[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
TSN: David Stren Interview - Very Long
One-on-one with Stern:
Disaster avoidance 101
OCTOBER 27, 1998
by JEFF RYAN For The
Sporting News
David Stern's
basketball
fantasy isn't
taking the
final shot in
Game 7 of the
NBA Finals
it's dishing
off to one of
his boyhood
heroes, Knicks
forward Carl Braun, for the
championship-winning
buzzer-beater. At least,
that's the hoops fantasy Stern
is willing to share. The one
the NBA commissioner keeps to
himself no doubt unfolds like
this: His league survives its
labor problems with its image
still overwhelmingly positive,
a regular season salvaged, and
little of its fan base
alienated.
Can fantasy become reality?
Well, Stern, 56, has overcome
other crises since beginning
his tenure in February 1984,
but none involved the
nightmare of a prolonged
public battle between rich
owners and rich athletes
unhappy with their bottom
lines. There will undoubtedly
be some degree of post-lockout
damage, and it's what Stern
does to repair it that will
secure or diminish his
reputation as a
public-relations genius and
the best commissioner in pro
sports.
The Sporting News recently sat
down with Stern at the
commissioner's office in New
York to discuss the
headline-dominating labor
crisis, the long-term future
of the NBA and a variety of
other topics, including
Michael Jordan's aura.
Stern seemed surprisingly
upbeat and at ease on this
sunny autumn afternoon despite
the serious challenges
awaiting him.
The Sporting News: Has this
been your most stressful
period in 14 years on the job?
Stern: Not even close. The '83
collective bargaining negotiations were worse. So were the
early '80s drug revelations about our players and the public
consensus that a predominantly black sports league couldn't
survive something like that. Magic Johnson announcing he was
HIV-positive, and what that threw the league into, was much
more stressful.
Q: Were you surprised that arbitrator John Feerick, who
reduced Latrell Sprewell's suspension, ruled that the
players with guaranteed contracts don't have to be paid
during the lockout?
A: We were relieved but not surprised because whenever
you're in litigation, you can end up with any result. We had
been hopeful, and we believed we had the better argument.
Q: Do you think the ruling will divide the players union and
weaken its resolve?
A: In order to rally the players, it has become convenient
for union leadership to say, "The owners believe the players
will cave." But that's not true. I don't believe the players
will cave, and the owners don't believe it.
Q: When do you think this whole mess is going to be
resolved?
A: I wouldn't be so bold as to predict. . . . This is a
difficult negotiation because the owners can't and won't
operate under the present system. It's not economically
feasible. This will come down to the two sides locking
themselves in a room, seeing how much of the season can be
saved and coming up with a deal that allows both to achieve
their goals.
Q: How distressing was it for you to cancel regular-season
games?
A: It was the total opposite of everything I've worked for
during the last 30 years in this business.
Q: What are the minimum amount of games required to salvage
a regular season?
A: I would think 65.
Q: Will the playoff format remain intact despite a shortened
season?
A: If we lose a substantial amount of the season, it
wouldn't be fair to go to a regular playoff (format).
There'd be all kinds of variations we'd have to look at.
We're not that experienced at this because we've never had
to deal with it before.
Q: Who's more at fault for the current labor problems, the
owners or the players?
A: It doesn't serve any purpose to ascribe fault. From the
owners' perspective, they got an agreement from the players
that if 52 percent of gross income was being paid to player
salaries . . . the owners could reopen the deal. And the
players, as they have done, could say they don't want to
renegotiate. Nothing requires them to sign a new deal. Both
sides are within their rights.
It's a mischaracterization for people to say, "The owners
could have had peace. Since they reopened (the collective
bargaining agreement), it's their fault." That's not fair.
Reopening was a right both parties specifically agreed to
three years ago.
Q: Are salaries simply out of control, particularly for the
second-tier players?
A: I don't ever want to say that any particular contract is
out of line. . . . Overall, salaries are out of line in
terms of the percentage (of gross income) the owners yield
to the players. The only thing the owners can do is get an
agreement that lowers the percentage.
Q: In 1995, you were quoted as saying that if the NBA's
labor problems were ever perceived by the public as, "Dumb
owners, greedy players, just like everybody else," the
league's image would take a serious hit. When will you reach
that point? Or have you already reached it?
A: The league has taken a hit already and will continue to
take a hit because sports fans aren't particularly tolerant
of millionaires fighting with other millionaires. The owners
and players are dealing with much larger numbers than the
average union-management negotiations.
Q: What do you say to a guy who makes $6.00 an hour and says
the players and owners should all go to hell?
A: I'd ask him if he has gone to any movies recently, and
how he feels about all the money Steven Spielberg or George
Lucas makes. Has he gone to see Saving Private Ryan or
Jurassic Park? John Travolta and Elton John earn a lot of
money. I'd defend our players by pointing out that they're
stars who bring a lot of joy to people. I do acknowledge,
however, that the average man on the street can't understand
why everyone's fighting over huge sums of money, especially
when the result of that will be pressure to raise ticket
prices again.
Q: Following its strike, baseball made an effort to win back
fans by temporarily discounting some tickets and having
players sign more autographs. Does the NBA plan to do
anything like that?
A: We plan to make every effort to have our players
reconnect with the fans. We're a league that has a very good
reputation for being media and fan friendly, and we have to
make sure we haven't lost that perception. We're looking at
ticket prices and availability. We've tried an
autograph-signing period in the WNBA, and we've been
considering how we might implement that in the NBA.
Q: Changing the subject: What has been your proudest
accomplishment and biggest regret as commissioner?
A: My proudest accomplishment is being part of an NBA that
has demonstrated America is not quite as bigoted as the
pundits were describing it 20 years ago, when they said the
nation would never accept a sport that was predominantly
black and that the sport's athletes could never secure
endorsement revenue. To me, it wasn't about just marketing
the NBA. It was really about affirming that America was more
open-minded than some people thought.
My greatest regret is that we had to suspend some players
for life because of drugs. I wish there was some better,
more effective way that we and the Players Association could
have acted to save (those) players. I'm just not sure I know
what the right program for that is.
Q: You mentioned white fans relating to minority players.
Because of its high ticket prices, the NBA has become
strictly a TV sport for a large segment of the black
population. Are you looking for a long-term solution to that
problem?
A: I would divide it by economic ability, not race. It's a
concern, and one of the things we're talking about is
perhaps making sure that certain amounts of tickets --
albeit small amounts -- are available for every game at a
low price.
Q: What do you consider to be a low price?
A: Anything in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 dollars is a low
price these days.
Q: That may be the cost of a hot dog at Madison Square
Garden pretty soon.
A: Or anyplace, actually. I must point out, though, that the
average fan of all sports is a TV fan.
Q: By choice?
A: By the reality of ticket availability. The NFL is far and
away the most popular sport in the U.S., but the number of
different people who attend NFL games -- given the fact that
there are only eight home games and mostly season-ticket
holders -- is relatively small. That's true with the NBA as
well. So it's been my goal to get the largest number of
games on network TV. This coming year, there will be more
games on NBC than ever before. And every playoff game will
be on NBC, TNT, or TBS.
Q: Your press has been generally positive through the years.
Are there any areas in which you think you've been treated
unfairly?
A: Nope. Not at all. I've complained about the media, but
more in the context of wishing reporters would stay involved
with a story from start to finish rather than come into it
for soundbites. For instance, it's helpful if somebody who
covered us during our last labor situation covers us now, so
that some of the rhetoric and facts and legal issues can be
better put into context.
Q: One of the strongest criticisms of you has been that you
treated Michael Jordan too softly, not digging into the
reports of his gambling as aggressively as you could have.
There was also speculation that his retirement in '93 was
your way of sitting him down without having to suspend him.
A: You're reminding me now of a part of the media that
bothers me (smiles). It's so unfair to a Michael Jordan to
speculate in the absence of fact. That offended me greatly.
There was a reporter who said on some Sunday talk show that
Jordan came to David Stern's house and Stern told him this
and that. My wife wanted to know where she was because if
Michael was there, she would have come downstairs to say
hello. It never happened.
Once, someone called and said, "I understand you've asked
for Michael's phone records." Which, of course, was untrue.
Under normal circumstances, it's OK to fish for things, but
when it involves character assassination, it isn't very
fair. All I can say to you is that we conducted what we
thought was a thorough investigation that was satisfactory
to us.
Q: Are you convinced that gambling isn't widespread in the
league?
A: Players aren't prohibited from gambling in casinos or on
golf courses.
Q: But you can't be happy about them doing so.
A: Well, I think the Michael incident generally made our
players more aware that they have to be responsible for the
character and quality of their "acquaintances." They have to
be very careful.
Q: Will Game 6 in Utah be the last memory we'll have of
Jordan in action?
A: I don't know for sure. I hope not. First of all, whatever
Michael does, I think he'll remain an enduring figure on the
American sports scene, like Joe DiMaggio or Muhammad Ali.
Michael is one of the premier athletes of the 20th century,
if not in the history of sports.
Q: As the commissioner, it's in your best interest for him
to continue playing. But doesn't a part of you believe that
his performance in Game 6 would be the perfect way for him
to depart?
A: I'd like him to go out the way he wants to go out. When
he retired the first time, people said, "Isn't it terrible?"
My response was that if he wanted to retire, fine. If he
wanted to come back again, great. This isn't The Truman
Show. We shouldn't script Michael's life. It would be great
for us if he came back. But when Michael retires, people are
going to be surprised to learn how many other great NBA
players there are who haven't gotten attention.
Q: The league will survive without Jordan, but can it thrive
without him?
A: Absolutely. It's a process that will take a couple of
years to gauge. Who knows who will step up? Tell me who's
going to win the championship and I'll tell you who the next
great star is.
Q: Sneaker and apparel companies are constantly trying to
perpetuate the bad-boy image in commercials featuring some
NBA stars, there's still a lot of trash-talking in the
league and there's far too much fighting. How did things
deteriorate to this point?
A: Certain sneaker companies do try to project a bad-boy
image, and it got that way because attitude allegedly sells.
With respect to too much fighting, your facts are not
accurate. It seems like there's more now, but the number of
incidents is down and the severity of the way we deal with
players who fight has been stepped up.
You could have a fight in the '70s in relative anonymity.
Today, a fight is repeated on ESPN's SportsCenter, CNN/SI,
Fox Sports News and the Internet. This past year, we
probably had our all-time low in violent incidents. Then
Alonzo Mourning and Larry Johnson squared off in the
playoffs, and you had a major storyline.
Q: Compare the overall behavior of the players today to the
way it was when you started working for the NBA in the '70s.
A: I wouldn't argue that there has been some modicum of
increase in players' disrespect for certain social and legal
conventions, but the amount we put ourselves in the
spotlight has increased hundred-fold. We've invited and
encouraged the media to cover us extensively and
intensively. As a result, when a player gets stopped for
speeding or carrying marijuana or whatever, that immediately
goes on the wire and becomes a cause celebre. I don't excuse
any bad behavior, but some behavior wasn't a matter of
public record 30 years ago, and it is today.
Q: How did it feel to have the arbitrator reduce your
suspension of Latrell Sprewell?
A: I was more concerned about the Golden State Warriors than
myself. Even after the arbitrator modified it, the Sprewell
suspension was the largest monetary suspension in the
history of sports. It was a $6 million suspension and he was
suspended for 68 games, though not the 82 I suspended him
for. The players union found it important to trumpet that as
a reduction of "five months." What they didn't say was that
the months were July, August, September, October, and
November, only one of which had (regular-season) games. My
disagreement with the arbitrator was this: I thought setting
the precedent that an employer couldn't terminate a contract
for that kind of conduct was an unfortunate interpretation
of the facts.
Q: Did it deliver a bad message to the players?
A: No, because before Sprewell, no player choked his coach.
And I don't believe that we're going to have that situation
after Sprewell. The union's rallying cry was, "If a team can
break your contract when you choke the coach, you'll next
have to worry about getting your contract suspended for
littering." That argument painted all of our players with a
Sprewell-type brush and that's not fair. The union did that
for its own political purposes, but in the long run, it
wasn't constructive or intelligent.
Q: You're not in favor of players jumping directly from high
school to the NBA but are legally powerless to stop it. So
how do you discourage it?
A: One proposal we've made in collective bargaining is that
we should extend the rookie contract by one year for every
year a player is under the age of 20. That might discourage
players from coming out early, and that's a good thing.
Q: Does the success of Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant make
you rethink your position?
A: It isn't so much that, it's that I'm having a harder time
railing against it. I watch the U.S. Open tennis and see
Martina Hingis, who's 18. I watch the Olympics and see
13-year-old gymnasts and hear about hockey players who leave
home to go to some Canadian junior league, and I'm slightly
amused by the (media's) concern about NBA players who turn
pro at 18 or 19. I wonder what's behind it.
Q: Maybe the physical nature of the NBA has something to do
with it.
A: You don't think it has anything to do with their race?
Q: Do you?
A: I don't know. Hockey's pretty physical in the junior
leagues.
Q: But not as high profile as the NBA.
A: It's just interesting to me. From the league's
perspective, it would be great if all of our players came to
us after four years of college because they'd be more fully
developed and better known. What I'm wrestling with as a
social matter is, suppose a player at the age of 18 really
doesn't want to go to college because he falls into the
percentage of our population that just never goes. I'm torn
with that.
Q: What is the timetable for further expansion?
A: We have absolutely no timetable and no plans.
Q: How realistic is the prospect of more international
franchises?
A: Mexico might be realistic because it could be traveled to
easily from the Texas markets. Europe? I just don't see it
anytime soon.
Q: With the old arenas like Boston Garden and Chicago
Stadium gone, so many teams having changed their uniform
designs, and new rules having been adopted, the NBA probably
has less of a link to its past than the other three major
sports. Is that something you ever think about?
A: All the time. We have less of a past to link to, though.
We're 53 years old, the youngest of all the leagues. The
50th anniversary on the NBA was such an effective
celebration because we are the youngest. Where else could
you have an All-Star Weekend like the one we had when we
invited the old-timers? It was like having Ruth, Gehrig,
DiMaggio, and McGwire all in the same place.
Q: Answering strictly as a purist, and not as a commissioner
with your eye on the bottom line, would you agree that there
is one too many rounds in the NBA playoffs?
A: I might have agreed with you some years ago, but I've
come to enjoy it. It has become this march to the
championship, a grueling proposition that really adds to the
mystique. Teams that don't have the inner strength to go all
the way fall by the wayside.
Q: Would you feel that way if Jordan broke his leg en route
to sweeping the Nets in the first round?
A: An NFL player can get injured in a wild-card game and not
make it to the Super Bowl. It's part of the game.
Q: Will the first round eventually be expanded from a
best-of-five series to a best-of-seven?
A: I've tried to assure it won't, but I'm not sure how much
longer I can hold out. I think three-of-five is fine. From a
financial perspective, four-of-seven would be better for the
players and owners.
Q: What do you still hope to accomplish?
A: We have to make the game less physical. I don't have any
great idea of how to do it, I'm just ruminating. I wish fans
could understand precisely what's going on every time a foul
is called, and why it was called. There are fans who believe
officiating plays a larger role than it should. I don't
agree with that. Part of me looks at the illegal defense
guidelines and says maybe we should do away with them and
allow a zone. Then I'm quickly convinced that would be a bad
idea.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because there have been players -- from Moses Malone in
high school to Michael Jordan at North Carolina -- whose
entry into the pros released them from being guarded in
zones and slowdowns and allowed them to become Hall of Fame
players. Still, I'd love to find some way to make the game
less physical. Large bodies in small places at high speeds
with no pads makes everyone uneasy.
Q: You once said you want to be commissioner forever.
A: (Feigning shock) Did I say that?! I changed my mind.
Q: If you sit down with us 10 years from now, what will we
be talking about?
A: We'll be talking about what a great game this is and how
it has remained immutable despite the fact that players and
arenas have come and gone. We'll be focusing on how the
appreciation for it has grown even wider because of the
Internet, digital transmissions and increased exposure
internationally. And I'll be saying that it's great that
women now are following the NBA and WNBA in such
extraordinarily large numbers.
Jeff Ryan is a writer based in New York.