Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

ues • • lorla I've followed with great professional and personal interest the actual situation with AMA's current litigation against three of the largest manufacturers. My attorneys have continually advised me not to comment because of AMA's allusion of including me in the litigation. However, my conscience will not let me see the manufacturers get wrongly accused any longer just because they have decided it is in the best interest of the sport not to comment 'on AMA's barrage of accusations and start a "press war." I'm sure the manufacturers are trying to protect the motocross sport from the same devastating effects we saw in championship car racing as a result of the USAC-C.A.R.T. mudslinging, but their silence may be keeping the full story from being aired. I've tried to avoid going to the press on the situation but do not believe the AMA Board of Trustees or the motorcycling public is aware of the problem, since we have some ver)la good people on that board. If someone doesn't jolt the board into becoming involved it may get to be too late. Fortunately Chuck Larsen, AMA's President, recognizes some- of the problems and has asked me to address some of the current problems, including those beyond th"e dispute with the manufacturers, at the Nov. 5 board meeting. I'Ii be there, but I'm afraid that may be too late. My company, Stadium Motorsports, started Supercross in 1972 after several years of outdoor events and have worked with AMA promotions fO,r 15 years. With that experience in mind I feel confident in saying that AMA's current position not only on the litigation but more importantly, on their general attitude toward motocross is by far the greatest threat to our sport. Very simply AMA because of their make up, must serve a variety of divergent interests, some quite well, but many of which are not compatible with maximizing the success of motocross. In the current litigation AMA feels the need to establish the correctness of authority of their Board of Trustee's system. However, few of their board members, although excellent people, have been able to keep up with the rapidly changing needs of motocross, a large sports/entertainment business, so it suffers. Perhaps a solution is a separate motocross committee of knowledgeable, involved industry people with only fiscal responsibility to the AMA board. Inclusion of representatives from the man'ufacturers, 'sPonsors and J 16 promoters on an AMA committee, broadly representative of the sport and meeting regularly, would spur a healthy growth. Lack of a good system of regular communication is one of the roots of the current problem. _ I have reason to believe the manufacturers and all others concerned would support the decisions of this well made up board but AMA unfortunately has repeatedly refused to consider it. Certainly AMA has the legal right to correct what they see as a wrong by the manufacturers by pulling out of the Trans-USA. However, whether the manufacturers were right or wrong in not participating further in ~he Trans- USA series, the AMA should never have let the problems get to the stage where it reached an impasse that resulted in litigation. The manufacturers had repeatedly (and from the highest levels) asked for consideration of their needs and AMA's current structure just doesn't allow that flexibility or sensitivity to the needs of the sport. As I see it the manufacturers have been recognizing that our sport was deteriorating due to poor management because of the current AMA structure and wanted changes. It is unfortunate that AMA's lack of responsiveness to the manufacturers repeated requests led to the filing of the litigation; with a more modern AMA structure that never would have occurred. I guarantee it. AMA says they tried to compromise to the point needed, but it was an effort doomed to fail by an archiac structure and AMA's "need to win" taking precedence over the long-term' health of the sport. . Most knowledgeable people believe that those who (A) have the most to cO{1tribute to the sport; and (8) have the most to gain or lose from success should have a voice and be listened to in matters concerning the policies of the AMA. The manufacturers who have made our sport possible with ongoing investments of tens of millions of dollars, fill both the above requirements. Secondly the sponsors with major investments. Finally the promoters, who risk hundreds of thousands of dollars on a one-day event which weather could wipe out, should be a part of the decisionmaking process. The AMA's primary function in professional motocross should be limited to enforcing rules agreed on by all concerned, for the "benefit of the riders and fans. AMA resists this to retain their "power" but are not able to manage the opportunities dur sport presents as their current adversary position with both their manufacturers (suppliers) and promoters (retailers) shows. "No" you say? "Look what AMA has done with Supercross in II years." Wrong. Supercross has grown in spite of AMA restriction of the growth, from discouraging national television and sponsors to allocating events based on personal relationships, not benefit to the sport. IJ unfortunately, have volumes of files showing problems the current AMA structure causes, and have been pleading for changes. \ A case in point is that when this promoter pointed out inconsistencies and poor planning (which would hurt the entire sport) in one of AMA's major sponsor contracts, I was singled out for "punishment." All of SMC's new promised events for 1983 were taken away (including New York the best market in the coun~ry to help the sport grow) and only after weeks of fighting did we get two of four back. One of those AMA took was an event at Los Alamitos, a fine event which would really help out Class C. If AMA can get away with that with their largest promoter, no wonder one doesn't often hear the legitimate gripes of the smaller promoters , they are scared. Even now AMA is trying to coerce the promoters to sign their 1983 sanction contracts when AMA cannot tell the promoter what the program is, if the team riders will be there or other major promoter concerns. Yet, if we won!t sign these unilateral, contradictory agreements, it is indicated "you won't be part of the circuit." As Chuck Clayton pointed out, a responsive organization is needed in a fast moving, potentially big-time sport, and the stars are necessary on the start line. AMA currently fills neither of these bills. However, to keep AMA competitive and our sport healthy a proposal has been' introduced which maps out the sport's needs and recommends positive changes for AMA. With our sport already racked by a devastating economy the uncertainty and delays (caused by AMA refusing to legitimately negotiate their problems with the manufactl,lrers and promoters) are costing the sport hundreds of thousand of dollars and more importantly, growth. Sure AMA m~y get their "pound of flesh" and a small recovery in court, but in the' meantime the whole motocross situa. tion is being destroyed. Most promoters have refused to sign AMA's sanction contracts, hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsor contracts may go to other sports, advertising is held up and most importantly television contracts which expose motocross to millions of fans nationwide have not been finalized. And all this is happening when our sport has the opportunity to go big time; Miller High Life made motocross their biggest 1983 sports sponsorship, our 1982 L.A. Coliseum TV show did a 28 share - the number one sports show in the nation that weekend, the Anaheim Stadium Supercross drew the largest crowd in the stadium's 16-year history, etc. The opportunity is here now. As Chuck Clayton suggested, and I believe, wr;. can become very large. Within three years we can have a 25event Supercross 250cc series for "A" graded riders, a second tier outdoor national series for 500cc and 125cc bikes ("B" graded riders) and a 500event-per-year web of amateur events; much like the Ford Punt, Pass and Kick program or Coca Cola's youth soccer. However, without integration, continuity, organization and leader- ship it will not happen and the cur· rent structure doesn't offer these. Can't AMA see the problem? I hate to think AMA may be intentionally trying to rlin the manufacturers oul of motocross so AMA gains more power. Howeve~, AMA management has repeatedly told me, "we don't need the team stars," and AMA repeatedly turns down reasonable plans to negotiate with both the manufacturers and promoters. Some people poiiu out the success of NASCAR without factory stars. That is apples and oranges. (1.) When the factories pulled out of NASCAR there were already sufficient sponsor and TV dollars to support the purses - right now without the factory rider contracts and support, motocross in no way could fill the void of millions of lost dol· lars. (2.) When the car factories pulled out, their stars didn't race in another competitive series as the factories would be obligated to do to fulfill rider contracts. That would be deva . tating to AMA motocross as the Trans-AMA showed (I have heard that -AMA may be suing to repa..y those promoters their losses - I allege that those promoters wou,ld give up that right in a second just to get 1983 going!) (3.) At the time the factories pulled out of NASCAR, NASCAR events were more mature - drawing far more than the 3,000 to 7,000 our average outdoor nationals do. (4.) There are far more options for a sports/entertainment fan now to spend his dollars with than 15 years ago. (5.) Most importantly, shouldn't the people who finance the sport (manufacturers and promoters) get a voice in it? AMA doesn't know the pros and cons of risk/reward, profit making analysis and sports marketing, so why should we have our future in their hands unless they respond to the sport's needs? In particular, when they have had their chance for 10 years and gone backwards! Even with all that reasoning aside, does AMA have the ethical right to not only slow our sport down with this litigation but able to use sanction fees I pay and dues you pay to sue the manufacturers who supply the racing teams and stars? In addition, the costs of defense can do nothing but increase costs of motorcycles, albeit slightly. And as Larry Maiers said, the blind pursuit of this 'suit could bankrupt AMA. AMA merel y needs to step back and put its interests after those of the sport. No matter who was at fault in the litigation, bigger things need to be addressed for the future. The manufacturers have the best interest of the: sport in mind, they merely wish to sell motorcycles, not play politics, and the best way to sell dirt bikes is to have a healthy motocross, including amateur program. The manufacturers apparently recognize we are a long way from where our sport could be with modern management and I bel'ieve have merely decided the would like to see some reasonable changes. The Trans-USA situation , just got unfortunately caught in th middle. Yet, when was the last time the Japanese were wrong on the big picture? Just look at your brand of motorcycle. AMA, please, accept the decisions of a negotiation/arbitration committee before it is too late; I believe the promoters and manufacturers will. Let's get on with a bigger and better hational motocross program. I've invested years and millions of dollars in our sport and you; I want us all to survive but. ..are you listening? Mike Goodwin President. Stadium - . Motorsports Corporation

• Cover