Signs of trouble
Petty legal bickering leaves Cards and ASU at odds with each other, community
May. 7, 2003 12:00 AM
If you hadn't heard the stories about the miserable relationship between the Arizona Cardinals and their stadium host, Arizona State University . . . well, now you know.
For years, ASU's athletic department and the NFL Cardinals have been like a pair of wet tomcats stuck together in a rain barrel. For the most part, they've tried gamely to share their mutual space, ASU's Sun Devil Stadium.
But with the recent legal action initiated by the Cardinals over revenue rights for stadium signage, the two cats are baring their fangs.
Who's right? In a strictly legal sense, the Cardinals won out a year ago when an arbitrator ruled ASU had violated the terms of a 1994 agreement stipulating that both parties had to agree to changes in sponsorship signs in the stadium. The Cards are seeking between $12 million and $21 million in compensation from the school.
But the precise legal issues are less telling in this dispute than are the actions of both sides, which in many respects are vindictive and petty.
In 1999, ASU began making numerous expensive upgrades to its stadium and basketball arena, paying for them through advertising signage deals. The Cardinals immediately objected, arguing that the advertising deals violated the NFL team's contract with the school because the deals left out the Cards.
They've haggled acrimoniously over the issue ever since. ASU's decision to go public with the fight (and to disparage the Cardinals in the process) follows the Cardinals' decision to start legal proceedings last fall, just nine days after construction of the team's Glendale stadium was assured.
Both parties' claims to "victim" status are dubious.
ASU's decision to go public with this unseemly battle was a cynical dodge. School officials know how the Cardinals' foot-shooting reputation would instantly turn public opinion against the NFL's most bumbling franchise. The strategy appears to have worked. The public clearly seems to assume the Cardinals are the bad guys in this melodrama.
Well, legally, they aren't. ASU would just as soon everyone forget the part about the deal they signed. The public might; the courts won't.
As for the Cardinals, they gripe about all the lost revenue, but that presumes the Cards could have reaped the revenue on their own - a questionable assumption for this franchise.
Also, much of the money raised by ASU went to a flashy, new scoreboard and replay monitor. Surely such stadium improvements also benefited the Cardinals.
In the end, the profiles of both institutions are going to be diminished if the petty back-biting continues.
Legal issues aside, both ASU and the Cardinals need to judge whether the money is worth the damage to their images.
Both sides need to remember that they're going to share that rain barrel for at least four more years until the Cardinals' new stadium opens in Glendale. They're going to have to get along better than this.
Petty legal bickering leaves Cards and ASU at odds with each other, community
May. 7, 2003 12:00 AM
If you hadn't heard the stories about the miserable relationship between the Arizona Cardinals and their stadium host, Arizona State University . . . well, now you know.
For years, ASU's athletic department and the NFL Cardinals have been like a pair of wet tomcats stuck together in a rain barrel. For the most part, they've tried gamely to share their mutual space, ASU's Sun Devil Stadium.
But with the recent legal action initiated by the Cardinals over revenue rights for stadium signage, the two cats are baring their fangs.
Who's right? In a strictly legal sense, the Cardinals won out a year ago when an arbitrator ruled ASU had violated the terms of a 1994 agreement stipulating that both parties had to agree to changes in sponsorship signs in the stadium. The Cards are seeking between $12 million and $21 million in compensation from the school.
But the precise legal issues are less telling in this dispute than are the actions of both sides, which in many respects are vindictive and petty.
In 1999, ASU began making numerous expensive upgrades to its stadium and basketball arena, paying for them through advertising signage deals. The Cardinals immediately objected, arguing that the advertising deals violated the NFL team's contract with the school because the deals left out the Cards.
They've haggled acrimoniously over the issue ever since. ASU's decision to go public with the fight (and to disparage the Cardinals in the process) follows the Cardinals' decision to start legal proceedings last fall, just nine days after construction of the team's Glendale stadium was assured.
Both parties' claims to "victim" status are dubious.
ASU's decision to go public with this unseemly battle was a cynical dodge. School officials know how the Cardinals' foot-shooting reputation would instantly turn public opinion against the NFL's most bumbling franchise. The strategy appears to have worked. The public clearly seems to assume the Cardinals are the bad guys in this melodrama.
Well, legally, they aren't. ASU would just as soon everyone forget the part about the deal they signed. The public might; the courts won't.
As for the Cardinals, they gripe about all the lost revenue, but that presumes the Cards could have reaped the revenue on their own - a questionable assumption for this franchise.
Also, much of the money raised by ASU went to a flashy, new scoreboard and replay monitor. Surely such stadium improvements also benefited the Cardinals.
In the end, the profiles of both institutions are going to be diminished if the petty back-biting continues.
Legal issues aside, both ASU and the Cardinals need to judge whether the money is worth the damage to their images.
Both sides need to remember that they're going to share that rain barrel for at least four more years until the Cardinals' new stadium opens in Glendale. They're going to have to get along better than this.
