The USFL’s Prospects Are Bleak

Whither the United States Football League?

That was the question Wednesday in the wake of a New York jury’s decision to award the financially crippled USFL just $1 in its antitrust suit against the National Football League.

The damages, which triple to $3 under antitrust law, stunned many, but no matter how many words are spoken--and on Wednesday it seemed that everyone had something to say--in the end it will be up to the owners to determine whether the USFL has a future.

Judging by the comments of more than a few of those owners, however, the players, coaches and front-office personnel can start looking for work.

The USFL apparently is soon very likely to make the transition from endangered to extinct.

“I wouldn’t call us out until the last piece of dirt is thrown on the casket, but some very serious decisions have to be made very soon,” said Fred Bullard, co-owner of the Jacksonville Bulls.

“I would suggest things are not the brightest right now. Unless we pull a rabbit out of a hat, it doesn’t look good for us playing this season. Probably the only thing that could salvage the league would be if a network talked to us for 1987, when the NFL television contract runs out. I’m an optimistic person, but it’s hard to be optimistic.”

Added Arizona Outlaws owner Bill Tatham Jr.: “Unless the verdict changes, I think we’ve seen the end, either this year, next year or whenever.”

And from Steve Ross, majority owner of the Baltimore Stars: “Certainly, without a TV contract, there’s no chance of survival.”

The USFL’s only television contract is with ESPN, and that runs out after this season.

Still, there were owners who held out hope.

“You want a prediction?” asked Lee Scarfone, principal owner of the Tampa Bay Bandits. “We’re going to play this year. . . . We’re not depending on the NFL funding us. We’re going to play football. I’d be very surprised if we don’t play.”

Orlando Renegades owner Don Dizney said he, too, would like to see the league continue playing, but he was more realistic about its chances.

“Sure, I still want to play football in Orlando,” Dizney said. “That was our original intention, and it still is. And if I can get the other seven owners to agree, then we’ll still play. But right now, I don’t know how they feel. If just one pulls out, then everything crumbles. We need all eight teams.”

Scarfone agreed. “If two or more teams elect not to play, it would be difficult to maintain a schedule,” he said.

USFL Commissioner Harry Usher has called a meeting of the league’s owners for next Monday in New York. A decision will be made then on the USFL’s next course of action.

Scarfone said the options are “play--go forward, which is where we lean--or not play.” Suspending play until after the appeals process is exhausted or switching back to a spring schedule are also possibilities, he said.

The USFL, which played its first three years in the spring-summer months, had planned to open its fourth season Sept. 14. The league’s training camps are due to open a month earlier than that.

In a television interview Wednesday, Usher indicated that the league will continue its court battle in an effort to get the damage award increased. He also voiced astonishment that the NFL should consider the verdict a victory.

“The jury found that the NFL violated the antitrust laws and injured us,” Usher said. “That’s what the jury found unanimously. For the NFL to crow after being found guilty of violating the law and then go out and crow about having won--God help this country.”

Judge Peter K. Leisure set a hearing for Sept. 3 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to consider post-trial motions related to the controversial verdict. Lawyers for both leagues indicated they may file motions but said they had not decided what specific motions they would make.

Tuesday, after having deliberated for 31 hours over five days, the five-woman, one-man jury found that the NFL had monopolized pro football, but awarded the USFL just the dollar in damages.

After Leisure held a 15-minute meeting with lawyers from both leagues in his chambers Wednesday morning, USFL attorney Harvey Myerson explained the four options his struggling clients had:

--The USFL could ask for a new trial limited to damages only.

--The judge could order a new trial on all issues.

--The judge could enter a judgment “notwithstanding the verdict,” that is, set it aside and make his own ruling.

--The USFL could go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and appeal on questions of law.