Capitalism did not seep in to sports yesterday, it has been leeching in to the games for a long time now. Free market capitalism should have long ago corrected the issue of a pejorative being used as mascot for a multi-billion dollar football team. Capitalism is showing itself as the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The Washington Redskins received their namesake in 1933 when the team (then the Boston Braves – named because they played at Braves Field) moved their games to Fenway Park. At that time, cultural sensitivity, or more accurately, cultural concern/respect, was not the talk of the day. Strong polling and marketing strategy did not exist then in the fashion that we see it today. If Native Americans had actually been asked in 1933 if they were discomforted by the possible nickname, they likely would have raised their hands in dismay, or at the least preferred a different name be given. Formal public protest of the name took place as far back as 1968 (informal protests likely more latent), however it took the death of George Floyd to prompt the groundswell for changing the name.
Yes, the word Redskins is offensive. An otherwise descriptive word initiated without offensive intent by the French as a description of the Native Indians they encountered in the late 1700’s underwent pejoration over time. In 1863 the first major pejoration was noted when Minnesotans were called to kill indians for a bounty. If a Minnesotan provided the scalp of a redskin, he would be provided with a $250 bounty. Since then, the term Redskin was used in an offensive manner as a slur, not as a simple reference to skin color.
In early June this year, FedEx, along with Nike, and Pepsi requested that the Washington Redskins change their name due to the offensive meaning of the name. Capitalism reared its beautiful head when those corporations rightly threatened to pull their advertising dollars from the Washington Redskins football team if it did not change its name. Owner Dan Snyder, who in 2013 proclaimed that the name would never be changed, now was put to a decision. Lose millions of dollars in ad money while stubbornly hanging on to a nickname, or succumb to the pressures of FedEx and others and move to make the change. Sounds simple right? But when you are a billionaire owner like Snyder, you don’t get pushed around in the public eye quietly.
The killing of George Floyd in May brought great attention to the problems of racism and police brutality in America. “What better time than now” (thanks Zack de la Rocha), to pull the plug on the sponsorships for the Washington Redskins. The public certainly should look respectfully to FedEx, Nike, PepsiCo., and others and appreciate that they now intend to put their advertising money/sponsorship of the Washington Redskins elsewhere due to the derogatory name of the team. However, we should not laud these companies blindly.
Why now? The word was offensive for years and years, but why only now are the sponsor dollars being pulled? Did the companies decide that they should await national unrest to attain the best publicity for this change? Did these companies look at the growing social justice movement in America and make an altruistic decision for the betterment of society?
These companies looked at their bottom lines and determined that their advertising dollars on the Washington Redskins were no longer worth the hassle of sponsoring a team with an offensive name. I would have preferred a different action; pull the advertising money from the Redskins and move those funds to support another team. Had they spoken with their wallet (no threats, just give the money to someone else), a more punitive scenario would have occurred – Snyder would have been forced out. Instead, the name will be changed (good), a history of sexist culture within the organization has been exposed (ugly), and Snyder remains the owner (very bad).
For now, the team has temporarily been named the Washington Football Team. The expense to the team will be immense as it changes logos, names, and maybe even colors as it eventually moves to a new moniker. The expense for this change pales in comparison to the cost that this change would have amounted to prior to Snyder’s tenure. When Snyder took over in 1999, he would have been better served by promptly spending the money to change the team name. He would have earned immediate respect for halting the use of this term as a representation of the football team.
Snyder will now tap dance with the media to spin that he is changing the team name (and working to improve executive culture?) for the good. The name change and efforts to improve executive culture will both be good, but he is not doing this for the good. He’s doing this to retain the ownership of his lucrative NFL team. He’s doing it for the money. While capitalism is a base reason for doing right, I’ll take the right however I can get it.
Paul MacDonald - Sports Broadcaster 