Is Money the Root of Super Success? : Cashing In : Despite the Example Set by 49ers, Some NFL Owners Insist That Titles Can’t Be Bought With High Salaries

Matt Millen was flying high.

A few days earlier, shortly before last season’s opener, the linebacker was cut by the Raiders after nine years. Now he was on a plane back to Los Angeles from his Pennsylvania home at the invitation of the other team in town.

Arriving in Anaheim, Millen, 31, felt as if he landed in Fantasyland. In a week, he went from unwanted to invaluable. The Rams liked what they saw when they worked him out. With linebackers Fred Strickland and Larry Kelm injured, Millen could be plugged right in as a starter, he was told. He would be their nose linebacker.

Only one problem.

Ram economics being what they are, Millen was informed he couldn’t expect the same $450,000 he was paid by the Raiders. The highest the Rams would go was $300,000.

Millen was still willing to sign. But, he figured, to be fair to himself, he first would hop up to San Francisco to talk to the 49ers, who also expressed some interest.

Unlike the Rams, the 49ers didn’t have a spot open. They weren’t sure how much Millen would play. But they were willing to pay him the full $450,000 even though one game had already been played.

Goodby Rams.

Hello Super Bowl.

As it turned out, linebacker Jim Fahnhorst suffered a broken arm, Millen became a starter and helped the 49ers again get past the Rams, their arch division rivals, en route to another Super Bowl title.

Again, an image was reinforced: The bottom line for the Rams is money. The bottom line for the 49ers is winning.

Although the Rams will heatedly argue their side of that image, there is no argument about the 49ers. They are the exception to the NFL rule, exceptional on the field where winning games is everything.

San Francisco won four Super Bowls in the 1980s, including the last two. However, backed by owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr., a billionaire shopping-mall magnate, the team reportedly has lost about $20 million in the last four years.

In today’s economic climate in the NFL, with clubs playing to more than 90% capacity, a 60-40 split of the live gate between the teams and shared revenue in everything from telecast money to NFL properties, does it pay for any club to spend big bucks to produce a winner?

“There is a tremendous difference between football and baseball,” said Stephen Ross, who teaches sports law at the University of Illinois law school. “With just eight (home) games, most football teams sell out most of their games even if they are mediocre. So, there is no financial motive for success.

“For example, (several) years ago, Walter Payton was a free agent. Nobody made an effort to sign him even though, at the time, he was at the peak of his ability. The reason was, they would have had to sign him to a huge salary increase that wouldn’t be reflected with an increase in revenues. If all home games are sellouts, and the broadcast revenue they get is the same whether they are 16-0 or 0-16, why spend money to improve the team?

“When Pete Rose became a free agent (a decade ago) and was signed by the Phillies, they gave him a big salary, but that was immediately reflected in higher advertising rates for radio and an increase in season-ticket sales. That is not going to happen in football.”

Art Modell, who has owned the Cleveland Browns for nearly 30 years and is still waiting to go to his first Super Bowl, doesn’t agree.

“That’s nonsensical,” Modell said. “There’s no validity to it. This is just another myth perpetrated. Any owner who doesn’t want to win should get the hell out. There is no amount I wouldn’t fill in on a check to get into a Super Bowl. I couldn’t put a price tag on what it would mean. We are so overdue.”

Modell has an ally in Will McDonough, long-time Boston Globe sportswriter and television analyst.

“The idea that there is no motivation to win is totally a farce,” McDonough said. “I’ve been around the game 30 years, and I haven’t known one owner who did not want to win.”

No argument from Joel Buchsbaum, associate editor of Pro Football Weekly.

“I definitely think they try everything to win,” he said. “That’s the reason owners are giving out big contracts and signing Plan B guys to big amounts that are getting ridiculous. You are dealing with 28 big egos, and they all want to be No. 1. The bottom line is completely the won-and-lost record with them.

“Some clubs are more realistic financially and don’t want to lose $5 million a year. They back the bottom line more heavily than other clubs do. The (Cincinnati) Bengals got to the Super Bowl and were one play away from winning it. And who’s more bottom-line conscious than the Bengals? Who knows more about football than (General Manager) Paul Brown?”

The bottom line, according to Buchsbaum, is not always a straight line, either. A bottom line on salaries is not necessarily the same thing as a bottom line on expenses.

“(New York Giant General Manager) George Young didn’t want to give Lawrence Taylor $2 million, but they are not a bottom-line team,” Buchsbaum said. “When Karl Nelson got cancer, no expense was spared, including hiring a limo to bring his wife to the hospital. Same kind of thing when Dan Lloyd and John Tuggle got sick. Everything that could have been done was done. When others had drug problems, rehab was paid for even though they knew they were going to have to let some of those people go.

“Clubs are cheap in certain areas. They show bad judgment, don’t know how to treat people in certain cases, but the overriding factor is the big ego and the desire to win.”

Modell concedes that should he ever win it all, he is not expecting a pot of gold at the end of his Super Bowl rainbow.

“There is no great financial reward for winning,” he said. “The difference between football and, say, baseball or basketball is the frequency of play. We play 16 games compared to 162 in baseball. If Nolan Ryan pitches in Milwaukee, they may sell out. Or they may go from a crowd of 18,000 to 30,000.

“Take the Minnesota Twins. They won the World Series and went from 2 million to 3 million (attendance). We don’t have that. Winning may translate into a small reward the next year for us. The following year, there might be a difference in season-ticket sales, up or down. You might raise ticket prices or get a bigger radio contract.

“But there is not much of a financial gain from the Super Bowl. There is no reward in winning. The reward is the glory of winning.”

Nor does Modell buy the theory that being an NFL owner automatically means opening the stadium gates and watching the money flow through.

“Most NFL teams in recent years have been losing money,” Modell said. “You can’t forecast what is going to happen, despite the TV contracts. The idea everyone is making money is a fallacious bit of propaganda put out by the players association. The player salaries keep going up and up, with no end in sight. The Browns have been marginally profitable or a loser for years. We are usually hovering around the break-even point. That’s the cost of doing business.”

NFL teams losing money? Doug Allen, assistant executive director of the NFL Players Assn., disagrees.

“That’s poppycock,” Allen said. “They have just negotiated a TV contract that raises every team from $17 million to an average of $34 million over four years. And that’s not counting gate receipts, luxury boxes, money from NFL Films.

“The money from NFL Properties alone is now in excess of $50 million. The owners have increased their total revenue 50%. It’s corporate socialism.

“They are developing new markets in Japan and Europe. They are exploring corporate ownership of teams. They are discussing expansion, which would bring in expansion fees. I don’t think anyone believes they are losing money. We think every team in the NFL is making money.

“And it’s not only what their net profit in a year is. It’s the appreciation of a team’s value. You’re talking about a tremendous amount over the last five, 10, 15 years. We think the average team is now worth in the neighborhood of $100 million.”

According to the players association, clubs will bring in an average of $5 million a year from sources other than national TV in each of the next four seasons. Add to that the TV money and the total is $39 million.

The players association estimates that clubs will spend an average of $14.5 million this year on non-player costs, that figure rising to $21 million by 1993.

The 49ers have the top payroll in the league, $19.6 million, a figure guaranteed to increase by 1993. Add to that the $21 million in costs and the total is about $40 million, about the same as the revenue figure, meaning a break-even situation.

Ross, an impartial observer, thinks the won-lost record on the ledger, much like on the field, comes down to a numbers game.

“The actual profit-loss statements are meaningless because of tax factors and other factors involved,” he said. “It’s an accounting nightmare that is just not very meaningful.

“The key test as to whether teams are profitable is when they are sold, what are they going for? Only an idiot pays millions more for a property than the previous buyer when it is a money-losing proposition. If franchises were losing money, you would see a decline in what they are sold for. If they were losing money, the owners would be selling for less than they sold for in the past. If that happened, you could say football was in trouble. But that is clearly not happening.”

Profit and loss, according to McDonough, comes down to individual philosophy.

“The (Chicago) Bears and the Bengals make money and they’ll be proud to tell you that,” he said. “Some owners are smart enough to make money even if they finish last. The reason most lose money is that they are overspending, trying to get a winner.”

Allen sees a direct correlation between paying well and playing well.

“The highest-paying teams are usually the winning teams,” he said. “It’s no accident that Tampa Bay has one of lowest payrolls in the league. The way the system works, it costs you money to win by having a higher payroll.

“Now we don’t want to suggest that an owner can necessarily buy dominance. George Steinbrenner tried that in baseball and it didn’t work. You have to spend wisely, not just spend to spend.”

Which brings the argument back to San Francisco. Has DeBartolo bought a dynasty or merely rewarded one? Did he have to empty his pockets to fill his trophy case?

DeBartolo, under investigation by NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue for putting the 49ers under his corporate umbrella, refused to comment on the operation of his team until the investigation is complete.

Others had no such reservations.

“The 49ers flew the entire team to Hawaii to celebrate (this) year,” McDonough said. “They spent $250,000 on one team party. The wives get Christmas gifts that are worth thousands. The 49ers go first class, and they don’t mind telling you about it. That’s why they are losing money.

“But would they have won all those Super Bowls without Joe Montana? You can do all those things, all the parties, but if you do not have him, you are not going to win four Super Bowls. You are not winning because you are treating the players right.

“They win because they did the best job of drafting in the ‘80s. (Director of scouting) Tony Razzano got the best 47 players. The 49ers didn’t buy their team. They drafted it almost entirely.”

Modell bristles at the idea that DeBartolo keeps beating him out because of desire.

“Nobody is more anxious or has a greater desire to win than any other club,” Modell said. “Wanting to win is a desire found throughout the league, not just in San Francisco. I would give them all the credit in the world. But that does not lessen the desire of others.”

But who was it who cornered the Plan B free-agent market last spring?

Instead of resting on his laurels, DeBartolo acted like a man fearful of never winning a title, like a man as desperate as, well, as Modell says he is.

It was DeBartolo, not Modell, who filled his roster with aging veterans from other clubs as backup insurance at key positions. He got Cleveland cornerback Hanford Dixon (who has since retired) for two years at $1 million, Buffalo Bill nose tackle Fred Smerlas for a year at $750,000, New Orleans safety Dave Waymer for three years at $1.8 million, and Atlanta Falcon center Wayne Radloff for a year at $330,000.

The 49ers lost only one player, wide receiver Terry Greer, to Plan B.

In comparison, the Rams, who have been to only one Super Bowl and lost that one a decade ago, signed only three Plan B players, none on defense, where they appeared to need the most help. They lost five of their 16 Plan B players this year and 12 of 17 last year.

According to the players association, the 49er payroll for last season was the highest in the league at $19.6 million. That does not include incentives or postseason and exhibition pay. The league average was $15.5 million. The Raiders were ninth in the league at $16.6 million. The Rams were at $12.6 million, as were the Pittsburgh Steelers. Only two clubs, the New Orleans Saints at $12.2 million and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers at $10 million, were lower.

“Clearly, the Rams are trying to get to the Super Bowl,” Coach John Robinson said. “We have been among the top teams for seven or eight years. Our record speaks to our trying to do everything to win while running a successful business as well.

“There’s no question (the 49ers) have done a great job in terms of organization. But there are not many businesses that can say, ‘Hey, let’s take a financial loss so we can be successful.”

It has been difficult for Robinson, trying to win in an organization in which the owner, Georgia Frontiere, must depend on her team to survive financially against an organization in which survival is not an issue because of the financial empire behind it.

“There are frustrations in any business,” Robinson said. “It’s unrealistic to say there are no problems in any kind of business, but I feel we have done things that have allowed us to win. That’s our overall philosophy, and the proof is that we have won. The decision to trade for (quarterback Jim) Everett and a number of other things that have been done have made us competitive.”

Yet every year, it seems, the Rams have been embroiled in season-disrupting contract disputes, from Eric Dickerson several years ago to Henry Ellard and to Kevin Greene this year.

“Some teams, no matter what, are going to make money,” McDonough said. “The Rams are certainly one of them.”

But John Shaw, the executive vice president who keeps the Rams on the plus side of the ledger year after year, insists that the Rams aren’t losing the football wars to the 49ers because he is losing the battle of the checkbooks.

“If you operate on the premise that the one who pays the most money gets the best team, I guess it would be difficult to compete,” he said. “But I don’t think it has any correlation. Look at some of the highest-paying teams, and they are not even in the playoffs; teams like the (New York) Jets and the (Washington) Redskins who, last year, were in the top four or five in payroll and were not even in the playoffs.

“If there was a system of total free agency, then the dollars would become the absolute difference. The team with the most dollars would theoretically get the best players. But with restricted free agency, it’s difficult to ascertain.

“I think (the 49ers’) success is due to good coaching, good players and good organization. I don’t think anything else would be relevant unless there was total free agency.”

Allen, for obvious reasons, would love to see that.

“If there was free movement, the premium would be on smart management,” he said. “The system the way it is now disguises mediocrity. A team like Tampa Bay loses and can blame it on the system. If we achieve free agency and the teams don’t win, the fans will place the blame where it belongs, on the people selecting the players.”

If money is not the motivating force in getting to a Super Bowl, it is not a force on the playing field on Super Sunday, said McDonough, than it is in the owner’s box.

“You think the money in the Super Bowl ($75,000 to each winning player) means anything to Joe Montana?” McDonough said. “Not a damn thing. He is playing for pride, reputation and a place in history.

“Maybe to the 40th to the 47th player, $75,000 means a lot. But that player doesn’t have an affect on the game because he is sitting on the bench.”

Ross thinks that should change.

“Some players have suggested a sensible plan, to take a portion of the shared revenue of the owners and award it on a percentage basis to winning teams in the Super Bowl,” he said. “Perhaps 10% would go to the Super Bowl winner, 5% to the runner-up and 2 1/2% to the conference champs. A huge pot would provide a huge incentive to teams to strive to be the best they can be.”

For now, the system remains the same--the rich get richer on the field, everybody gets rich in the front office, but only the big spenders seem to get to the Super Bowl.

NFL PAYROLLS

In millions, not including incentives, exhibition and postseason pay and benefits.

Team: Amount

San Francisco 49ers: $19.6

New York Jets: 19.4

Cleveland Browns: 17.8

Phoenix Cardinals: 17.8

Philadelpha Eagles: 17.6

Washington Redskins: 17.4

New York Giants: 17.2

Denver Broncos: 17.1

Raiders: 16.6

Kansas City Chiefs: 16.3

Dallas Cowboys: 16.2

Buffalo Bills: 16.1

New England Patriots: 15.9

Houston Oilers: 15.9

Minnesota Vikings: 15.7

Miami Dolphins: 15.3

Chicago Bears: 15.2

Detroit Lions: 15.0

Indianapolis Colts: 14.9

Green Bay Packers: 14.8

Atlanta Falcons: 14.6

Seattle Seahawks: 14.4

San Diego Chargers: 14.2

Cincinnati Bengals: 13.0

Rams: 12.6

Pittburgh Steelers: 12.6

New Orleans Saints: 12.2

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 10.0

Average: 15.5