In a report to Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, the CBS television network admits it misrepresented some facts to the public in its telecasts of the so-called "heavyweight championship of tennis" matches featuring Jimmy Connors.

The 61-page report, which was obtained by The Washington Post, states that "none of the four matches was actually 'winner take all' in the sense that the loser received nothing for playing."

The report was prepared by attorneys Arthur S. Lane of Princeton, N.J. and Timothy N. Black of Washington, D.C., both hired by CBS to conduct an independent investigation.

The report continued: "In every match, each player was assured of a substantial amount for playing, regardless of the outcome. To this extent, the use of the phrase 'winner-take-all' in prematch publicity for, or over-the-air descriptions of, some of the matches was inaccurate.

All the matches involved Connors. His opponents were Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Manuel Orantes and Illie Nastase. Connors won all four matches.

Connors a guaranteed $150,000 for his March 6 match against Nastase, who was guaranteed $150,000, regardless of who won. In his Feb. 26, 1976, match against Orantes, Connors was guaranteed $500,000, or 50 per cent of the net receipts. The financial arrangements involved in the other two matches are not known.

The prize guarantees are not illegal, according to the FCC, Obviously. CBS's ethics are in question for telling the public the matches were winner-take-all, when they were not.

The FCC requested a copy of the report, which also has been sent to the House Subcommittee on Communications. This committee will hold hearings on the relationship between the television networks and professional and amateur sports this summer.

The CBS report documents extensively the network's failure to be truthful in its prematch publicity and coverage of the four matches.It also describes the emotional reaction of sportscaster Pat Summerall, who said he was deceived by promoter William F. Riordan into going on the air and saying the Connors-Ilie Nastase match was winner-take-all, when in fact Riordan later was quoted as indication it was not.

The report also details the manner in which CBS assured control of players for future tennis matches.

In the Connors Nastase contract it was stipulated that if Nastage won he would defend the "title" for $500,000, or 50 per cent of the net proceeds of the less than $650,000 for the right to telecast the match.

If Nastase did not successfully defend his "title," he would receive 30 per cent of the net proceeds for being a challenge in a subsequent match.

The report mentions that after Connors defeated Laver in the first challenge match. "Connors was presented with a paper purporting to be a $100,000 check . . . We understand that the players received their compensation after the match."

As to the use of the term, "winner take all," the outside counsel hired by CBS say, "There were two on-the-air references to winner-take-all in the first (Laver) match. The term was used once by a representative of Caesars Palace in introducing the match and one by a CBS sportcaster during the match.

"Immediately after the latter reference the impression that the loser was not receiving compensation was corrected by another CBS sportscaster, who stated that "they take the sting cut for the loser, because the loser is going to receive something like $50,000, or more."

"During the (John) Newcombe watch, there were three on-the-air references to 'winner-take-all,' two during the introductory remarks . . . and the third near the end of the match.

"Of the two at the beginning, one was by a representative of Caesars Palace an the other by CBS sportscasters, who at the same time, made clear that both the winner and the lower were to receive substantial amounts in addition to the stated prize money to the winner . . .

"There were no references to 'winner-take-all' in the broadcast of the Orantes match."

"There were no references to 'winner-take-all' in the broadcast of the Orantes match."

It was the fourth match, between Connors and Nastase in Puerto Rico, that brought on the investigation, after initial revealations by John Kennedy of the Staten Island (N.Y.) Register.

The report adds: "The financial terms between Riordan and the players in connection with the fourth (Nastase) match were known by CBS sports officials well in advance of that match . . .

"In our judgment, errors of omission were committed in failure to take appropriate preventive and corrective action with regard to prize money publicity in connection with the Nastage match.

"In light of the publicity that had surrounded the first three matches, when the financial terms for the Nastase match became known to CBS sports, steps should promptly have been taken to see to it that persons with publicity and on-the-air responsibilities were provided with the correct information.

"Had this been done, the erroneous 'winner-take-all' and other prize money statements would not have been made . . . ."

In its "conclusions," the reports says "We have found no reason to believe that there was any intentional deception of the public by CBS personnel."

The report recommends, among other procedures, that "where it is known that prize money will play a significant part in efforts to create public interest in the event, CBS should:

1. Demand full disclosure of all relevant financial arrangements.

2. Secure from the promoter appropriate certificate . . . as to the accuracy of financial information provided (to) CBS and the public.

3. Obtain rights to review for accuracy promotional materials released in connection with the event . . . ."