Broncos Owner Pat Bowlen, who also chairs the NFL's
Broadcast Committee, said the "nicest part about the TV
deal" was the "league did not control the process,"
according to Adam Schefter of the DENVER POST. Bowlen
oversaw talks which led to the NFL's $17.6B deal over eight
years. Bowlen: "What they paid was not what we forced them
to pay. It's what they felt they had to pay. And one of
the things that I wanted to be especially sensitive to was
that we weren't portrayed as a greedy, money-grabbing group
of sports franchise owners. That's not the case. The
networks went there by themselves for reasons that they are
aware of." Bowlen also said that the league hasn't "set how
the networks are going to pay for the product, whether it's
going to be front-end loaded or rear-end loaded." Bowlen:
"And that will affect the cap. I would say there's going to
be a substantial increase this year, but how substantial I
can't tell you" (DENVER POST, 1/15). Cowboys Owner Jerry
Jones, on the TV negotiations: "In this negotiation, we just
needed to avoid making the bad plays. The great plays were
made by the marketplace and by the competition (among the
networks). We just didn't mess up" (STAR-TELEGRAM, 1/15).
Giants co-Owner Wellington Mara said the deals offer "a
whole new world" for team owners (N.Y. TIMES, 1/15). One
NFL Owner told Will McDonough that "all of our teams will
now probably double in value" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/14).
ONE CAUTIOUS TIGER: In the wake of the TV deal, Bengals
Owner Mike Brown "expressed fears" about the NFL's future,
according to Geoff Hobson of the CINCINNATI ENQUIRER. Brown
said he "gets nervous" when he hears network execs say they
"don't expect to make money," and wonders "what might happen
if the deal collapses and the clubs are stuck with huge
player contracts." Brown: "The concern I have down range is
what happens if our partners, the networks, aren't there
when we need them? After we bargained so hard, you just
have to ask yourself if we pushed too hard. A deal ought to
be good for both sides" (CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, 1/15).
SOME BACKLASH? A WASHINGTON POST editorial comments on
the TV deal: "Of one thing we're all but certain: Although
the league is celebrating its good fortune today, and the
networks' payments over eight years will come to something
like $600 million per team, the first club needing a brand-
new stadium will come before the appropriations committees
of its state and/or local governments sometime in the near
future muttering, 'TV money? What TV money?' You can bet
your next bond issue on it" (WASHINGTON POST, 1/15). In
N.Y., Stefan Fatsis writes that the NFL "will face problems
caused by its own success. ... Chief among them: an
explosion in player salaries, sharply increased operating
costs and a potential public backlash against a league that
has tried to maintain a lunch-bucket image in limousine
times" (Stefan Fatsis, WALL STREET JOURNAL, 1/15).
SINGING FROM SAME HYMN SHEET: But the Broncos' Bowlen
said the TV deal won't impact a team's pursuit for a new
facility: "It doesn't change the ground rules one bit
because we're taking this contract and splitting it 30 ways.
... I'd love to think that the teams without new stadiums
would get more of the television money, but that's not the
way it works" (DENVER POST, 1/15). In Denver, columnist
Mark Kiszla writes, "The league, with TV riches that could
make Bill Gates drool, can afford to build the new brick
houses for its franchises" (DENVER POST, 1/15). In Boston,
Mike Barnicle writes on Patriots Owner Bob Kraft's desire
for a new stadium: "Kraft's a nice guy and a fine
businessman, but anybody sitting on a pot of gold equal to
the size of the throne he owns can't seriously expect a
state, city, or town to pave a road already lined with
riches" (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/15). In Philadelphia, Eagles Owner
Jeffrey Lurie was asked how the deal could impact his
pursuit of a new facility: "You'll have a slice of a larger
pie. But the competitive advantage is still in stadium-
based revenues, which aren't shared" (PHIL. INQUIRER, 1/15).
