Super Bowl organizers not concerned about lockout

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis officials expect next year's Super Bowl to be played on its scheduled date, Feb. 5.

If it's not, well, the host committee believes a title game will be played in Indy in another year.

On Wednesday, for the first time, chairman Mark Miles acknowledged that although the committee plans to be ready on game day 2012, league officials have indicated Indy would host a future game if a labor stoppage forced a cancellation.

"We believe we will have a Super Bowl in 2012, and if we don't, we'll have another one," Miles said during a news conference about 400 days from the scheduled game. "It's understood, that in the extremely unlikely case that we didn't have one, we would have a future one."

Miles declined to say what year that might be. The 2013 Super Bowl is scheduled for New Orleans, with the 2014 game slated for East Rutherford, N.J. So the next open date would be 2015.

A cancellation of the NFL's biggest game has never occurred, even in the strike years of 1982 and 1987. In '82, the season was shortened to nine games. In '87, the season was shortened to 15 games and owners brought in replacement players for three games — all of which counted in the standings.

Concern over a potential lockout because the collective bargaining agreement between the players union and league expires in March raised questions about the 2012 Super Bowl.

Indy organizers don't expect the game to be the first cancellation. League officials asked the city to block out hotel rooms and space for two weekend dates, one for the originally scheduled game, the second as a contingency plan for the next weekend, during the bid process.

League officials have not asked the host committee to block out any additional dates, Miles said, and Colts owner Jim Irsay doesn't expect any changes.

"I've talked to the commissioner about it, and honestly, I think that's putting the cart way before the horse," Irsay said. "To me, I really just think it's speculation because we're so far away from that scenario."

But if the game were canceled, Irsay said, it was a "given" that Indy would host a future Super Bowl.

In August, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said it was not unusual for the league to seek a backup date.

The contingency plan could be used for anything from an expanded 18-game schedule to bad weather, but most believe it would be necessary if there is labor strife.

NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith has said he does not expect a new deal completed anytime soon and is predicting team owners will lock out players.

Players already are preparing for the worst. As early as the summer of 2009, player representatives instructed teammates to start saving additional money for health insurance and living expenses in case of a lockout.

Earlier this week, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent an e-mail to about 5,000 fans, writing that "if both sides give a little," the two sides "can and will reach an agreement."

The next day, Carolina owner Jerry Richardson told reporters he believed the two sides were not making much progress.

In Indy, where these words can resonate, committee members haven't changed a thing.

"If there were a lockout and even if it was quite prolonged, we still would probably have a Super Bowl, so nothing changes what we're doing," Miles said. "So we expect to have our Super Bowl in February 2012 and we expect to be ready for that date."

And instead of worrying about a labor stoppage they can't control, Miles and host committee president Allison Melangton are focused on the things they can determine, such as getting volunteers ready to shovel snow, dealing with parking issues and getting observers to Dallas for next month's Super Bowl.

NFL teams have started laying out some plans in case there is a lockout.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.