Commissioner Tagliabue Press Conference – NFL League Meeting

Chicago, IL, October 30, 2003

We had a good session this morning.  It was fairly short before we got to the Super Bowl and you know what the outcome was there.  So I’ll just take any questions on any subjects that are of interest to you. 

Q: Fines for bumping into the officials.  Was that a point of emphasis this year?  It seems there have been more occurrences this season.

PT:  I don’t know if there have been more or less.  It’s always been a point of emphasis and it’s always been a strictly enforced rule.  There’s nothing new about it, except for the emphasis that we are not going to tolerate it before the game as well as during the game.  It’s the same rule that’s been around for many years.  It’s strictly enforced

Q:  Were you surprised the Arizona Super Bowl selection was so decisive?

PT:  Yes.  Because I thought all three of the presentations were very strong.  And not just the presentations but the underlying appeal of the three communities as host cities for the Super Bowl was very strong.  That was not only my feeling but the feeling of the membership.  Going in, the people felt we had three very strong cities.  In some of the comments I’ve heard now, everyone thought that those were three cities that at the right place and the right time could make tremendous places to have a Super Bowl.  So the fact that it was so decisive was a surprise.

Q:  Address the cold weather Super Bowl?

PT:  It’s not so much it’s an outdoor, cold weather Super Bowl. It focuses on the nation’s capitol and New York – I’ve said that many, many times and I still think that’s the case.  The Redskins put together an excellent presentation.  The two main presenters they had in terms of their oral presentation, Senator Thompson and Mayor Williams, were outstanding.  The opportunity of the NFL to take the nation’s greatest sporting event to the nation’s heart, as they presented it, could be very attractive to many, many owners at the right time.

Q:  Warren Sapp’s recent antics and how that effects his position on the NFL Network?

PT:  I said yesterday, he’s on the network and that’s the network’s decision – Steve Bornstein’s decision ultimately.  The only concern we have with Warren Sapp is what he does on the football field.  When he plays well, he’s an outstanding football player.  When he pushes officials, he’s going to be treated like every other player in the league.  That’s all we’ve done.  In terms of what he wants to say, that’s no concern of mine.  Any player can say what they want to say as long as it doesn’t conflict with league policy.  So he’s not going to be able to use fool language with officials.  He can’t say that.  Any opinions he has about life, that’s part of free speech in America.

Q:  Instant replay, Billick’s comments and do you think the replay system will be voted out in the spring?

PT:  I do not have the foggiest idea.  My guess is that replay will continue because,three-fourths-or-more of the clubs will think that it’s an important tool in terms of the officiating of the game.  What Brian Billick said about replay was intolerable, unacceptable, uncalled for and he should be fined.  I don’t know whether our staff is going to do that or not, but that’s my own humble opinion about what he said.  It’s a direct and severe violation of our rules about criticizing officiating publicly.  In terms of what it means for our meeting next March and a vote on replay, I don’t know.

Q:  On fantasy football and whether it hurts the league in some way, in terms of gambling…

PT:   No, I don’t think so.  We’ve looked at that for about five years and analyzed the different shades and variations of fantasy football and have tried to make it very clear that ours does not in any way shape or form involve the elements that make it viewed as gambling. 

Q:  On whether he heard Roger Goodell’s update on the stadium situation in Los Angeles….

PT:  In part and in part I couldn’t because I wasn’t listening directly when he was giving it.  I was focused on some other things.  Basically, it was what I said to you yesterday.  We’re working intensively with Carson, with the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum.  We’ve put some financial resources in two of the three projects that we’re expecting to continue to make progress in terms of identifying solutions to problems, in terms of environmental issues, constructability issues and financial issues. By the time we get to the meeting next March, we hope to be able to have a better understanding of the timeline on which we can present some decisions to the teams. 

Q:  How was General Franks received?

PT:  General Franks was the way General Franks has always been.  He’s terrific, forceful, thoughtful and just his mere presence shows you that he’s a leader.  We’ve seen that from the first time he became a public symbol of the military forces.  In much the same way General Schwarzkopf was in an earlier era, also headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base.  They both are tremendous representatives of the leadership of the U.S. military. I’m sure the troops identify with them tremendously for that reason.

Q:  In Los Angeles would you want to see a team first or a stadium?

PT:  A stadium.  Our expectation would be to have a stadium first, then we’ll figure out whether we have a team or who the team is or what the team is.

Q:  Will the league help the Chargers compensate for the loss of their home game?  Was that discussed?

PT:  It wasn’t discussed.  I said yesterday that if there’s a need for the Chargers to get some leaguewide support in terms of loses we’ll certainly consider that.

Q:  Can you discuss your expectations of the NFL Network?

PT:  The expectations for the network are it’s going to be unique; it’s going to have a lot of special access to the NFL.  We’ll be looking at the NFL from the inside out. With Steve Bornstein at the helm, Howard Katz, Rich Eisen and all the other talent, we think it’s going to be very, very high quality.  We’re very excited about it.  I’ll be down at NFL Films, which is our main production center, next Tuesday when we launch it.  We’ll have a satellite hook-up with Los Angeles where the L.A. piece of the primetime programming will be produced.  It’s a matter of tremendous excitement for the whole league.  The presentation that Steve Bornstein made, which included video and Rich Eisen, Sterling Sharpe and so much of the other talent, got a lot of owners very, very excited.  It was the first time they’ve seen in video, television form how exciting it can be. 

Q:  Have you watched a whole episode of ‘Playmakers’?

PT:  I have not watched a whole episode.  I do not have to watch a whole episode. All I have to do is watch one of the promotions to know I think it was a terrible distortion of players in the National Football League and not worthy of ESPN. 

Q:  Along those lines, will you contact advertisers and ask them to pull back from advertising on shows like ‘Playmakers’?

PT:  I don’t know.  We might, depending on the programming.  Have we done it with ‘Playmakers’?  I don’t know.  I have not. 

Q:  On cold weather Super Bowls and whether stadium size has anything to do with the decision to hold one in New York or Washington as opposed to Chicago …

PT:  No, I don’t think any consideration of Chicago depends upon stadium size.  The focus of the membership now is on the nation’s capitol and New York, as the economic capitol, TV, entertainment capitol with Broadway and elements like that.  If you’re going to get yourself focused and make decisions you can’t consider 20 alternatives.  You have to look at a couple of clear choices.  New York and Washington represent clear choices.  They might complement each other in some ways.  The idea of getting Chicago involved at this point or Denver or other cities is just going to produce a lack of focus and disjuncture that wouldn’t be very sensible in our decision-making process.  Now if we go forward with a couple of additional Super Bowls, might Chicago become part of the mix in the future?  There’s no reason to rule it out.  But, to look at too many alternatives when you’re trying to get 17 votes for one alternative does not make a lot of sense.  It’s not conducive to making a well-informed decision. 

Q:  How did the Super Bowl in 1996 affect today’s decision…

PT:  Not a lot.  The main thing today was the fact that the Cardinals have been counting on a stadium since they moved to Arizona.  For the last seven years, they’ve been working without interruption with the public officials, the business community, the fans and the public generally to find a location for and a means of funding a stadium.  That having been accomplished, coupled with the quality of the stadium, the anticipated support of the fans in the new stadium, the prospect that the team is turning the corner upwards as illustrated by their win over the 49ers, I think all of those factors were decisive.  What happened in ’96 in the old stadium, what happened on Monday night, I can’t say that didn’t have an impact on somebody, but I don’t think they were at the core of the sentiment that was expressed in the room or outside the room for that matter.

Q:  Can you comment on the Pottsville situation?

PT:  The decision on Pottsville started with the fact this has been addressed on a number of prior occasions, before I became Commissioner, by the membership and by Commissioner Rozelle.  There was, at that time, no evident basis for changing the championship.  At the same time, the Governor and the Mayor really made it clear how passionate the fans are in Pottsville and northeast Pennsylvania and what an outstanding football team it was.  This Pioneer Award recognizes that and the resolution that was adopted recognizes that it was a championship-caliber football team that ran into unfortunate conflict with the league’s rules and had to forfeit its championship.  At this late date, it was impossible to overturn what’s been in the record books for the last 75 years.

Q:  What preemptive steps is the NFL taking to make sure the next ‘THG’ type case is nipped in the bud?

PT:  I don’t know what exactly you can do to control all the labs in the world that are reinventing chemical steroids or steroids compounds.  The most important thing we can do we’ve done.  We’ve done it from the beginning of this program, which is to define the categories of prohibitive substances very broadly and not relate them to a specific compound.  Also to have a strict liability policy, meaning that if a player has prohibitive substances in his system it’s going to be the very rare occasion, if ever, that some kind of excuse is going to be found to excuse him.

Q:  Is there a constant source of worry that someone is constantly trying to stay one step ahead of the law?

PT:  The history of the world is that chisellers and other people who are doing things outside of the law might try to do new things outside of the law – so yes.  And that refers to the people making the compounds, not the players.

#  #  #