The NFL, 9/11 and a decision that was bigger than the game

Primary Journalistic Dispatch & Direct Reporting

When everything changed, as the dust literally settled on the most brutal terror attack on United States soil, the prevailing impulse among NFL owners was to play the games.

At the time, it was hard to believe. In retrospect, it's a blessing that they didn't get their way.

Twenty-five years ago, as a stunned nation coped with the ramifications of a coordinated attack that exploited our imperfect homeland security procedures and killed nearly 3,000 innocent victims, many NFL owners insisted - some of them quite loudly - that the games must go on as scheduled.

In-Depth Developments & Factual Context

They wanted to make a statement to the terrorists that the wheels of commerce would not be stopped, which conveniently benefited their own bottom lines.

Ultimately, they were shouted down, most notably by the men who'd be told to don helmets and shoulder pads and smack one another into submission. History has judged those players kindly.

A quarter-century after 9/11, it seems unfathomable to surmise that a grieving nation could embrace a football Sunday as bodies were still being pulled from the rubble.

Industry Impact & Strategic Analysis

And yet, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon in Arlington, Va., most owners were intent on staging a full slate of games five days later. The players who successfully pushed back were the voices of reason.

As one prominent owner told me in the lead-up to the 10th anniversary of the horrific act of aggression, "Most of the owners thought we should play the games, and when (then-commissioner Paul Tagliabue) made the decision to wait a week, internally it was not a popular one. He took a risk, but he did what he felt was right. And I think, looking back, we'd all agree it was the respectful and appropriate move."

Tagliabue, who died in November , had a strong working relationship with NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw, whose constituency strongly favored pausing the action to assess the situation. By Sept. 13, the two men were aligned: There would be no games that weekend.

Forward Outlook & Market Perspective

When I revisited the decision with Tagliabue in 2011, he conceded that many of the owners who employed him weren't thrilled with that news.

"But in my mind," he explained, "you couldn't continue with business as usual, because this was not business as usual. This was a cosmic, unprecedented event, and playing football games that weekend was not appropriate."

It seems like an obvious calculus now, but at the time the NFL made it much more complicated. Competitive and logistical factors came into play.

There were 31 teams in 2001, meaning at least one (in this case, the San Diego Chargers) had a bye each week. Losing Week 2 completely and keeping the rest of the schedule intact would have forced the Chargers to play 16 games while everyone else played 15, one of the factors that convinced Tagliabue to move Week 2 to the end of the regular season.

That season, however, there was only a one-week break between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl, depriving the league of its normal buffer zone. Tagliabue and the owners toyed with eliminating a playoff round (meaning only four teams in each conference would qualify for the postseason, rather than six) or keeping the full field intact but staging midweek games during the wild-card round, with quick turnarounds.

The other option, pushing the Super Bowl back a week, was initially rejected because New Orleans, the host city, had booked an automobile dealers' convention that had gobbled up most of the desirable hotel rooms.

Reporting synthesized and verified under Nexvoro.tech editorial guidelines. Full primary records referenced via Google News US Sports.