Advertisement

Reality of L.A. situation becomes more apparent

Share

If you can get Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors all working in the same direction -- the rarest of trifectas -- you can get a lot of things done in Southern California. You can build a shopping mall, a hospital, a highway, even change laws.

About the only thing you can’t do is land an NFL team.

That was evident again this week when league owners gathered in New Orleans for their annual fall meeting, and, almost as an afterthought, gave the Coliseum another dismissive stiff-arm.

Returning to the nation’s No. 2 market is not a priority, the owners said, and can you blame them? Since the Raiders and Rams left in 1995, the league has not hit a single bump in the road it can attribute to the L.A. vacancy. The league’s teams have shot up in value, they have the richest TV deals in history, and polls show that their sport is miles ahead of the NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball in terms of popularity.

Advertisement

Anaheim and the Rose Bowl got the hint. They’re deep into their alternative plans that don’t include the NFL. Now, it’s back to reality for the Coliseum.

Negotiations for a long-term lease with USC are underway, and that’s a good thing. The school loves that stadium and wants to play football there far into the future. Maybe it will even bargain to take over the 83-year-old stadium and fix what needs fixing.

Now, state and local politicians are free to get back to working on issues where they can truly make a difference. Obviously, they haven’t been able to charm NFL owners into shelling out the estimated $1 billion it will cost for a new or renovated stadium. Even if the price tag is less, as some Coliseum commissioners have argued convincingly, the NFL owners are empowered to make that call.

California taxpayers aren’t putting up any money for a football stadium, nor should they. The NFL has long since given up asking for that. For politicians, chasing the NFL has been fun, glamorous and

Although it has been in on-and-off negotiations with L.A.-area groups over the last decade, the NFL has spent the better part of three years doing intensive studies on the current proposals. League executives have kicked their wingtips into every tire. They know the Coliseum better than Matt Leinart or Reggie Bush ever did. There are no mysteries there.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is over. Someone will dust off an old proposal, give it a twist and go back at the NFL. The Coliseum could resurface -- although it’s far less likely to if USC signs a long-term lease -- and so could Anaheim, Dodger Stadium, the Rose Bowl, anywhere.

Advertisement

The NFL wants that, and not just because it someday wants to be back in L.A. What city could be better leverage when it comes to getting deals done elsewhere? New Orleans is still worried the Saints will bolt for Southern California, and maybe one day they will. Same goes for the fans in San Diego, Jacksonville, Minnesota, Buffalo, even San Francisco. The teams in all of those cities have ownership and/or stadium issues.

No one in the league knows L.A. better than new Commissioner Roger Goodell, who has been a key player in most of the negotiations over the years. But why should he make the top item on his agenda solving this Rubik’s Cube?

Goodell’s time is consumed by working on issues that matter more to his 32 bosses: sorting through the new revenue-sharing plan; ironing out the uncertainties in the collective-bargaining agreement; mapping the future of the NFL Network; weighing the value of NFL Europe, which costs each team about $2 million a year and is of debatable value.

Besides, asking team owners to pay for an L.A. stadium is asking them to do something they’re neither good at nor accustomed to. They don’t want to reach into their own pockets to enrich another owner, even if it might mean a league payoff far down the road.

They also don’t like the image of bankrolling a stadium on their own. What message does that send to the citizens of Houston, Seattle, Chicago, Cleveland and other places where public funds were spent on stadiums?

The NFL must use a different approach if it really wants to come back. Meanwhile, the cost keeps climbing. And the politicians aren’t going to get fooled again. Next time, they won’t answer the door when the NFL comes knocking.

Advertisement

Well, maybe they will just once more. Or maybe twice.

OK, three more chances, tops.

Familiar tune

San Diego linebacker Shawne Merriman is the latest NFL player to be suspended, pending appeal, for testing positive for a banned substance. He says it was all a big mistake, and his attorney said Merriman used a supplement without knowing exactly what was in it. That’s not a novel argument; it comes up, oh, roughly every time someone gets caught.

“That’s always the story, ‘I didn’t know what was in it,’ ” said Harold Henderson, head of the league’s management council. “If you take anything else other than what [the NFL] certifies, then you’re taking a chance.”

Henderson, who declined to specifically discuss the Merriman case, said it’s very difficult to tell whether a player knowingly took a banned substance or is merely “taking a chance” with a product the league hasn’t approved. “It’s the same substance that ends up in the guy, and we assume he’s getting the same benefit from it,” he said. “Not many are going to come back and say, ‘I knew I was doing something wrong.’ ”

Even though three players tested positive and were suspended in the last week, Henderson said there’s no evidence of a spike in positive tests. He said the league’s policy of testing seven randomly selected players per club per week is working.

“We think it is pretty cut and dried,” he said. “We know players complain. Invariably, they go through their appeal. Most of them end up with their appeal denied. They take their four weeks, and you don’t hear most of them screaming and crying about how unfair it was afterward.”

sam.farmer@latimes.com

Advertisement

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

NFL to L.A.

Why it could happen

* The region represents the nation’s second-largest market, and other top-tier professional leagues have at least two teams based here. The NFL has often talked about the possibility of putting two teams in the L.A. market.

* A team here would be packaged with the opportunity for the L.A. area to host multiple Super Bowls within a span of several years.

* League owners and executives are concerned about an entire generation growing up in L.A. without a home team to root for.

* Several locations have expressed interest in becoming home to a team -- most prominently, the Coliseum, Angel Stadium, the Rose Bowl and Carson.

* Politicians from the governor on down enthusiastically back the concept of bringing back a team -- just as long as it doesn’t require public funds.

* A few existing teams -- including San Diego, San Francisco and New Orleans -- say they will need new homes in the near future.

Advertisement

Why it hasn’t happened

* According to the league, the cost of an L.A. stadium could top $1 billion -- more than double the estimate of a few years ago.

* Whereas the NFL always strives for a so-called public-private partnership in constructing stadiums -- read: public money -- virtually no public funds would be available this time.

* The cost of a stadium does not include the price of a team, or a hefty relocation fee for an existing franchise that moves from another city. According to Forbes magazine, the average value of an NFL franchise is almost $900 million.

* Even without L.A., the league was able to secure its richest-ever TV deals.

* The current approach to building an L.A. stadium requires the league to ask owners to spend their own money to enrich a single owner. It’s highly unlikely they would do that.

* Little public outcry; the region has adjusted to not having a team and many fans enjoy the ability to watch the day’s top matchups without those games being blacked out by a local game that’s frequently less interesting.

* With no team in L.A., the league has leverage over cities that are waffling on committing public funds on stadiums for the teams they already have.

Advertisement

* Under the new revenue sharing plan, teams must share a percentage of all income streams. That makes it more difficult for a new owner to pay for a stadium and team.

* The league has 32 teams -- eight, four-team divisions -- and remarkable competitive balance. There are no immediate plans to expand.

* With changes due in future collective-bargaining agreements, owners are not entirely sure what their payroll will be in the long term. That makes it difficult to determine how they will make up any start-up costs.

SAM FARMER

Advertisement