Potential loss of Super Bowl got Arizona’s attention

As the brilliant Jon Stewart demonstrated during Wednesday’s edition of The Daily Show, Arizona Senate Bill 1026 ultimately was destined to fail not because it was deemed to be morally repugnant, but because it was regarded to be bad for business.

Politico explains in detail how business leaders pushed Brewer hard to strike down the bill before it became law.

“We were talking about losing the Super Bowl. Can you imagine the economic impact?” Senator John McCain told Poltico.  “We saw that movie before with S.B. 1070.  It took us a long time to recover from that.”  McCain was referring to the NFL’s decision to remove Super Bowl XXVII from Arizona because the state refused to recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

It wasn’t just the NFL that squeezed Arizona to abandon a law that could have created all sorts of problems and issues and lawsuits.  A quartet of influential business groups urged Brewer to veto the bill.  And the Arizona Cardinals have a key role with three of the organizations:  Cardinals president Michael Bidwill is a member of the Greater Phoenix Leadership board of directors; Cardinals general counsel David Koeninger is a member of the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee; and Cardinals executive V.P. and COO Ron Minegar is a member of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s Board of Directors.

So while the NFL deserves credit for firing a shot across the bow, the Cardinals merit some recognition for their involvement in what was a more direct plea aimed at preventing the controversial bill from becoming law.

25 responses to “Potential loss of Super Bowl got Arizona’s attention

  1. This is why superbowls should be hosted in Minnesota instead of Bigoted waste lands like Arizona.do they even still have a football team?who knows.Minnesota=best SB location.SKOL

  2. How is the NFL ‘refusing’ to do business with Arizona if they don’t do, or act the way they want, any different than the law that Arizona was proposing?

  3. Morality and our nations laws should not be decided based on the economic impact of the law.

    I know its been that way for a while, and its not something new with this issue. But the law should be judged on its merits and not on where a SB might be played.

    Someday a law will be passed (or not) that “we” or “you” do not agree should be. And it will be done in order to not lose a SB, and “we” or “you” will be PO’d.

  4. Risk of loss of the Superbowl was not why it was Vetoed. It was Vetoed because of ALL the potential loss of business and the fact that it was a dumb bill that the Gov. saw no merit in.

  5. Why did the NFL allow the Super Bowl to be played in NY after Gov Cuomo said anyone who is pro 2nd Amendment or pro-life was not welcome in the state?

  6. Siding with the minority is bad for buisness in most situations. This one included. There is nothing more American then big buisness flexing thier influence. Buisness, social or political. Chic Fil A anyone?
    Comparing a statement made by a Gov. and a bill almost signed into law? Take a breath. Think. Then post.

  7. So let me get this right, the NFL bullied and or black mailed Arizona. Can everybody put their civil rights flag down for a minute and acknowledge this?

  8. The fact that a law like this was ever proposed in the first place is mind boggling. Why are religious people so concerned with who’s doing who? We have govt to enforce laws, not the bible!

  9. There were a lot of factors that went into the vetoing of this law. The person that vetoed it didn’t happen to mention a thing about the Superbowl being taken away by the NFL as one of them. In fact, she cited much more important things as the reason, like the infringement upon others rights and the can of worms it opened up for broad spectrum discrimination.

    But, if you do believe that the NFL money making machine was responsible for this, why would you applaud this precedent?

    Big time companies can threaten legislators with either economic sanctions (If you don’t pass this law, or if you do pass this law, we won’t bring our product to your state, thus your state loses out on millions of dollars) to influence the law? They can essentially bribe or bully people to do what they want? How is that a good thing?

    How about this, let the people decide what bills should become law without all of this outside influence. It worked pretty well for over 200 years now.

  10. The problem with this law, and with the low standard of debate around it, is that they made it all about “gays versus christians” and about “rights”.

    Making the argument that the State should not be allowed to force private individual or company A to transact with private individual or company B if he doesn’t want to, really should be totally uncontroversial in a free country.

    That’s an argument that I would expect that almost everyone who calls themselves a ‘conservative’ should be able to agree with. And it’s also an argument that everyone who actually is a ‘liberal’ should agree with.

    If you call yourself a “liberal” and you think it’s right that the State should be able to coerce private individuals to transact with others against their will, then I’ve got news for you: You ain’t a liberal.

  11. As a long-time resident of Arizona, I was disappointed that this bill got as far as it did. This bill would have essentially implemented modern-day Jim Crow laws against the LGBT community. When will we realize that we shouldn’t be limiting and discriminating against people. It’s 2014 and we need to move past this – everyone should have the same opportunities and RIGHTS to live the lives they want!

  12. I’m aware that the Super Bowl was not played on NY soil but it was still marketed as a NY Super Bowl, much to the chagrin of many New Jersey politicians. While Cuomo may have been only expressing an opinion, it was arguably a very extreme and alienating one that was completely ignored by the NFL.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!