Commissioner Tagliabue Press Conference – League Meeting
Philadelphia, PA, May 20, 2003

We started the day discussing the situation in Los Angeles relative to the possible stadiums.  You have been given the resolution that was approved by the membership this morning.  It basically authorizes the Commissioner to continue to work with the representatives of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl on one hand, and the city of Carson and the development group in Carson on the other hand.  Both of these cities have been very forthcoming in their dealings with us, both the mayors and the city councils.  And we look forward to working, in the months ahead, with both of them to see what can be developed that would make sense for their communities and possibly for the National Football League.

On the Super Bowl, we indicated to the membership the timeline that we would recommend to be followed and the membership accepted the recommendation of the league office and the Super Bowl Advisory Committee.  So the timeline for selecting future Super Bowls, starting with 2007, which is the game after Detroit, we’re currently focusing on South Florida, and we’ve been in discussions with them with the goal of trying to conclude an agreement for South Florida, Miami Dade County, to host the Super Bowl in 2007 that would be subject to review by the membership and ratification by the membership at a special league meeting that we have scheduled for September 17.  On the 2008 game, we will be inviting cities and areas to make presentations at our regularly scheduled Fall Meeting, which is in Chicago in late October.  The communities that would be invited to make presentations for that Super Bowl would be Arizona, New York/New Jersey, Tampa Bay and Washington, D.C., and that’s on the assumption that we work out an agreement with Miami, South Florida, on the 2007 game and that’s ratified.  Then Tampa would be in the 2008 group of candidates.  If we are not able to conclude a final agreement with Miami then Tampa would again be a candidate for the 2007 game, but at the moment that seems to be an unlikely eventuality.

For the 2009 game, we currently expect to address that either in the Fall of 2004 or March of 2005.  The list of candidate cities there is quite lengthy and we do not yet have a definitive list.  On the 2007 and 2008 games, we thoroughly looked at some other cities that were interested in being in contention for those games, including New Orleans and Washington, D.C.  But as we reported to the membership last November in New York, there was a strong feeling among the Super Bowl Advisory Committee members, and we think within the membership, that we did not want to have back-to-back games in domes, which would have been the case if we looked at New Orleans following Detroit.  And so there was a pretty strong preference for an outdoor game in a warm climate in 2007, which is why we focused initially on Miami and Tampa and now on Miami.

We had reports from our Diversity Committee, chaired by Dan Rooney.  We had a Management Council report, chaired by Harold Henderson, who as you know is the head of our labor relations group.  This afternoon we’ll be going over to NFL Films.  For many owners that will be their first visit to our new digital technology center in New Jersey, which houses both our digital capability and the traditional film capability of NFL Films.  We’ll have a comprehensive update from Steve Bornstein and Steve Sabol and Howard Katz, who we recently retained to be the Chief Operating Officer for NFL Films, on our plans for Films and the NFL Network.  And then tomorrow morning we’re starting with a working breakfast among owners, club executives and roughly 130 coaches who are attending the coaching seminar here in Philadelphia this week, and that will be not just a coffee clatch, it will be a working breakfast.  We’re going to have some business presentations, including some presentations on our diversity initiative, which will include Dan Rooney, Ozzie Newsome, John Fox, Bill Cowher and Herman Edwards. 

On the option of bringing an NFL franchise to Carson:
The option is basically to work closely with the city of Carson and its development group, to ascertain whether all of the permitting that is needed to conceivably build a stadium on that site can be secured, which would include environmental permitting.

On the NFL’s financial contribution to the city of Carson:
Yes, we would put up an initial sum of money that would be intended to cover some of the costs of the initial development, a period which will focus on entitlement, permitting and the structuring of a relationship with the city of Carson.  And eventually, depending on whether we ultimately exercise the option, there could be some readjustment of the initial contribution to cover some of the cost.

If you go back a number of years, I had met with representatives from the city of Carson and council members to talk about using the 160-acre area for a stadium.  Those meetings were similar to the meetings I had more recently with city council members, the mayor and the business community in Pasadena.  Michael Ovitz is involved.  He’s in a partnership with a real estate development group with which we’ve had a number of discussions.  The group is solely in the role of real estate development.  There is no team ownership feature in any way, shape or form associated with the Carson opportunity.  In that sense, the two potential stadiums are symmetrical.  They are two stadium development plans with no preferences or other implications for team ownership.  The team ownership issues and the identity of any team were not addressed today.  They were not addressed in the resolution, other than noting those issues will be addressed in the future by the membership.  We require a 3/4ths vote of the membership to either exercise the option on one of the two sites and/or to identify a team or teams that would eventually use such a stadium.

On Pasadena and Carson:
There was a very strong feeling that both of these projects are symmetrical.  That means they both have the potential to be state-of-the-art stadiums.  Neither one involves any ownership.  This was a criterion that our LA Working Group established for us in discussions we had several months ago in February.  When we met in early March in Florida with representatives of Pasadena and the Carson project, we said we were interested in a state-of-the-art stadium that would be unlinked to team ownership.  Pasadena has always represented itself on that basis and now the Carson project is presented on the same basis.  You’ll see in the resolution that the discussion we’ve had with all these parties over the past year, including my visit to Pasadena in January, still remain vital parts of the planning process and have been treated by the membership as critical input as we try to make this very important long-term decision.

On other options (Coliseum) other than Pasadena and Carson:
As you go through life, you learn to be open-minded and to look at as many alternatives as you can.  Whether it’s the Coliseum or any other location, we would be open-minded, but at this particular point, you’d have to say that Pasadena and Carson, having worked with us for the better part of a year on parallel tracks, are considered to be further ahead. 

On a timetable for the stadium plans:
There is a timetable.  It’s somewhat like an accordion.  It could at one point be retracted and at another point be expanded.  It depends in large measure on how quickly some of the critical planning and analytical tasks can be performed.  In Pasadena, we looked at the evolution of some of the design concepts and the economics of a stadium there.  We’ve had the chance to do that with Carson as well.  In each case, there’s analysis that is yet to be done.  If that can be done fairly quickly, then the accordion can be compressed.  If it takes longer, then the accordion can be stretched out wider.

On Pasadena and Carson:
It’s a dead heat.  It really is.  We’ve been in discussions with both of these cities for quite some time.  With Carson, the discussions go back quite some years, and then there was obviously a hiatus, before they resumed.  What we had discussed earlier in terms of some of the development issues and environmental issues, we brought that up to date.  With Pasadena, those discussions have been more compressed in the past 12 months, but there have been environmental and design issues there.  There have been legacy issues there in regard to the historic character of that building.  We’ve been analyzing all of those as well as business models on parallel tracks.  We met with both groups in early March and we continue to move forward on a parallel basis.

It’s pretty similar.  The ultimate construction costs would be a league responsibility in either case.  Eventually that baton would be passed on to the team or teams in that stadium.  In that sense, it is somewhat comparable to Cleveland.  But there are major differences as well because we only undertook the Cleveland project when we had a guarantee that there would be either an expansion team or relocated team.  Here, the question of the availability of a team has been separated from these option arrangements which are more preliminary in nature than the agreement was with Cleveland.  Cleveland had lost a team, that is the reason there was a more definitive reason.  Neither of these cities, Pasadena nor Carson, has lost a team.  Obviously, Los Angeles has, but neither one of these communities has and we’re not that far along as we were in Cleveland.  

On investing in the Rose Bowl:
We would be prepared to discuss that.  Up to this point, the initiative on the Rose Bowl has had multiple sources.  From our perspective, it’s been a community-based effort to maintain a tremendous civic asset going into the 21^st century.  It’s been to maintain one of the great college Bowl games, which is also the site of some great Super Bowl games.  It’s been to maintain a relationship with UCLA and to see whether the NFL can be a part of that.  But if there were costs that were specific to the NFL piece of that, certainly we’d consider those analysis costs going forward.

On a timeline for a new stadium:
On the current timeline, it would be 2006.  There’s a reference in the resolution to 2006, 2007, 2008 and beyond.  That’s just a way of saying that 2006 is probably the earliest and 2007 and 2008 are more realistic.

On current NFL teams with issues:
Indianapolis, Minnesota and other communities have other issues that they’re working on with NFL teams that are much more immediate than 2006, 2007 and 2008.  There are no conflicts here between what we are trying to accomplish in terms of taking some further constructive steps in Pasadena and Carson.  I don’t see any conflict between that and what those other teams are trying to accomplish in existing cities.

On the Colts’ situation:
If he’s only committed in Indianapolis in 2003 and we’re not going to have a stadium until 2008, he’s going to have to do something for five years that we’re not addressing.  He’s got to address that.  In Indianapolis.

On the possibility of expansion:
No, expansion has not been ruled out.  The reference is in the resolution that the decision on the identity of the team or teams has not been made and that refers to expansion or relocation.

On the number of teams in the LA market:
The number of teams is also one of the things that was put off for the future.  Conceivably this is a two-team market, like New York and Los Angeles in the past, but we’re not going to accomplish that tomorrow.  Long-term, who knows whether this great market with a very deep fan base is a one-team or two-team market.  That was something that was discussed as an item that we should put off to future evaluation.

On the changing demographics of Southern California:
We’re not concerned about the changing demographics of Southern California or anywhere else in America.  We’ve emphasized in many things that we’re doing that we know we have a tremendous following in the new demographics of America, such as Hispanic-American, Asia-American and other communities that are widely represented in the population, whether it’s in Southern California, Chicago, New York, Miami or elsewhere.  We view that as a source of growth in the future and not as an issue.

On the 2008 Super Bowl:
I don’t have a personal preference.  Arizona, New York/New Jersey, Washington and Tampa give us four areas, each of which could be excellent for the Super Bowl, provided the stadium is right.  It’s been demonstrated in Tampa and Washington that those are two first-class stadiums.  In Arizona, it’s now on the drawing boards and has a shovel in the ground on a state-of-the-art stadium.  Each of those four locations would be a very strong contender.   In the case of New York/New Jersey, there needs to be a major improvement to Giants Stadium.  Put aside the stadium and any one of those four communities could be an excellent host for a Super Bowl.  That’s the basis on which the Super Bowl Advisory Committee has recommended that those be the four leading candidates, subject in the case of New York/New Jersey to the improvement made to Giants Stadium in terms of fan service and what Super Bowl fans have come to expect.

On New York and Washington as possible Super Bowl sites for 2008:
There’s been a pretty strong sentiment among the ownership that New York is unique as a commercial center and entertainment center.  Washington is unique as the political capital of the United States and the location of the government.  I think the membership feels right now that each is in its own way unique.  I know the concept of more than one thing being unique is probably from a semantics standpoint not proper, but New York is unique in terms of entertainment and Washington is the center of the nation.  It’s a long step from there to any other northern city.

On issues remaining for 2007 Super Bowl in Miami:
It’s mostly a question of some details.  There doesn’t seem to be any major principle that’s an issue.  It has more to do with certain venues being specified for certain purposes.  We’re at the 97% point or higher in terms of what has to be accomplished having been accomplished. 

On the potential of making a deal with the L.A. Coliseum:
I’d rather not specify on that because I’m not entirely up to speed on what their current thinking is.  Rather than talk on a hypothetical basis, I’d rather wait and see what the concrete concept that they’re putting forth in terms of a re-design of the stadium and a business model.  I know there have been some discussions with representatives of the city and Coliseum and some of our key executives, but I haven’t had time to catch up on those discussions.

On the 2008 Super Bowl:
To more precise, the four cities will be invited to make presentations.  If they elect to do so, they will do so.  If they elect not to, that’s their option.  We can’t force anybody in the door.  We will make that decision on the 2008 Super Bowl host city in the meetings in Chicago in late October.

On playoff expansion:
The only extent of discussion of the playoffs was in my opening preview of the business on the agenda.  I mentioned the Competition Committee being 8-0 against adding any teams to the playoffs at this time, and I summarized some of the key points that the Competition Committee’s report made and I distributed the report to the members so they could read it themselves as they think about their own opinion on the proposal.  I don’t know if we’ll vote on it or not.  Normally, with the Competition Committee unanimously opposed to something that has competitive implications, we wouldn’t vote.  Here, it’s a mixture of a matter that has competitive implications as well as business implications.  It’s quite clear that there are a number of clubs in addition to the Competition Committee opposed to this, at least at this time.  That being the case, a vote would be just going through the motions.

On Washington and New York as possible Super Bowl sites for 2008 because of 9/11:
I’ve said about a dozen times that 9/11 was not a motivating factor in considering New York and Washington.  The question sort of assumes a point that is not a fair one.  We’re interested in Super Bowls in New York and Washington for the reasons I stated before.  They’re major population centers; they’re on one hand an entertainment center and on the other hand the political capital of the nation, if not the world.  They are in close proximity to many NFL fans of other teams.  We did an analysis of the percentage of the population that would be within a 250-mile drive of New York and Washington and it’s an unprecedented large number of fans that could go to New York or Washington and be cheering for their team in the Super Bowl.  There are a lot of factors and the events of 9/11 were never that critical in our own thinking.

On the Glazers’ possible purchase of the Dodgers…
We don’t have any concrete proposals from anybody – the Glazers or the Dodgers.  Until we get something in writing that outlines a concrete concept, I can only repeat what I said on the morning of the draft when I met with the AP sports editors.  To comply with our policies, any kind of intra-family ownership arrangement would have to rest on independent resources.   There couldn’t be direct or indirect involvement of the resources of the controlling owner of the NFL team.  There would have to be independent financing.  Again there couldn’t be any indirect or direct support of the controlling owner and it would have to be independent management.  Those are our basic guidelines.  Beyond that, I couldn’t comment unless we see something in writing.