Public Enemy Number One
Ah, the Monday After.
It was indeed a "super" game—well, at least
one team played superbly. And in America's Finest
City, it was a Super Week. The Gaslamp Quarter
rocked with 50,000 revelers all weekend long. The
weather has been positively summer-like, so I'm
sure we'll have another wave of 100,000 people
moving here over the next couple of years. Everyone
connected to the Super Bowl has been raving about
the city—with the exception of NFL
Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, San Diego's new Public
Enemy Number One.
In his "State of the NFL" speech last Friday,
Tagliabue all but vowed that the NFL will not grant
San Diego another Super Bowl until the city builds
a new football stadium. In fact, while commentators
Al Michaels and John Madden repeatedly gushed over
the city, suggesting the Super Bowl be held here
every year, Tagliabue said, "I'm surprised that we
are here this week." As if San Diego were some
backwater town, overstepping its capabilities to
host such a huge sporting event.
He credited Chargers owner Alex Spanos with
convincing the other team owners to hold the Super
Bowl here this year. Yes, Alex Spanos, the same guy
who wants the city to chip in $200 million to build
a new stadium—after the city spent $50 million
in 1998 to renovate Qualcomm Stadium for Super Bowl
XXXII (and another $30 million since on the "ticket
guarantee" clause in the Chargers' contract).
The Chargers organization recently presented
their proposal for a new stadium and entertainment
complex on the current site of the Q. They hinted
that they can activate the "trigger" clause in
their contract due to "financial hardship." They
have repeatedly claimed that they can't compete in
a 35-year-old stadium. But I have yet to hear any
specific argument against Qualcomm Stadium that
doesn't use comparative reasoning. Sure, it's older
than many stadiums, it might have fewer luxury
boxes, it may lack some of the state-of-the-art
amenities that the brand-new facilities have. But
judged on its own merits, does it have any fatal
flaws? Is there anything wrong with it? After
yesterday's Big Game, I think most people would
agree it's more than capable of hosting a
world-class sporting event.
Local commentators, analyzing Tagliabue's
comments, hypothesized that perhaps he's so
lukewarm on San Diego because he really wants the
Chargers to move to Los Angeles. After all, the
nation's second-largest market has been without a
football team since the Rams and Raiders moved out
in 1994. The NFL is considering staging a Super
Bowl in the Rose Bowl in 2008 or 2009, leading some
to suggest Tagliabue is using the Big Game as a
carrot to lure a team.
The stadium
issue has occupied the public's attention here
for over a year, and it's a problem that's not
going to be resolved anytime soon. So I wish
Tagliabue would have focused on the hard work of
San Diego's Super Bowl Host Committee or the city's
wonderful climate, instead of injecting further
politics into a debate that's already overflowing
with rhetoric.
[Update: Read local sports commentator
Nick Canepa's editorial
in the January 28 Union-Tribune, wherein he
calls for an apology from NFL Commissioner Paul
Tagliabue.]
Development note: I've
noticed that this site doesn't look like it should
in Netscape Navigator. Rather than waste time
jury-rigging it to look right in a
soon-to-be-obsolete browser, I'll just add the
cliché "This site best viewed with Internet
Explorer."
©2003 Michael
Strickland ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
|
|
