San Diego Officials Optimistic Game Will Make a Return Visit

San Diego re-emerged Wednesday as a contender for the 1993 Super Bowl after the National Football League announced that its decision to have Phoenix host the game was endangered because of Arizona’s failure to pass referenda honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Members of the San Diego Super Bowl Task Force were stunned earlier this year when the city’s bid to host the ’93 event was thrown out on the first ballot. But like a phoenix rising from the ashes, San Diego now appears reborn with Phoenix on the outs.

The Washington Post quoted “a source close to (NFL Commissioner Paul) Tagliabue” as saying there was an “80% chance” the game would be relocated to San Diego.

In March, Phoenix edged out San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles for the right to host the much-coveted game, which experts say represents a windfall in excess of $150 million for the host city.

Mayor Maureen O’Connor sent a letter to Tagliabue on Wednesday, expressing interest in having the NFL consider San Diego its alternate host. Paul Downey, a spokesman for the mayor, said the $125 million brought into the city by Super Bowl XXII in 1988 was a big reason.

Asked if San Diego had a chance to grab the ’93 game, Downey said, “Absolutely, absolutely. Many of the pundits earlier this year said San Diego and Los Angeles were the favorites, but (Phoenix Cardinals’ owner) Bill Bidwill literally begged fellow owners.”

Bidwill’s dream of having the game in Phoenix appeared doomed late Tuesday after Arizona voters rejected two ballot initiatives, either of which would have designated a state holiday in honor of the civil rights leader, who was slain in 1968.

Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, chairman of the NFL’s Super Bowl Site Selection Committee, said earlier this year that he would spearhead a drive to have Phoenix removed as host if the King initiatives failed.

Chargers’ owner Alex Spanos said Wednesday he would support Braman in moving the game elsewhere--specifically, to San Diego.

“I was very disappointed we didn’t get it last March,” Spanos said from his Stockton office. “I thought we had a great chance to get it then. My opinion is that it belongs there (San Diego). I’m sorry Phoenix is having the problems it’s having, but I would love it if we would have it in (San Diego) Jack Murphy Stadium.”

Spanos said he’s hopeful the Chargers will have a team capable of playing in the Super Bowl by 1993.

“That would be the best thing of all,” he said. “But I make no predictions. I quit doing that last year.”

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Wednesday the issue would not be on the agenda at a meeting of league owners for next Wednesday in Dallas.

Asked whether the new site would be limited to those cities that finished behind Phoenix in balloting for the ’93 game, or whether a wide-open competition would result, Aiello said, “We just can’t say. We had no plans for an alternate site, for the likelihood that this might happen.”

But Leon Parma, a member of the executive committee of the San Diego Super Bowl Task Force, said Wednesday he had conferred with several NFL owners who assured him the new site would be limited to those cities that finished behind Phoenix in the balloting for ’93.

Parma said league owners were “high on San Diego” because of the success of the 1988 Super Bowl, which then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle labeled “the best ever.” Parma noted that Rozelle is now a resident of Fairbanks Ranch in North San Diego County.

Eagles’ owner Braman, who led the anti-Phoenix lobby, is an officer of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in Miami, one of his two cities of residence. One of the United States’ leading supporters of Israel, Braman also is active in Miami’s black community.

“I know Norman Braman to be a man with a strong social conscience,” said Arthur Teitelbaum, Southern area director for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. “I’m not surprised at all that he’s taken a position that expresses such concern and sensitivity to the memory of Dr. King.”

But, ironically, San Diego has had its own controversies in how to honor the civil rights leader, and some community figures speculated Wednesday that its reluctance to pay proper tribute may play a role in the Super Bowl sweepstakes.

Market Street was re-named in honor of Dr. King, then named Market Street again after area merchants complained. A proposal to have the San Diego Convention Center named after King was rejected. And, finally, a portion of California 94 was dedicated in King’s memory.

“Maybe the NFL will put the same conditions on San Diego,” said City Councilman Wes Pratt, who is black.

But Pratt said he supports the city’s bid to host the game in 1993 and added, “We do honor his holiday in the state and the county, and the city now has a floating holiday (in honor of Dr. King). We have a degree of responsiveness here that you just don’t have in Phoenix. And I certainly urge the mayor to rekindle the efforts to get the game here. It represents a tremendous economic boon and opportunity for the city.”

Pratt said San Diego’s chances for bringing the game here as a result of Arizona’s controversy over King may focus attention “on the memory of the man in a positive way. The city is considering a multitude of ideas (for honoring King), one of which is a scholarship fund for children. Things are happening with this issue. It’s not dead, it’s not dying, and the city will be forced to deal with it further because of this Super Bowl question.”