The NFL’s secret demands to hold its big game here range from the predictable to the curious.
In this artist's rendering provided by the Minnesota Vikings on Wednesday, May 21, 2014, a Super Bowl LII logo covers a seven-acre prime space for an NFL tailgate party next to the new stadium, top right, which is under construction in Minneapolis. The image was part of the presentation made to NFL team owners before they voted to hold the 2018 Super Bowl in Minneapolis.
“The Super Bowl for Dummies” should be the title of the document leaked to the Star Tribune that detailed the demands the NFL makes on a city wishing to host the game (“NFL had long, pricey Super wish list,” June 8.)
Some of the demands are predictable: lavish hotel suites, police protection for team owners, protection against ticket counterfeiters and tax exemptions everywhere. Some are rather bizarre: golf courses, bowling alleys and 20 billboards advertising the game. (Why the game needs to be advertised in the host city is a profound mystery. Only the comatose will be unaware of it.)
The final demand, unmentioned in the article, is a symbolic summary of all of the demands. Just before kickoff, on the 50-yard line of the “Peoples’ ”(Oops! Sid predicts it will be “U. S. Bank”) stadium, the governor of Minnesota and the mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis will gently but firmly press their lips on the posterior part of the anatomy of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who will graciously acknowledge their homage.
Then the game can begin.
George M. Woytanowitz, Minneapolis
• • •
Although both the NFL and local officials emphasize the economic benefits that Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota will receive as a result of hosting Super Bowl LII, I wonder if the “price” they pay, based upon the “secret bid” specifications, is actually worth the event. Conventional wisdom says “yes,” but could Super Bowl LII turn into Sucker Bowl LII?
Dick Daymont, Northfield
• • •
I like the way the “Happy Pigs” headline appeared under the story of the NFL confidential privileges story.
Nancy Lockard, Minneapolis
Stepped-up policing is one possible approach
The editorial about pedestrian safety at the crosswalk at Lincoln and Snelling avenues in St. Paul (“When crosswalks become deathtraps,” June 7) minimizes or misses two important points about pedestrian safety at this crosswalk and at intersections generally.
The first point, which is minimized, is the role of law enforcement in increasing driver adherence to the law. The state law requiring drivers to yield to pedestrians who cross at intersections has been on the books for many years, yet most motorists wrongly drive as if it does not apply to arterial streets such as Snelling, University and Lake. The best way to increase adherence to the law is for the police to run frequent crosswalk violation “traps” on busy streets and to publicize their campaign, but the police apparently put their priorities elsewhere.
The second point, not mentioned, is that pedestrians often cross at intersections without watching all oncoming vehicles to make sure they stop. I have noticed many Macalester students who fail to keep a lookout. Sadly, pedestrians who assume they do not need to keep a lookout run the risk of becoming dead right.
Jerome Getz, St. Paul
• • •
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.