Corporate dollars could have influence over fate of Redskins name
I’ll be honest: I’m ambivalent on the whole Washington Redskins nickname thing.
I can see both sides of it. Although I can’t say I’m immersed in Native American culture, it’s not as if I hear people slinging around the word “redskin” as a weapon. Yet who am I to judge what certain people deem to be offensive?
Needless to say, it’s a complex semantic and sentimental issue; it’s easier to say just change the name but harder to actually enact it.
We know how things work in this world. Once dollars grow wings, the entire flight plan changes.
If Redskins supporters — and we mean sponsors, specifically, the companies who pay the bills — start bailing, that’s when it will get Daniel Snyder’s attention. Not before.
As much as we believe that fans and their support are the ultimate bus drivers of whether a team has the support it needs to thrive, they’re more the passengers in the big picture. Media pressure goes only so far, too. Corporate dollars really are the ones with their feet on the gas.
I had thought the only way Snyder would back down from his entrenched stance on keeping the name would be if the league intervened and somehow promised him assistance for a new stadium, and perhaps promise him a future Super Bowl. That hasn’t happened because there has been no need for the NFL to step in yet.
Perhaps that scenario still could be the endgame. But the outcry has yet to hit anyone’s wallet, and you can’t tell me that the Redskins’ waning merchandise sales — the profits of which are split amongst all the teams — are enough of a protest to indicate that change is anywhere close to happening.
The league’s connection between new stadiums, Super Bowls and personal favors runs deep. Heck, even Jacksonville got a Super Bowl, lest you forget, because of a promise that former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue made to former Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver. If anyone knows how this works, it’s current commissioner Roger Goodell, who was prominently involved in league stadium development prior to replacing Tagliabue.
But following the strong public (read: financial) response of negativity following the Minnesota Vikings’ decision to reinstate Adrian Peterson to active duty, it’s all become clear. This is the most likely way that Snyder’s Redskins become, oh, the Washington Americans or whatever. It will be spurred on when the sponsors have had enough.
We’d like to think the Vikings made the right call on Peterson in a vacuum, that they sat back in closed offices and heard the response of fans and media on the issue and made the hard decision admit fault and revert back to the initial stance they made on the issue.
See Zygi Wilf's explanation in the video below:
But let’s not fool ourselves. They felt the immediate and foreboding response on their balance sheets first.
This is a team that is building a shiny new stadium, set for unveiling in the 2016 NFL season, and it needs support. Badly. Getting the deal done for it was a tricky and an arduous process, and it required heavy public funding. Not everyone was sold on giving that support, and it took a few political strings being pulled to get the deal pushed through.
The Vikings are headlong into a campaign to add sponsors for the stadium and this is the worst time for them to suffer any hits to their financial ledger. That is why they sat down Peterson.
Their decision to play Peterson was likely motivated by the same thing. In their minds, Peterson gives them the best chance to win, and winning potentially brings in more endorsement dollars. He’s their most popular and recognized player, and the team badly miscalculated people’s scruples on the issue of child abuse. It turns out that people — and people who pay bills — are more concerned about the welfare of a child than of wins and losses. Refreshing in a way, as refreshing as the collateral damage of this ugly blight can be.
To date, Redskins sponsors’ response to the nickname controversy has been one of silence. We have not heard of them backing out from financial support, and it’s one reason why Snyder has yet to give an inch on the issue. Why should he? The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the pen that writes the checks slays all.
Back to my original stance, I am not calling on Redskins sponsors to back out from the team. That’s not my call. But it’s the only way they’re going to get Snyder’s attention and hit him where it hurts. The Vikings’ swift reversal of field laid that out clearly.
- - - - - - -
Eric Edholm is a writer for Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at edholm@yahoo-inc.com or follow him on Twitter! Follow @Eric_Edholm
