NEW YORK - Just because Michael Vick is back on the NFL market doesn't mean there actually is a market for the one-time star quarterback.

Now that commissioner Roger Goodell has conditionally reinstated Vick so that he can participate in training camp and be available for games early in the upcoming season, which owner might step up and sign him? Or will none of them be interested?

Already, several clubs have rejected the notion of signing the 29-year-old Vick, who missed the last two seasons and spent 18 months in federal prison on dogfighting charges. Both New York franchises, Oakland, Jacksonville, New Orleans and Atlanta, Vick's former team, publicly have done so. Privately, many more have said "No way" to bringing in Vick.

"I think the commissioner made a good decision," Saints general manager Mickey Loomis said Monday. "It's his responsibility and he knows a lot more about it than the rest of us do, so I think he made a good decision."

In terms of whether we're interested in (Vick), we've said in the past that we're not, and I don't foresee that changing. But hey, you never know."

Is it possible all 32 teams will just say no? And could that be construed as blackballing Vick?

Proving any such collusion would be difficult considering the circumstances, and that each franchise must make this decision on its own. Whatever Jerry Jones decides for the Cowboys has little bearing on what Paul Allen opts to do for the Seahawks regarding Vick.

There isn't likely to be a collective approach among the owners.

And yes, all could decide the headaches sure to accompany signing Vick - complaints from sponsors, fans, protest groups and media - aren't worth the bargain price for which they can get the former Pro Bowl player.

Certainly, rule out any teams having trouble selling tickets, because the negative publicity accompanying Vick would exacerbate the problem, particularly if Vick doesn't have a huge immediate impact on the field. Or misbehaves.