PRO FOOTBALL NFL MEETINGS : Decisions on Super Bowl Weren’t Easily Made

When the NFL’s owners get together these days, they become a long-winded debating society in which as many as 20 distinct viewpoints are sometimes expressed on one subject by representatives of the 28 clubs.

Los Angeles and Phoenix, in the end, both won Super Bowl elections this week--when San Diego alone, among the competing cities, was shut out--but it didn’t happen easily:

--Los Angeles was awarded Super Bowl XXVII, which will be played in the Rose Bowl on Jan. 31, 1993, by a vote of 15-13 over San Diego, according to spokespersons with close links to the vote counter, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

--Phoenix was awarded Super Bowl XXX, the 1996 game, on a conditional basis that the NFL has yet to spell out.

One condition is believed to be that Arizona citizens vote for an annual paid holiday in the name of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Last year, they voted down a King Holiday--and Phoenix lost the 1993 Super Bowl as a result.

“Making it conditional was the stupidest thing we could have done,” said one influential NFL owner, whose team was in the playoffs this winter. “Basically, what we did was inject a controversial issue back into the Arizona picture.”

It happened because the league’s severely divided ownerships, after arguing for 3 1/2 hours Tuesday afternoon, couldn’t get a majority decision on how to handle Phoenix on any other terms.

Thus it was no surprise that when Super Bowl XXVII came up late Tuesday night, the first-round vote was spread so evenly between Los Angeles and San Diego that the league immediately abandoned its three-quarter rule--which calls for at least 21 aye votes for approval--to a simple-majority stipulation on the second round.

Even then, Los Angeles could win by only two votes.

“We’ll take it,” said David Simon, president of the Los Angeles Sports Council, who coordinated the Los Angeles plan. “Our bid was four years in the making. We were defeated twice in those four years but came back to win with a team effort--Pasadena, Orange County and Los Angeles. A lot of people worked very hard.”

The L.A. area’s coalition approach was decisive, in the view of the NFL’s Super Bowl site committee chairman, Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.

“The larger (Rose Bowl) helped Los Angeles against San Diego,” Braman said. “But they’ve had that large stadium before and lost out. The difference was the way the (Los Angeles area group) worked together. The Pasadena people were difficult to deal with when they were on their own--but not this time.”

As for the San Diego effort, Braman said: “San Diego is the No. 1 place we’ve ever had the game in terms of feedback from fans and corporate people. I’m sorry they lost--but this was one situation in which the NFL couldn’t lose.”

In Arizona, by contrast, the NFL can’t seem to win--although Phoenix Cardinal owner Bill Bidwill remains hopeful.

“The political situation has changed (in Arizona),” Bidwill said. “I believe the 1992 (King holiday) referendum will pass.”

Is the NFL attempting to influence the state’s voters by awarding the game conditionally?

“There is nothing in the (NFL-Phoenix) resolution about the 1992 vote,” Bidwill said.

Bill Shover, the Phoenix delegation’s chairman, said: “We don’t know what the conditions are.”

Tagliabue said: “The factors that go into the final decision will be determined when we make the final decision.”

Some Arizonans say that the key factor will be how the state’s residents interpret the action.

“If the NFL seems to be holding (the game) over our heads, some (Arizonans) will find it odious,” Arizona Republic columnist Bob Hurt said. “But economically, the state can’t afford to vote no. It will vote yes, I think, for the wrong reasons. The financial impact of a Super Bowl today, $175 million or more, is so heavy that not even a racist can afford to vote no.”

NFL Notes

NFL owners modified the controversial “in the grasp” rule in a way that should give quarterbacks such as John Elway and Randall Cunningham more leeway to scramble. “If a quarterback is scrambling from the pocket and one man gets his hand on him, he’s not down,” said Jerry Seeman, the league’s new supervisor of officials. “It takes effect only when the man is being held up and there are other defenders around to grab him. He can be in control but the whistle blows only when he’s in danger of injury.” . . . The owners also extended the ban on end-zone demonstrations to the sideline, making the Cincinnati Bengals subject to a fine if Ickey Woods does his shuffle on the sidelines.