This scale lists in hierarchal order in terms of prestige com-mon occupations in the United States. In the scale each occu-pation has been assigned a prestige score which can be placedalong a continuum ranging from shoe shiner (33) the lowest,to U. S. Supreme Court Justice (96), the highest. Althoughthe instrument was developed in a different time period it wasfelt that occupational prestige from the time period studiedwould probably not have been a great deal different.Moreover,the writers were willing to concede that, even though error mayhave been introduced by the instrument it would have been ofa consistent nature and should not have affected club dif-ferences. In addition, the writers were not attempting withfinality to establish an absolute status ranking of the elite ath-letic clubs but rather to get some objective indication of thisordering based upon occupational data.The following tablecontains the number of club members for whom occupationaldata were found and each club’s mean score on the NORCScale.

TABLE 4

37 Albert J. Reiss, Occupations and Social Status (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), pp.54-57.

58

The order of prestige based upon occupation is apparently thesame as that yielded in the analysis of membership in socialclubs. It would appear therefore that during the period from1880 to 1893 the most prestigious club was, in all probability,the University A.C. followed by the Manhattan A.C. and theNew York A.C. in that order.

A PERIOD OF TRANSITION

If the 1880’s marked the zenith of the large, exclusive athleticclubs, the 1890’s were most noted for club bankruptcies and con-solidations. Commenting on the deteriorating position of ath-letic clubs, James E. Sullivan stated:

Every month witnesses the death of several athletic clubs,but they fade noiselessly away like morning mist and haveno public funerals. It is only a few of the more prominentclubs whose plunges into the pool of bankruptcy make asplash loud enough to attract attention.38

The most notable failure of this period was that of the Man-hattan A.C. From its position as the largest; wealthiest, andmost athletically successful club in the city the total collapse ofthe club came rather suddenly. The factors which figuredmost prominently in the failure of the club was the combinationof poor management of the clubhouse and overextended creditin the purchase of property beyond the means of the club. InMay of 1891, after occupying its new facility on MadisonAvenue for only five months, a glowing financial report waspublished in which it was projected that the club would be freeof debt in ten years.39 By January of the following year inter-mittent reports of financial uneasiness were circulating. Seek-ing to dispel these rumors, club officers denied any seriousproblems claiming that the club had too many rich members tofail.40 By December, 1892 it was obvious that the club was inserious trouble. In a drastic measure to save the club, the ath-letic field was offered for sale and athletics, which had beencosting between twenty and thirty thousand dollars a year, weredropped.4l Finally, innundated by law suits from panickedcreditors, the club went into receivership despite frantic effortsby members to save it.42 The receiver tried to keep the club

38 Spirit of the Times, Februery 3, 1894, p. 94.39 The New York Times, May 3, 1891, p. 19.40 Ibid., January 3, 1892. p. 19.41 Ibid., December 20, 1892, p. 3.42 Ibid., January 29, 1893, p. 6.

59

open for a time thinking it might be put back on its feet butthese efforts failed and the club was sold in July, 1893 for$456,000.43 After several futile attempts to reorganize the club,the Piqua Association was formed which reopened the club-house under the name of the New Manhattan Club.44 Un-fortunately the management of the new club proved no betterthan the former and it too folded in less than a year.45 Theclubhouse of the Manhattan A.C. was ultimately acquired by theKnickerbocker A.C. which by 1900 had established itself as apowerful athletic force in the metropolitan area.46

The Manhattan Club was not alone in its financial difficulties.The Staten Island A.C., also one of the “old line” clubs, suc-cumbed to the auctioneer’s gavel in 1893.47 The Staten IslandClub failed because of a steady decline in membership which wasattributed at least in part to the failure of the club to remainathletically competitive. Many of the club’s athletes had de-fected to other athletic clubs because of the restrictive clubpolicy toward payment of entry fees and training expenses.

The Actor’s Amateur Athletic Association, founded withenthusiasm in 1889, folded after only four years. The member-ship of less than one hundred members was insufficient tosustain the club. This problem was compounded by laxity onthe part of some members in the payment of dues.48 Thepaucity of members willing to pay dues regularly was also thecause of the breakup of the Bank Clerks Athletic Associationafter only two years.49

The Berkeley Athletic Club, another of the elite clubs, dis-appeared from view in 1892 but under somewhat differentcircumstances. Members of the club who were dissatisfied withthe way the club was being managed seized upon the formationof the University A.C. as a solution to their problems. TheUniversity A.C. which had been in the talking stages forseveral years had become a reality in 1891. A merger of thesetwo clubs was effected the following year with the UniversityA.C. taking over all of the Berkeley A.C.’s facilities includingthe Berkeley Ladies A.C.50

43 Ibid., July 21, 1893, p. 7.44 Ibid., December 16, 1894, p. 3.45 Ibid., August 24, 1895, p. 14.46 “Knickerbocker A. C., Club Book (New York: The Knickerbocker Athletic Club, 1899), p. 38.47 New York Times, January 31, 1893, p. 9.48 Ibid., June 15, 1893, p. 4.49 lbid., February 19, 1892, p. 2.50 Ibid., January 13, 1892, p. 2.

60

Of the original group of elite athletic clubs only the New YorkA.C. and the Crescent A.C. emerged intact at the end of a dif-ficult decade. These two clubs which survived this difficultperiod did so because of good club management and by curbingthe tendency to continually acquire property and expandfacilities. The Crescent A.C., bucking the downward trend,experienced a steady growth in membership during the firstpart of this period.51 By cutting back on expenditures in ath-letics and reducing other expenses, the New York A.C. was alsoable to maintain a sound financial footing.52

The difficulties experienced by athletic clubs during the1890’s can be summarized as consisting primarily of poormanagement and the over-extension of financial resources in theacquisition of property and the extravagances necessary for the“proper” club atmosphere. The financial problems were un-doubtedly magnified by the difficult economic times which thecountry experienced in that decade.

THE ERA OF WORKING CLASS

In marked contrast to the two previous decades, the periodfrom 1900 to 1915 was clearly the era of the neighborhoodathletic club, the occupational athletic club and other groupswhich tended to be small and organized expressly for athleticcompetition. The clubs which developed during this era were,for the most part, without facilities and many of the social pre-occupations of the 1880’s.In terms of social strata represented,the clubs increasingly were of more humble origins than theprivileged athletic club members of the previous decades. Theproliferation of these clubs of the “common man” by 1914 wastruly amazing to those who had been involved in amateur athleticsin the two previous decades. James E. Sullivan estimated thatseven to eight hundred small clubs were scattered about NewYork City, most of which were made up of ten to fifteen mem-bers. The immense growth was due in great part, according toSullivan, to the board of education’s recreation centers.53

One of the most successful efforts to organize athletics forworking class boys was begun in 1902 by W. A. Clark whocalled a convention of settlement houses to explore the feasi-bility of organizing an athletic league. Noting that no exist-ing program provided for the needs of the great mass of

61 lbid. , . April 7, 1894, p. 3.62 Ibid. , January 14, 1896, p. 6.63 New York Times, April 5, 1914, p. 2.

61

“working boys” whose time was occupied during the day, Clarkproposed a program of night competition to meet the needs ofthis group. The lads of the settlement houses proved to be rapidlearners and eager participants who were, within a short time,turning in solid performances in metropolitan AAU competition.Basketball was a special favorite of this group which managedto take all of the honors in the AAU for two consecutive yearsin this sport. The idea of intersettlement competition was sowell received that, by 1908, over 10,000 boys were taking partin track, basketball, baseball and wrestling programs.54

Athletic clubs which were occupationally oriented alsoflourished during this time period. Municipal workers, postalclerks and firemen organized in 1913 and 1914. Business andindustry spawned a large number of athletic clubs as well.Notable representatives of this group included the Ford MotorCompany Athletic Association, the Milrose Athletic Associationformed by Wannamaker Store employees, the General ElectricAthletic Association, the Metropolitan Life A.A. and the Build-ing Trades A.A.

Religious organizations responded to the intense athleticinterest of the time by forming the Sunday School AthleticLeague, the Church Athletic League and the Catholic AthleticLeague. The YMCA and YMHA also developed viable athleticassociations. City-wide championships were held by each ofthese groups involving large numbers of participants andspectators.

Another significant development of this era was the formationof at least three black athletic clubs, the Salem-Crescent A.C.,the St. Christopher, and the Smart Set A.C. of Brooklyn. Theoutstanding performance of black athletes in the MetropolitanDistrict of the AAU attracted widespread attention in 1913.55

The year 1913 made competition accessible to still more lowerclass youth as the first interpark playground athletic champion-ship was held. Under the supervision of William J. Lee, over1500 boys competed as approximately 5000 spectators cheeredthem on.56 The Evening Recreation Center Athletic League wasyet another important avenue for lower class youth to becomeinvolved in competitive athletics.57

54 Spaulding’s Official Handbook of the Inter-Settlement Athletic Asociation (New York: The AmericanSports Publishing Company, 1908). pp. 3-5.

55 New York Times, October 18, 1914. p. 4.56 Ibid., September 2, 1913, p. 10.57 lbid., May 10, 1913, p. 12.

62

The tremendous growth of athletic clubs representing thegreat masses of working people did not seem to hinder the eliteclubs which survived the 1890’s. Most of these clubs continuedto prosper financially and do well athletically. Many of the topathletes in the country were still associated with the big athleticclubs. During this time period a few exclusive athletic clubspatterned after the old model were formed. The most notableof these was the City A.C. Although not limited to those of theJewish faith, a large portion of the membership was Jewish.Wealthy families represented in the City A.C. included theBaruch, Gimbel, Guggenheim, Knopf, and Rothschild families.58

This period is time however belonged to the common man.The sheer number of athletic clubs is probably the most salientfeature of this era. Most of the clubs of the “common man” hadno athletic facilities of their own relying heavily on public parksand playgrounds. A few worked out private lease arrangementswith larger clubs. Another characteristic of many clubs,especially those associated with business and industry, was theirtransitory nature. Lacking strong financial backing and thesocial element which goes with a clubhouse, many of thesegroups proved to be short lived. A rather casual approach toathletic competition was another feature of some athleticorganizations. Often a once-a-year field day of the type heldby the employees of Macy’s was the extent of their functioning.59

Another variation was to sponsor three or four competitionsduring the summer season and remain inactive for the re-mainder of the year. This was the pattern of the SocialistParty of Kings County.60 Nevertheless, this was an age ofwidespread participation and unparalleled democratization ofathletics. Never before in the history of the city had so manypeople from such a broad spectrum of society had the oppor-tunities which were opened up by the athletic club movementbetween 1900 and 1915.

CONCLUSIONS ------- -------- ----The period from 1865 to 1915 encompassed four phases of

athletic club development in New York City. The period ofinitial development which spanned the years 1866 to 1880 sawthe development of many athletic clubs whose members repre-

58 City Athletic Club, Constitution, By-laws and House Rules (New York: City Athletic Club, 1913),pp. 5-7.

59 New York Times, May 31, 1913, p. 13.60 lbid., August 4, 1913, p. 5.

63

sented a broad spectrum of New York society. Clubs tended tobe small and made up almost exclusively of active athletes.Clubfacilities rarely consisted of more than a running track andpossibly facilities for rowing.

From 1880 to 1893 the leading clubs of the city underwent adrastic change in focus. Competition among clubs for statusand prestige led to the building of extravagant facilities, anincrease in activities of a social nature, and the instituting ofhighly selective membership policies. The most prestigiousathletic club of the period based upon members’ occupationalscores and social club memberships was the University A.C.followed by the Manhattan and New York A.C.’s.

The period of transition which occurred between 1893 and1900 was marked by the financial collapse of many of the lead-ing clubs and the consolidation of others.The financial diffi-culties experienced by most clubs was due to the combination ofpoor management, overextension of financial resources andeconomic recession.

After the turn of the century there was a resurgence of smallathletic clubs which were unencumbered by grandiose clubhousesand social preoccupations. Once again clubs were readily ac-cessible to a larger segment of New York society through theorganization of neighborhood, occupational, religious, socialwelfare agency, public school, and park department athleticassociations. This era can best be characterized by the vastnumber of clubs, the transitory nature of many of the clubs, andthe unprecedented involvement of athletes from socio-economiclevels to whom athletic competition had been beyond reach.