NFL Meeting - Chicago, Illinois - May 23, 2001
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue - 1:00 p.m. Press Briefings

We started this morning with a short report from the two new leaders of our restructured officiating department, Mike Perriera and Larry Upson. I wanted to make sure that the owners had first hand exposure to Mike and Larry. One of the big things we have been doing with officiating in recent years is having more direct meetings between our department and the coaching staffs. There were some meetings like that here yesterday with special teams coaches talking about officiating on special teams play and with the head coaches as well. They also talked about officiating with regard to sportsmanship issues. We showed a video on the sportmanship package that was adopted by the membership in the March meetings, which is still a work in progress. At some point we will make copies of the final video and make them available to all of you, the teams and the players. We had some refinement of tampering policies and also on the game day rosters. All the deactivations will be made on game day now. The biggest thing we discussed this morning is continued league support for stadium construction. We talked about the general policy and how it is working. The general feeling is that it is working very well. We approved some interim steps there relative to the Arizona stadium and the final approval of the league’s support for the Green Bay stadium. All in all, we accomplished an incredible amount.  Some owners told me that they couldn’t remember any league meeting, certainly not since the early to mid-80’s, where as much was accomplished as was accomplished here in two and a half days. The realignment was just one illustration of how we can get to a good, strong consensus that produces a win-win situation for all 32 franchises and for the fans all across the country. Until further notice, the next big meeting will be in October.

Q: Paul, you haven’t talked about the L.A. verdict yet. Any feelings about that situation?

PT: The whole lawsuit was uncalled for in the first place. The resolution that set forth the league support for the Hollywood Park project was extremely generous. It was unprecedented in terms of the level of league support, financial support as well as non-financial support, and the deployment of the Super Bowl to a stadium project. For Al Davis to file a lawsuit in circumstances where he was treated more generously and more effectively than any team in the history of the league I thought was uncalled for. The verdict was what we expected. We felt that we had a very strong position on both claims. On the Hollywood Park claim, they had both voted for the resolution and announced when they were going to Oakland that the Hollywood Park project was viable for not one, but two other NFL teams. They stated that would look forward to other teams using that stadium in the future as they made their choice to go to Oakland. It began with a vote by the Raiders and ended with a press release by the Raiders saying everything was fine, so how you get a lawsuit out of that, I could never quite decipher. The claim that they owned the L.A. territory was even flimsier. The L.A. territorial claim goes back to the notion that when they settled litigation in 1989 they somehow acquired a $700 million asset from the league with no vote ever being taken by the membership, with the asset never being mentioned in the paper work, and with Commissioner Rozelle never being aware the asset was the subject matter of the transaction. That’s a pretty far-fetched concept not only legally, but also in terms of common sense.

Q: Is the Los Angeles territory now open?

PT: It is owned by the National Football League. As it has always been under our constitution and by-laws.

Q: Is it open to a team that would want to move here in the future?

PT: It is open to the NFL in the future, yes.

Q: How much do you think this helps the Los Angeles market from the standpoint that the Raiders question has been cleared up for now?

PT: Unfortunately, I don’t think it helps on that point. Such a marginal case should have never been filed in the first pace. Resolution of marginal matters ordinarily doesn’t contribute to solutions of difficult problems. Getting a team in L.A. is a difficult challenge for the league. We have 32 teams and we don’t have any current intention of expanding. Hopefully, this will contribute to an improvement in the Raiders operation in Oakland. I don’t think it has much bearing on where we are in terms of where we are in getting a NFL franchise to represent the league in Los Angeles.

Q: Is there any disciplinary action that may be taken against the Raiders as a result of the lawsuit? Is there anything in the constitution and by-laws that would give the league disciplinary recourse against the Raiders?

PT: All sports leagues by-laws contemplate that other owners through their executive committee or through other league authority can suspend an owner or take action on other conduct that is detrimental to the league. It’s happened in hockey. It’s happened in our league when I suspended Eddie DeBartolo. Our by-laws are clear. Other owners, as the executive committee of the league, can evaluate an owners conduct. They can determine whether it is a breach of the by-laws and act accordingly. At this point, people are focused on the 2001 season, realignment and a lot of other exciting things we are doing as a league. It is premature to say much more than that about that issue.

Q: But you wouldn’t rule it out?

PT: It is in the by-laws, so it is something that may be looked at down the road.

Q: Does the league plan to pursue recouping their legal fees?

PT: Yes.

Q: Is this a personal victory for you?

PT: I never viewed the case as a personal attack until it was twisted around in that way. The real affront here and the real insult are to the other owners. In 1995 at the Jacksonville meetings, the other teams put together a financial package and supported it enthusiastically. They left no stone unturned to try to get a stadium built for an owner. When that owner turns around and sues those other owners I think is outrageous. As a league in the last decade, we have been involved in more than 20 stadium projects successfully. That says something about our ability to do that and do it fairly. For this case to be filed when an owner makes a choice to go for a lucrative deal and then to turn that around and sue the other owners is more an insult to the owners than it is to me or any employee of the league. 

Q: Do you think that Al is permanently out of the loop?

PT: I don’t know where Al is. (laughs)

Q: Do you think Al Davis’ absence had anything to do with the incredible productivity of the meetings?

PT: Some owners certainly felt that way, yes.

Q: Did some owners raise the possibility at this meeting of sanctions against Mr. Davis, or at least bring the subject up? 

PT: They just asked our counsel what was in our by-laws and we gave them some advice. They wanted to get on with current business and worry about this issue in the future.

Q: So you do or do not anticipate movement on this front?

PT: It is a future matter.

Q: As far as stadium financing, do you think the fact that larger market teams are eligible for larger loans under the G-3 program runs counter to the economic structure of the league?

PT: No, not at all. Some of the stadiums in the larger markets will be more or less self-amortizing because of club seat and PSL arrangements. Others will require a league investment of television revenue. The whole underpinning of the G-3 program, which takes a very small amount of TV revenue and reinvests it in stadiums in big markets, is that we are generating additional large amounts of future TV revenue from those markets. As a team from a small market, you can invest a million dollars a year and in some future year get $100 million from television because we are represented in the big markets. That is a pretty good investment.

Q: Do you talk to Tom Benson about their negotiations with New Orleans for a stadium and how far apart they are?

PT: We didn’t talk about negotiations. He just told me he was trying to work with the governor to try to put together a package that would enable the Saints to increase their revenue and to compete. We didn’t get into any specifics. We didn’t have time for that, nor was there any real purpose for that.

Q: Fans in New Orleans see a Super Bowl coming to the Superdome this year and Tom Benson asking for a new stadium. There seems to be some kind of discrepancy there. It looks like the stadium is good enough for a Super Bowl. Why can’t the Saints play there?

PT: The primary issue is the support of the team. He (Benson) told me that there were 20 suites unsold in the Superdome, despite the fact that the Super Bowl and Final Four are coming. That is a bad sign in terms of support for the team by the business community. To me, the primary issue is support for the team. Season ticket sales are at 40,000. There has been no real improvement there despite the fact that the team had its finest season ever on the field. These are troubling signs. As contrasted in San Diego where there has been a rise in ticket sales due to the arrival of Doug Flutie, Marcellus Wiley, the number 1 pick and so forth. The issue is the same one that a number of people in New Orleans have. Business has been leaving and it is a small market to begin with. Even with a Super Bowl and a Final Four coming, it does not translate into support for the Saints.  

Q: With realignment passed, what is the timetable for reviewing the playoff format?

PT: There is a strong consensus that we will play at least a couple of seasons with the expanded 32-team league in the current alignment and scheduling formula before we visit the number of teams in the playoffs. We expanded the playoffs in the early 90s in anticipation of expansion, so we don’t have any catching up to do. We expanded the playoff teams before expansion. Right now the prevailing view is that the playoffs should not be expanded. One of the strengths of the NFL is the strength of the regular season. It is an achievement to make the playoffs and only good teams make it there. More teams added would dilute it. They want to have at least a couple of years with 32 teams and the new format before the issue is revisited.

Q: Is there any chance of doing the seeds differently? With 4 four-team divisions, you can have eight and eight…

PT: I think there is a proposal from the competition committee to do seedings differently, tiebreakers differently and possibly do some seeding. I have spoken with the competition committee about whether there should be seedings in the first round where a wild card would be seeded higher than a division winner with a worse record. You can play the opening round based on the division winner getting priority. Then you could seed the second round depending upon who won in the first week, plus the teams that got a bye in the first week. Both of those proposals have been discussed by the competition committee and will be further discussed at the fall meeting. 

Q: What are the specs of the agreement with Reebok and the Internet deal?

PT: This week we gave final approval to the Reebok partnership and yesterday we approved a 4-year extension of the Internet network through the 2005 season.

Q: With New Orleans and Minnesota and their stadium situations, is it perception or reality that without a state-of the-art facility it is difficult to compete in the NFL today?

PT: It is the reality. It is driven by our labor agreement. In order to have a level playing field in terms of the salary cap and free agency, you have to gear the labor agreement to league averages. Happily, we don’t have wide revenue disparities from the top to the bottom on a team level because we share the national TV revenues equally. You still have some disparities currently growing due to the quality of a stadium or a stadium arrangement. A team that is below average in revenue is at a serous disadvantage because the cap and free agency are geared toward the average. That is a challenge. We try to deal with that partly through our special revenue sharing pool. Any system geared toward the average is going to disadvantage the people who are below average and worse yet, the people who are significantly below average. New Orleans and Minnesota are probably part of that group.  

Q: For the next few years is this just the way it is going to be, with everyone campaigning for new stadiums?

PT: Well, as I said, If you had an average and everybody is grouped around that average then you would have some issues, but you wouldn’t have a severe handicap. When you have people that are so far from the average that they are outliers, then you have a problem. That turns a problem into an acute problem.

Generally, we are doing a good job of keeping most of the teams within the average.

Q: Does Arizona fall into that group or have they received funds this week?

PT: Arizona didn’t get money this week. We dealt with their debt ceiling and their ability to invest their own money in the stadium project. We haven’t yet addressed the question of league support for the Arizona project other than to say that they will receive support under our policy.

Q: Can you elaborate on the change in the tampering policy?

PT: It is designed to enable front office people to have somewhat greater flexibility under their team contracts to be considered for club president and general manager positions. It is similar to what we did a few years ago with the coaching positions, where we tried to give assistant coaches more upward mobility toward the head coaching position. This is designed to give front office employees more upward mobility, but not mobility for a lateral move.

Q: Is this based on duties, or…

PT: Yes. It’s based upon the fact they would be either getting a president’s or general manager’s position and responsibilities. There is some language in there about “or a position with similar responsibilities,” so you have to make the judgement. There could be some situations that could have a gray area and it would be up to the commissioner to decide whether the position being offered was equivalent of a club president or a general manager in another organization. The example was used in Dallas where Jerry Jones is the President and he may want to have someone called Executive VP of Operations that may be the equivalent in the Dallas organization of a president in some other organizations. We have discussed those issues.

Q: Was there a specific instance that led to this change being adopted or was it…

PT: If there is, it was not something that we got into at this meeting. This is something that we have discussed on and off for a while.

Q: Can you expand on the leagues’ opinion regarding the Cowboys decision to be the only team distributor in the Reebok deal?

PT: I don’t know if they made that decision. We didn’t negotiate it as a Cowboys decision or a Cowboys option. We negotiated it with Reebok.  The way we discussed it with our committee, including Jerry Jones, was that it’s an option that any number of clubs may wish to consider depending upon the retailing in their area.

Q: Is there a chance for them to make extra money on the deal?

PT: It is a chance for any team to make extra money. In order to make extra money, you have to take on a considerable amount of extra risk. So there is a risk/reward that usually goes into making money.

Q: Is a collective bargaining agreement extension close?

PT: We have had half a dozen good meetings since March with Gene Upshaw and his people. We are getting into some areas that are good for the system. Higher minimum salaries, performance based pay, we are making some really good progress.

Q: Any discussion on your option with the Arena Football League?

PT: We had quite a bit of discussion on Monday and Tuesday with regard to the Arena Football League. We are focusing on what the arena and arena2 leagues are, and what are the positive aspects of these leagues that NFL teams see. There are a number of positive viewpoints. Dallas has got a positive view for reasons that relate to Dallas. The Lions and Saints also see some really positive aspects in their markets. We will come back this fall and have what I call the NFL overview of the arena league and whether we should exercise our option or options.

Q: As a former basketball player, you must have views on what is going on in the NBA with high school athletes declaring themselves eligible for the draft. Can you envision there ever being an 18- or 19-year old high school graduate that would attempt to play in the NFL?

PT: You can never say never. I read an article the other day about genetic engineering of athletes. Maybe that’s where we are headed. It’s a little hard for me to see that as a serious possibility. More importantly, our football people are quite clear that it takes a good deal of both physical and mental maturity to be able to compete I the NFL and they don’t see any likelihood that someone can make the jump from high school sports to the NFL.