Q&A; WITH PETE ROZELLE : Former NFL Commissioner Looks Back on First Super Bowl and Looks Ahead at Possible Ramifications of New Agreement

After nearly a 30-year reign as commissioner of the NFL, a semi-retired Pete Rozelle continues to watch over the NFL from afar--in this case, his San Diego County office on the grounds of a thoroughbred training complex once owned by the late Gene Klein.

Rozelle, 66, left the league shortly before the end of the 1989 season, but continues to serve as an NFL consultant on occasion. He is best known for helping engineer the merger of the American and National Football Leagues, for sparking the love affair between television and pro football, for putting a lot of money into the owners’ pockets, for feuding with Raider owner Al Davis over franchise relocation and for designing a spectacle now known as the Super Bowl. Not bad for someone elected on the 23rd ballot by NFL owners.

The first Super Bowl--although it was not known that way until much later--was played Jan. 15, 1967, at the Los Angeles Coliseum: The Green Bay Packers of the NFL vs. the Kansas City Chiefs of the AFL. Vince Lombardi vs. Hank Stram. Tradition vs. chutzpah.

It was a time of wonder and daring for Rozelle. At stake was a sport’s reputation. If the Super Bowl worked, then its future was all but guaranteed.

Lombardi, of course, was in rare form. Worried that his mighty Packers were too concerned with the beauty of his team’s Santa Barbara training facility, he ordered the Green Bay offense to run all plays away from view of the nearby mountain range.

And according to the late Shelby Strother’s book, “The NFL Top 40: The Greatest Pro Football Games of All Time,” Lombardi told reporters that week that he had never seen an AFL game, in person or on television.

“Come on, Vince, even Pete Rozelle has seen at least one AFL game,” someone said.

“Maybe Pete has more time than I do,” Lombardi answered.

Not that week he didn’t.

Rozelle will make his annual appearance at the Super Bowl next Sunday and savor every moment of it. In a sense, he is the proprietor of the event, its keeper of sorts.

But in the three years since his departure, the NFL has undergone change, the most dramatic a new collective bargaining agreement with players. During a recent afternoon at his modest office, Rozelle discussed the evolving nature of the league he helped build.

Question: Can you give us an idea of how much football you watch? Are you able to watch it as a fan or as a former NFL commissioner?

Answer: I guess it’s basically as a fan, but I think I still have some of the old commissioner feelings in me because you’re basically for close games, upsets, games that tend to create close races. I have a satellite and three sets so I can watch the games.

Q: What has the transition been like?

A: I go back to New York six or seven times a year and see different people. I talk on the phone occasionally to (NFL Commissioner Paul) Tagliabue and more frequently to some of the others and offer suggestions when they’re asked for, but nothing appreciable. It’s their ballgame.

Q: Was it hard to wean yourself from that?

A: It really wasn’t. I was just two months short of 30 years. The way I looked at it, it was a marvelous lucky experience and I was grateful. But 29 years and 10 months was enough.

Q: Do you feel as if you were there at the very best time of this league?

A: Yes, very definitely. That was one of the reasons I was so fortunate. It was a period of growth and until the latter stages, there wasn’t as much litigation. There was always some and we worked very hard getting two bills through Congress: one to create the right to sell the rights to the package to network television; the other, which led to the first Super Bowl game here--the antitrust exemption to the merger.

We announced the merger in June of ’66. We outlined what would take place, including expansion. Had to get approval for it. We went to Congress and finally got that bill through about the 21st of October in ’66. And then we formally announced the game, which may have been one of the reasons it didn’t sell out. I think on Dec. 13 (we announced the game would be played) Jan. 15 at the Coliseum. We sent people out here, about a half dozen from the league office and some Ram people to help put on the game about three weeks before.

We had 93,000 capacity and the ticket prices were $12, $10 and $8 in the Coliseum. Local media, including (Melvin) Durslag, needled us for the cost of our tickets. Now they’re $175.

We had the headquarters at the downtown Hilton Hotel. We had about 650 media representatives, about a quarter of what they have now. And it was strange because all the league cities didn’t send representatives from the press. We were very surprised at that, particularly in retrospect. It was really a rushed arrangement. That was one of the reasons we were almost 32,000 short of capacity.

During that season . . . (Dallas Cowboy owner) Clint Murchison Jr. had a friend in the electronics business. He felt he could set up an arrangement whereby you could synchronize the clock the official held on the field with the stadium clock, so that the fans would know specifically how much time was left.

Anyway, he came into L.A. Thursday before the game. He worked on it that day and also on Friday and Saturday and Sunday morning and it worked perfectly. Remember the old metal hands on the old peristyle clock in the Coliseum? Well, any changes made on the official clock were reflected right there on the big metal hands. When they kicked off, the official punched his clock and it reflected electronically on the scoreboard clock and on the metal hands, whereupon one of them fell off.

The old metal clock. Metal fatigue got to them. In a panic I called Don Weiss (NFL director of planning) on the intercom in the press box and said, “Dammit, what’s wrong with the clock?”

Q: Was there ever a time leading up to that game where you felt like saying, “What have I done?”

A: That was a wild week. Both networks did the game. The NFL network was CBS and the AFL was NBC. Each network paid $1 million, so we got $2 million for the television rights. They valued it for a two-week period: Super Sunday.

After that, the following Christmas, (Kansas City Chief owner) Lamar Hunt’s son, Lamar Jr., got one of those Super Balls, you know, one of those balls that bounced forever. Well, between the networks calling it Super Sunday and Lamar’s son getting that Super Ball and Lamar talking about it, we called it the Super Bowl for Super Bowl III.

There was a lot of hysteria. Each network was vying for audience, so they just promoted it like crazy. We got 60 million viewers. That’s about half of what we get now, though, obviously there are more sets in use now.

Q: Were you happy with the $2-million rights fees?

A: Oh, yeah. I forget what we got before that (for the NFL championship game), probably $500,000, $600,000.

Q: Was there any doubt that this game would work?

A: No, because I thought it had the basis of a rivalry that had existed since 1960 between the two leagues. Lombardi trained the Packers in Santa Barbara and Kansas City was in Long Beach.

One thing the guys reminded me of was that before we picked the Coliseum, the committee representing both leagues wanted the Rose Bowl. But the Big Ten and Pacific Coast Conference, they were both critical in raising problems with the Rose Bowl people.

Q: So the Rose Bowl was the first choice?

A: Of the committee, the majority of them.

Q: What game did you like better, that sort of homey, friendlier Super Bowl or the glittery, big Super Bowls of today?

A: It’s gotten awfully big, it really has. But it was never small after that first one. There were sellouts all the time and pressure for tickets. And it’s a major factor in television negotiations now.

Q: What’s your favorite thing about the Super Bowl?

A: I think just being part of something that gets so much national attention.

Q: Is that what separates it from anything else?

A: Oh, that and how much the coaches, owners and players want it, which is reflected in the winning dressing room each year.

Q: Did you ever come close to dropping that trophy?

A: No, but I remember when we had Tiffany create it and Lamar Hunt didn’t think it was that attractive. He was taken with the hockey cup (the Stanley Cup) that goes back years and years. Until he won it. Then he thought it was beautiful.

We had a lot of compromising we had to do in that first game. We used a Wilson ball when the NFL was on offense and a Spalding ball when the AFL was on offense.

We had six officials, three NFL and three AFL.

Q: Sounds likes treaty negotiations.

A: They were very anxious on both sides. They didn’t want to give any edge away.

Q: Do you have problems with the price of the Super Bowl ticket or is that just the nature of how this game has developed?

A: We always underpriced the game. Naturally it lends itself to scalpers. It still does, regardless of how much we change it. I just feel that all major entertainment events have increased so much and I think the Super Bowl has (increased) along with it.

Q: If it weren’t underpriced, how much do you think a Super Bowl ticket would go for?

A: I know of a (person) who told me the other day that two tickets changed hands for $1,500 apiece, which amazed me.

Q: You’ll be at the game?

A: Yeah. I hope this year’s game will be particularly meaningful because, hopefully, we’ll start an era of cooperation and harmony between the players and owners. Maybe we can go after getting all that litigation and so forth out of the way.

Q: Did you see the one television shot of Tagliabue and NFL Players Assn. Executive Director Gene Upshaw sitting together at one of the conference championship games? What was your reaction to that?

A: Well, I was happy to see it, for one. I think most of the animosity really involved attorneys on the players’ association side and on the owners’ side probably.

Q: What do you think of the new agreement?

A: Well, I think both sides should be able to live with it. It will bring about a lot of big change. To be successful, I think both sides will have to cooperate to make it work. Obviously there are a lot of ramifications that will have to be ironed out as we go along. I’m sure no agreement can cover all of these.

Q: What do you think the main ramifications are down the road?

A: It will certainly change the financial rewards of the game. The top players obviously will receive a lot more and the owners are going to have to generate more income to pay for it.

Gene (Upshaw) had a lot of pressure on him. The players’ association, the presidents in the past--and I wasn’t aware of this--and the agents were involved filing some litigation and putting a lot of pressure on Gene. He had a lot of elements he was trying to satisfy, just as Paul does in New York.

Q: Do you think this was inevitable, this free agency of sorts?

A: A form of it, I thought, was inevitable. I didn’t know what it would be.

Q: Is it good or bad for the game, long term?

A: Again, it depends on the degree of cooperation that both sides can show.

Q: You speak about the idea of more money needed by the owners to pay for these salaries. With the television situation as it is, where does the money come from?

A: For the most part, I think, it’s going to have to come from stadium arrangements. That’s going to be the big differential between clubs. And also it could enable all the clubs to satisfy their part of their obligation to the agreement. We’re talking about stadium boxes and they’re all individually negotiated.

Q: And if you don’t have a favorable situation in that regard?

A: You’ll have difficulty competing.

Q: Think of the Pittsburgh Pirates or Seattle Mariners in baseball. Is that the same type of situation?

A: Well, we’re lucky to have the television income, at least pretty well provided. The New York Yankees in baseball, for example, have a $50-million-a-year, 10-year contract for cable. That gives them an awful advantage over a place like San Diego.

Q: Whereas football is a little more evenly distributed?

A: At least on television. The big difference, as I said, will be in the stadium arrangements.

Q: You were always hesitant to allow franchises to move from one city to the other. Do you think this new form of free agency will promote that?

A: In time, depending on how it works, it sure could. If someone in a market couldn’t make it work . . . like it happened to (San Francisco Giant owner) Bob Lurie in baseball.

Q: For the fan who just reads the sports pages and is more interested in box scores and game summaries and standings and doesn’t understand what all this means, can you give that person a best-case scenario and a worst-case scenario on what this new agreement means?

A: The best case, the key thing, of course, will be the movement of players because that dilutes the effect of the draft over time. The draft was always the big thing that allowed smaller markets--and the sharing of income--to compete, why Green Bay could compete with a New York or Chicago or Dallas. Now, if Lombardi had Paul Hornung and Bart Starr, they could get a big offer from New York or Chicago. In today’s agreed-to system, there probably wouldn’t have been a Packer dynasty. That’s on the downside.

On the optimum side, which is what we have to look at, you hope there will be a system of economic means through shared gate receipts and shared television that ballclubs can compete reasonably well and that the clubs losing players will be able to augment their team with free agents from other clubs. The draft is now only seven rounds, so that’s going to be a money situation. In other words, clubs will aggressively go out and sign a lot of free agents.

Q: So all things considered, do you like the new agreement?

A: I haven’t discussed it enough to evaluate it. I know the feeling is that they feel it can work, both sides do. I know that a lot of things can happen with that type of system. The optimum would be that some teams can replenish players lost to free agency with players from other teams who were acquired the same way. That would be the optimum. The downside would be if they can’t.

It’s a very delicate thing. A player will say: “In any other profession--doctor, lawyer, newspaperman--he can move and work wherever he wants. Why shouldn’t we be able to?”

From an owner’s side, the owner says: “Well, the problem is we need structure. The product isn’t just that individual’s work. The product is the competition, the entertainment created by playing another team. Another doctor or lawyer doesn’t have to compete with another one in the same field. But in sports the entertainment is created by the battles, the competition. So unfortunately you have to worry a little about the teams you’re competing with in order to achieve maximum entertainment value.”

Q: But that’s created by the players, isn’t it?

A: Sure, absolutely. I’m saying those are the two sides of the coin. The players say they should be able to play anywhere they want and the owners say they need some sort of structure, so you don’t have haves and have-nots.

If you have wealthy men and teams who have inordinate amounts of money and want to spend it, it would be much like the NFL in the old days: several teams dominating.

Q: Not putting words in your mouth, but it sounds as if the downside could be that the NFL could become major league baseball, where there exists those haves and have-nots.

A: To a certain extent, I think it has. Baseball . . . one of its problems is the superstations, the one that the (Atlanta) Braves have and WGN (and the Chicago Cubs). Those stations develop considerable income for the corporations that own them. They have that. They have some teams with extensive local cable television rights. For example, the Yankees. When you’ve got your local cable and, over the year, television rights and you have superstations going all over the country and then you try to sell to the networks, well, you dilute what you have to sell, obviously. The telecasts are no longer a special event.

Now from the standpoint of television, the NFL is in pretty good shape, at this point. Now with the next television contract, (baseball will) have to take a cut, apparently. But at least we don’t have that . . . all the teams aren’t competing against themselves for over-the-air, local contracts. It’s confined to network contracts. That’s the big problem baseball has.

Q: Are you surprised baseball is still without a commissioner?

A: I’m surprised it’s taken them this long, but I’m sure they’re going to get one. With the holidays and everything . . . but they will need a commissioner.

One thing more on those superstations: The only way I can see trouble for the NFL, real trouble, on the matter of television, is if you get someone wanting to buy a team, as Al did from Oakland, andthat person says, “Regardless of what I signed or what I accepted in the league’s constitution and by-laws, I’m going to sell it to X media company.” Corporate ownership by a media company in football, would create a problem, a serious problem.

Q: Because?

A: They would do what’s in their best interests.

Q: So if a media company that owned a TV station wanted to put that product on television . . .

A: Or on a superstation. And if (the NFL) said, “Well, we’re not sure what X will do with (football),” that owner could say he had a right to sell to X. And that’s regardless of the league constitution, which says a team can’t be owned by an outside corporation.

Q: If you were 20 years younger or still had a zest for doing that kind of job, would you consider becoming the commissioner of baseball?

A: No.

Q: Were you ever approached by them?

A: No. I’ve talked to them, particularly the commissioners and some of the owners that I know well, things that they would ask me.

Q: It just seems that baseball can be such a great lesson for the NFL right now because of the things it has done wrong.

A: And the things that could happen. We’re seeing things happen in baseball with an antitrust exemption . They ran afoul with the labor laws.

Q: So if you’re the NFL you’re smart to . . .

A: Study that and see how changing positions affect you and how you can possibly avoid them.

Q: Do you think the owners still have the game’s best interests at heart or their own best interests at heart?

A: I think all owners are the same: some do and some don’t.

Q: But for the most part, do you think they value the game’s interests first?

A: It always has been in the final analysis. Sometimes with a great degree of difficulty.

Q: Are you glad you’re not the commissioner any longer?

A: Yeah.

Q: It doesn’t seem like this would be a fun time.

A: It isn’t fun. The period that I was there was, for the most part, good because you were able to work on constructive things rather than being totally defensive and be involved in litigation and so forth.

Q: Any final thoughts on the Al Davis-Pete Rozelle relationship?

A: My thing with Al--I think Al sometimes likes to set people up as his enemy. But I never had anything against Al, except the move from Oakland. And that triggered the Baltimore move, the St. Louis move, which the league couldn’t do anything about.

Q: And two of those three moves haven’t really worked out, Oakland to Los Angeles and St. Louis to Phoenix. Did you anticipate those kinds of results from those three franchise moves?

A: Phoenix was my personal top choice when it got down to discussing it at the league level for expansion. I felt that Al would probably be successful on what he was attempting to do on (Coliseum luxury) boxes. But L.A. wouldn’t follow through on it. I’m sure the economy had a lot to do with that.

Q: But as far as the Oakland move itself?

A: It was the against the (NFL) constitution and he moved. That produced two separate trials in ’81 and ’82 and more or less put the league in that (situation).

Q: Is Al Davis good for the league still, or, in a way, has he outlived his usefulness?

A: I’m sure he helps in some ways. I haven’t been involved in over three years, but I’m sure he’s helped in some minor areas.

Q: Is it a commissioner’s nightmare when something happens to a Dennis Byrd or to a Mike Utley? And is there any way to legislate some of the violence out of the sport or is that just the nature of the beast?

A: You can make improvements and we have over the years and we’ll continue to do it. But it’s so hard to eliminate all of it.

Q: How did you feel when you saw Fay Vincent basically forced out by the baseball owners?

A: Well, I was obviously sorry because it created a tough situation for baseball and sports as a whole. I’m not totally familiar with the circumstances, so I really didn’t reach any conclusions. But I do feel that the clause--giving the commissioner the power to do anything in the best interests of baseball--is a little tough. We don’t have that in our constitution, so mainly I would just try to get things adopted through persuasion and many different meetings sometimes. But I never interpreted anything in our constitution giving me the right that they had in their constitution.

Q: But there were probably times when you wished you would have had it.

A: That’s right, that’s right.

Q: Can you look ahead 10 years and predict the three most important issues facing the NFL?

A: Three things that I feel they have to concentrate on, that pose the greatest threat, would begin with television. I have no recommendation on what they should do, but they’re going to have to watch that.

Then there’s the ownership situation, from the standpoint of corporate ownership. They’ll probably change that some and, as best they can, eliminate superstations coming into (the league). That will just (instigate) litigation, as I said, with the seller and the buyer--just like the Davis move. And (the NFL) might lose (in court). That could create a problem like baseball has today.

The third thing, I guess, is to do everything possible to make this new agreement work for the duration of the agreement, so it can be continued, if not in its present form, something close to it.

So, labor, television and ownership. Those would be the three things in my mind.

Q: When you started in that job, were those the same three things that were important?

A: When I started it was just the television.

Q: Is there ever a time when you feel sorry for Tagliabue?

A: Sure. Sure, it can be a very tough job. But he’s a very cool guy. The owners made a wise choice. He’s done a terrific job bringing this (labor situation) to a head.

Q: Do you remember what you said to Tagliabue before he began his tenure?

A: As I recall, I told him, “I think the league’s in very capable hands.” I wished him well.