- Joined
- Jan 27, 1999
- Messages
- 12,112
- Reaction score
- 12,951
Offline
He seems to be everywhere, doesn't he--the many interviews, the press releases, the exuberant hugging of newly drafted players on draft night, the frequent if at times questionable resort to what the fans want when his objectives such as the quest for an 18-game season are challenged.
So what do we make of an NFL commissioner who often acts like a candidate for high office?
Surely, every commissioner will be different because his temperament and strengths are different. But before Roger Goodell, there were Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue.
Because Tagliabue served as commissioner until 2006, we remember him well--and fans of the New Orleans Saints should remember him fondly because he decisively quashed after Katrina any plans of moving the team to San Antonio. Tagliabue was the federal appeals court judge as commissioner, reserved and correct in personality, deliberate, exceedingly capable.
But Pete Rozelle, who guided the league for 29 years, remains the model as professional sports commissioner. Rozelle could be tough--he suspended Paul Horning and Alex Karras for a season for betting on NFL games, and his battles with Al Davis were fierce. But we remember Rozelle most for the game's explosive growth during his tenure, and his understated manner and quick smile. Rozelle was the Johnny Carson of his craft: he saw his job as letting the league and others get the ovations, and he seemed to do it effortlessly. Shortly after his death in 1996, author Michael Lewis wrote this about Rozelle in a Time article entitled "Pete Rozelle: Football's High Commissioner":
"Until his death in 1996, Rozelle was dwarfed in every way by owners, coaches and players, and it was impossible for the viewer innocent of the inner workings of pro sports to view him as much more than a functionary. The hired help. The guy whose job it was to order the stuffed mushrooms for the party after the game.
. . .
"Perhaps it helped that unlike so many power-brokers, Rozelle did not look like the man who wished to wield power. Of course the gifts required to pull this off aren't the ones normally associated with empire building. They are to a large extent the gifts of a diplomat. Diplomat in this case is another word for a man with a talent for dealing with megalomaniacs. Each year Rozelle presided over the NFL, another owner published his autobiography explaining how he was the visionary behind the rise of pro football. Each year Rozelle laughed and let him enjoy his press. Rozelle seemed to have been the sort of spectral tycoon who took his satisfaction in managing other people without their knowing it."
. . .
"By today's standards, Rozelle was vastly undercompensated, given the wealth he created for the NFL's owners. He was a special case: the business giant who didn't lust for financial fortune and overt personal dominance...Once, late in his career, after it was clear what he had accomplished, Rozelle was asked by a reporter if he had an ego. Pete Rozelle replied that if you took all the egos in pro sports--the players', the coaches', the owners'--and averaged them out, his ego was just above the average. It might have been true, but no one ever knew it. That was his genius."
So just what do we make of Roger Goodell? In this age of celebrity, Goodell is the celebrity commissioner, suddenly as prominent as the game's top quarterbacks and coaches. Every professional sports commissioner must deal with the problems that invariably arise--economically challenged franchises, changing economic and cultural trends, combative unions, difficult owners, wayward players and other team employees. And the measure of the sports commissioner is how he handles those problems as well as how he exploits opportunities for league growth.
With "bountygate", we have seen Goodell's strengths and weaknesses writ large, notably his rambunctious energy, his public certitude and his outsized ego. The circumstantial evidence that Saints management acted badly is substantial--their silence has been telling--and one suspects that Rozelle and Tagliabue would have imposed stiff sanctions, though perhaps not season-long suspensions for the sending of a "message". But one also suspects that their handling of the investigation and pronouncement of investigation findings would have at least seemed more impartial and transparent.
Our image of Goodell is not that of judge seeking rough justice, but that of a politically prominent prosecutor for whom hyperbole and one-sided announcements are virtues. And in seeking to protect the integrity of the game, as well as the assets of league owners, Goodell has presided over a process that challenges the wisdom, if not the integrity, of his stewardship.
I do not believe that "the fans" have a right to full disclosure. The charges involve the employment relationship and doubtless contain confidential information. But Goodell's job is not simply to get the sanctions right, but to satisfy those who are under scrutiny at this time and those who may be next that the league handles such grave matters with balance, impartiality and fairness. And surely the players subject to extreme discipline have a right to know what evidence supports extreme discipline and to challenge that evidence.
And I have no doubt that in a game that is inherently dangerous, a clear threat to the financial health of the league is the current and future player safety lawsuits, and that--with some reason--Goodell has acted as he has acted in large part because of this litigation threat. But the performance pool controvery for Goodell was both a teaching and healing moment. In its quest for public approval, the league repeatedly has gone a bridge too far. In trying to cast badly a few for ago-old customs, the league has resorted to press releases that compare to real estate advertisements in balance and subtlety.
In trying to defend sanctions against players, the league produces as an "independent" reviewer of the evidence a former US Attorney, whose law firm counts the NFL as a client , who was hired by the NFL, and who surely would not answer the question of how much in each of the last five years her firm, Debevoise & Plimpton, has received in legal fees from the NFL. Ms. White offers impressive credentials and experience, and her comments should not be summarily dismissed. But her review of the NFL's materials was hardly "independent", and characterizing her review as such is disingenuous.
And in suggesting that the sanctions against coaches were appropriately severe because of what happened on the field, in still imposing severe sanctions against players for supposedly actions away from the playing field to avoid player appeals to an arbitrator, and in failing to compromise with the players over the severity of sanctions or the disclosure of the evidence arguably supporting the sanctions, Goodell has mishandled an opportunity for the league and the players to go forward together on player safety.
Yes, Roger Goodell has clearly sent the message that this commissioner should not be crossed. But part of the message is that, compared to the image of the league and perhaps his own, this commissioner cares realtively little about fairness to players and others in the league. And part of the message may be that this commisioner can be petty.
It did not have to turn out this way. With action less heavy-handed, the league still could have sent its message, disciplined the culpable, perhaps strengthened its relationship with the players and their union, protected its concerns with the player safety litigation, assured a greater number that those disciplined were fairly treated--and ended this ugly saga with all turning the corner and looking forward to the 2012 season. Instead, with the players vowing to fight, the controversy simmers.
Here's hoping that the commissioner learns from his missteps--and that he remembers what his predecessors did well and that his job as commisioner is to let the players and coaches get the ovations.
So what do we make of an NFL commissioner who often acts like a candidate for high office?
Surely, every commissioner will be different because his temperament and strengths are different. But before Roger Goodell, there were Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue.
Because Tagliabue served as commissioner until 2006, we remember him well--and fans of the New Orleans Saints should remember him fondly because he decisively quashed after Katrina any plans of moving the team to San Antonio. Tagliabue was the federal appeals court judge as commissioner, reserved and correct in personality, deliberate, exceedingly capable.
But Pete Rozelle, who guided the league for 29 years, remains the model as professional sports commissioner. Rozelle could be tough--he suspended Paul Horning and Alex Karras for a season for betting on NFL games, and his battles with Al Davis were fierce. But we remember Rozelle most for the game's explosive growth during his tenure, and his understated manner and quick smile. Rozelle was the Johnny Carson of his craft: he saw his job as letting the league and others get the ovations, and he seemed to do it effortlessly. Shortly after his death in 1996, author Michael Lewis wrote this about Rozelle in a Time article entitled "Pete Rozelle: Football's High Commissioner":
"Until his death in 1996, Rozelle was dwarfed in every way by owners, coaches and players, and it was impossible for the viewer innocent of the inner workings of pro sports to view him as much more than a functionary. The hired help. The guy whose job it was to order the stuffed mushrooms for the party after the game.
. . .
"Perhaps it helped that unlike so many power-brokers, Rozelle did not look like the man who wished to wield power. Of course the gifts required to pull this off aren't the ones normally associated with empire building. They are to a large extent the gifts of a diplomat. Diplomat in this case is another word for a man with a talent for dealing with megalomaniacs. Each year Rozelle presided over the NFL, another owner published his autobiography explaining how he was the visionary behind the rise of pro football. Each year Rozelle laughed and let him enjoy his press. Rozelle seemed to have been the sort of spectral tycoon who took his satisfaction in managing other people without their knowing it."
. . .
"By today's standards, Rozelle was vastly undercompensated, given the wealth he created for the NFL's owners. He was a special case: the business giant who didn't lust for financial fortune and overt personal dominance...Once, late in his career, after it was clear what he had accomplished, Rozelle was asked by a reporter if he had an ego. Pete Rozelle replied that if you took all the egos in pro sports--the players', the coaches', the owners'--and averaged them out, his ego was just above the average. It might have been true, but no one ever knew it. That was his genius."
So just what do we make of Roger Goodell? In this age of celebrity, Goodell is the celebrity commissioner, suddenly as prominent as the game's top quarterbacks and coaches. Every professional sports commissioner must deal with the problems that invariably arise--economically challenged franchises, changing economic and cultural trends, combative unions, difficult owners, wayward players and other team employees. And the measure of the sports commissioner is how he handles those problems as well as how he exploits opportunities for league growth.
With "bountygate", we have seen Goodell's strengths and weaknesses writ large, notably his rambunctious energy, his public certitude and his outsized ego. The circumstantial evidence that Saints management acted badly is substantial--their silence has been telling--and one suspects that Rozelle and Tagliabue would have imposed stiff sanctions, though perhaps not season-long suspensions for the sending of a "message". But one also suspects that their handling of the investigation and pronouncement of investigation findings would have at least seemed more impartial and transparent.
Our image of Goodell is not that of judge seeking rough justice, but that of a politically prominent prosecutor for whom hyperbole and one-sided announcements are virtues. And in seeking to protect the integrity of the game, as well as the assets of league owners, Goodell has presided over a process that challenges the wisdom, if not the integrity, of his stewardship.
I do not believe that "the fans" have a right to full disclosure. The charges involve the employment relationship and doubtless contain confidential information. But Goodell's job is not simply to get the sanctions right, but to satisfy those who are under scrutiny at this time and those who may be next that the league handles such grave matters with balance, impartiality and fairness. And surely the players subject to extreme discipline have a right to know what evidence supports extreme discipline and to challenge that evidence.
And I have no doubt that in a game that is inherently dangerous, a clear threat to the financial health of the league is the current and future player safety lawsuits, and that--with some reason--Goodell has acted as he has acted in large part because of this litigation threat. But the performance pool controvery for Goodell was both a teaching and healing moment. In its quest for public approval, the league repeatedly has gone a bridge too far. In trying to cast badly a few for ago-old customs, the league has resorted to press releases that compare to real estate advertisements in balance and subtlety.
In trying to defend sanctions against players, the league produces as an "independent" reviewer of the evidence a former US Attorney, whose law firm counts the NFL as a client , who was hired by the NFL, and who surely would not answer the question of how much in each of the last five years her firm, Debevoise & Plimpton, has received in legal fees from the NFL. Ms. White offers impressive credentials and experience, and her comments should not be summarily dismissed. But her review of the NFL's materials was hardly "independent", and characterizing her review as such is disingenuous.
And in suggesting that the sanctions against coaches were appropriately severe because of what happened on the field, in still imposing severe sanctions against players for supposedly actions away from the playing field to avoid player appeals to an arbitrator, and in failing to compromise with the players over the severity of sanctions or the disclosure of the evidence arguably supporting the sanctions, Goodell has mishandled an opportunity for the league and the players to go forward together on player safety.
Yes, Roger Goodell has clearly sent the message that this commissioner should not be crossed. But part of the message is that, compared to the image of the league and perhaps his own, this commissioner cares realtively little about fairness to players and others in the league. And part of the message may be that this commisioner can be petty.
It did not have to turn out this way. With action less heavy-handed, the league still could have sent its message, disciplined the culpable, perhaps strengthened its relationship with the players and their union, protected its concerns with the player safety litigation, assured a greater number that those disciplined were fairly treated--and ended this ugly saga with all turning the corner and looking forward to the 2012 season. Instead, with the players vowing to fight, the controversy simmers.
Here's hoping that the commissioner learns from his missteps--and that he remembers what his predecessors did well and that his job as commisioner is to let the players and coaches get the ovations.
