The
glory of the National Football League returned in September, much to my delight!
With it comes the joy of Monday Night Football, the frustration of Thursday
Night football (it’s on the NFL Network, we don’t get that channel), and the motivation
to complete my weekend yard chores before the 10 am Sunday morning kick-offs.
But it also brings a recurring drudgery, specifically, the talk of whether or
not the Washington Redskins football team should change their name.
There are a number of people
and groups who take offense to the team’s name alleging insensitivity to Native
Americans. Similar talk occasional arises regarding Major League Baseball’s
Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves, but it’s the NFL’s Redskins moniker
that absorbs the brunt of this line of conversation.
A name change to a
professional sports franchise is not unprecedented. In 1998 the Houston Oilers
football team moved to Tennessee and renamed themselves the Titans. That was a
change decided upon by team ownership, the former Houston Oilers, looking for a
fresh start. A catalyst for the move from Houston to Tennessee was money. The
football stadium in Houston at that time left a few things to be desired. Namely,
the team had an unfavorable lease agreement and the stadium did not have enough
luxury amenities to benefit the Oiler’s team owner. The move to Tennessee fixed
that, but I digress.
In 1972 Stanford University
changed their mascot name from the Stanford Indians to the Stanford Cardinals;
later dropping the plural, a reference to the primary color of Stanford’s
athletic teams, not the bird. That was a scenario where the university consented
to pressure applied by a group of Native American students and a vote by the
student senate.
Aligning Stanford’s action to
what some would like the Washington Redskins to do is not equivalent. While the
Washington Redskins is a private company and Stanford University is a private
institution, Stanford receives millions of dollars from the government in the
form of grants and financial aid. They were not entirely independent, as is the
owner of a professional sports franchise, to do what they wanted. The
university has not a singular head to make tough decisions, but rather yields
to a consensus decision-making process.
A name change, while it would
make the complainers happy, would have the downside of a significant loss of
value to the Washington Redskins football team. The Washington Redskins were
founded in 1932, that’s 81 years of branding and team history. That’s time enough
to build up generations worth of strong affiliations. Strong enough to keep
fans buying millions of dollars in Redskins sweat shirts, jerseys, hats and season
tickets. A name and logo change would put the owner of the team at risk of decreasing
the value of the team by hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, hundreds of
millions. The team currently has an estimated worth of $1.7B! Yes, billion. A
change of name and branding would mean fewer people interested in consuming the
millions of dollars in team-related merchandise annually. The fan affiliation
to the team would be significantly handicapped. This decrease in avid customer
base, fewer customers consuming the product, would result in a decrease in team
value.
I am in favor of the Redskins
changing their name under one condition. The one condition is that the groups
of people and individuals who desire a name change pool their funds, buy the
team, and then change the team’s name to whatever they please. Do it with the
team under their care, custody, and control. No way am I in favor of anyone
requiring the current owner to do it. The complainers are welcome to blunder
around and damage the value of their own investment, they should not be
encouraged to pompously try to obligate someone else to knowingly sacrifice
their financial standing. Do it themselves.
-klem