Over a Cup of Coffee

by Jerry Hewitt
October 20, 2010 - American Indoor Football Association (AIFA)

Every league that has failed in this sport came down to its leadership or the lack thereof. Some can rationalize things with excuses to exonerate leadership, but success or failure in any business rests with those in charge.

I've found in my tenure in the game that some league leaders have control issues, while some are weak at the helm or are far too overbearing. Leaders come in all shapes and sizes and have their own styles. Leadership can be looked at a number of ways. You can judge someone a good leader if they can sell their ideas and get needed support for the direction they choose. You can also judge leadership by what is left behind after a leadership change; whether what's left is just ashes or a strong enterprise. Leadership can also be judged by who a leader surrounds himself with, his or her advisors, and whether those people are knowledgeable and capable of giving good advice. It is also important if the advice given is accepted or not. Perhaps most importantly, leaders look out for the good of the member teams.

As an example, National Indoor Football League founder Carolyn Shiver might be considered a good leader in some ways, not so much in others, for at least some of the league's life. She was able to band supporters together in a common cause and sell her program. In part, she was a good leader because she could move people with different agendas in the same direction, but she failed on the rest of my criteria, didn't listen to her advisors and eventually left a pile of ashes in her wake.

The book is still open on some who are running leagues today while it appears to be on closing on others. There are only two leagues whose leadership is not currently under fire: the CIFL and IFL. Leadership in the AIFA and SIFL is taking shots from every corner of the sport.

IFL Commissioner Tommy Benizio comes under fire from some fans, but can not be considered a bad leader at this time. He came to the IFL with a resume of success at the minor league level. All may not agree with his style, but he has been able to keep most in the IFL on the same page and sell his ideas to member teams, new and existing. The IFL control runs on three levels: decisions the commissioner can make without a vote of the teams, the executive committee who can make some decisions without a full vote of the teams, and decision making that requires a full vote by member teams. It is the only league now existing that still uses the old NIFL process, though without the control of a league owner.

Even though the IFL uses a system that takes total control away from one person, it would still be Commissioner Benizio's legacy if the league failed while he sat at the top. That is how history would view it.

The CIFL runs similar to the IFL in that the teams primarily make the decisions, but Jeff Spitaleri sits at the top. Jeff is listed on the CIFL site as co-founder, but also assumes the role of commissioner. Some have said that Spitaleri is too nice of a guy to be running a league and at times has let the teams guide the direction which has led to a lack of stability. True or not, Spitaleri has maintained enough control to keep the league going. His downfall has been not being able to sell his program. In my opinion, Spitaleri may have toughened up over the years and is now better prepared to get needed things done within the league. If the CIFL were to fail today, I think Spitaleri would shoulder the blame for failure and not try to pass it on to others.

I believe these two leagues survive today because teams have a say in their destinies. That is something that can not be said about the AIFA and SIFL.

The AIFA was ran by two people at the top, but it appeared that only one, John Morris, called the shots up until a recent amicable split sent Mike Mink to run the AIFA West independently of the East. A poor model which called for setting up teams in selected cities and then attempting to find ownership for them, to the profit of the league leaders, has doomed this circuit. I'm not alone when I say that leadership has failed its teams and all but killed the league. The book is still open on how Mink does in the West, but unless teams have more of a say, it most likely will fail as well. The legacy of the AIFA will be one of failure, I'm afraid.

The book is still open a crack on SIFL leadership, but the formula for success is in serious doubt. Here is another league that pretty much leaves teams out of the decision making process and places it in the hands of one or two people. Thom Hager had a good dream, and many, including myself, bought into it, but his dream turned into a nightmare and forced him to decide that selling out was his best course of action. As a leader, he has failed. It now appears to be two people, Gary Tufford as commissioner and a new owner who are calling the shots. The book may still be open, but it appears decisions affecting the teams in this league are not being made with much team input, and these decisions apparently are not to the liking of several franchises. It is one thing to sell your plan, but quite another to just force it down someone's throat because you can. That appears to be what is happening within the SIFL.

In general, I see systems in which teams make the decision, but with some guidance, as the best. It balances the power and spreads it out enough so the chance of abuse is minimized. The NIFL system failed to keep that league going, but circumstances between it and the IFL are much different. In the NIFL, the commissioner was also the owner of the league and she kept power because she could. She over-rode the decision making process because she could. Her abuse of power caused some member teams to go it on their own in forming United Indoor Football. It was also this abuse of power that the Intense League used as their reason for partaking in only one year as a part of the NIFL. Those two leagues then formed the IFL. The difference between the NIFL and IFL is that no one person owns the IFL.

The CIFL might benefit from adopting the IFL plan, but it seems to be sustainable as it currently operates. The key to both having a future is that they allow member teams to have a say in their destiny. It is also true of some failed leagues that the teams more or less caused failure because nobody was on the same page. You could blame the teams, but I go back to leadership. If a leader can't sell his or her program and get teams on board, doesn't it prove they are not a good leader?

The IFL is the only league where the member teams have a real say in who is their leader. This is also the most successful league at this time. I think their success is a direct result of team involvement. Tommy Benizio is the man the IFL teams have chosen and it is their opinion of his abilities that ultimately matters. I've had more than one IFL owner tell me that Commissioner Benizio does the best job he can with what the IFL ownership has given him to do. Although I've said the CIFL appears to be under good leadership, the teams still don't get a vote in who leads. So far that lack of being able to choose leadership hasn't folded the league. I would challenge anybody to show me, prove to me, that the dictator style of leadership in which teams have no say has ever been proven successful.

Prior to writing this article I emailed Thom Hager, John Morris, and Mike Mink for their input. I received nothing from any of the three, although I did get an email from Jack Bowman, AIFA National Director, saying that the league would not answer my questions.

American Indoor Football Association Stories from October 20, 2010

• Over a Cup of Coffee - OSC Original by Jerry Hewitt

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer(s), and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts or opinions of OurSports Central or its staff.