It’s been a subplot this offseason ever since the social climate in the United States took a major turn, but no one expected things to progress this quickly, on account of the Redskins name.
When Washington Redskins head coach Ron Rivera spoke about social injustice, and when the team removed the name of George Preston Marshall from their Ring of Honor, the name was always in peripheral view. It wasn’t the focus; not yet. But one could tell the natural progression seemed to be inching closer to the team’s mascot.
Now, the natural progression has proven that intuition to be correct. Yesterday, FedEx, Washington’s stadium sponsor and one of the team’s closest business partners, announced that they had asked the Redskins to change their name, otherwise faced with the risk of separation and monetary loss.
There have been flareups before in the name debate, but for the first time in a long time, this feels real. It feels like there is legitimate movement, and it finally feels as though the pressure is starting to mount for Dan Snyder. What more can we expect from here, and when might it be too much for the team’s owner?
We’ll get back to our regularly scheduled football content soon enough. But for now, there are more pressing matters we need to address.
Recap of Thursday’s events
As we wrote in response to the news on Thursday afternoon, FedEx, the stadium sponsor of the Washington Redskins, and the company whose CEO is a minority owner of the team, announced that they had asked the Redskins to change their mascot. It was not presented as an ultimatum, but the monetary implications of non-compliance should not be underestimated.
Once FedEx dropped their statement, the ball started rolling. Several high-profile sports figures, including the Los Angeles Lakers, spoke out against the current name, and Washington Wizards star Bradley Beal expressed satisfaction at the possibility of a name change.
Additionally, and perhaps most notably, Nike pulled all of their Redskins gear from their website. Pepsi released a similar statement, asking for a name change. Shareholders have asked these companies to terminate their business relationships with the Redskins, barring a name change. Lots of money is on the line. And it’s not only Washington, but the NFL itself, that feels the impact financially. Consequently, it’s not brash to believe that the NFL might get involved at some point, also considering how vocal they’ve been about social issues in recent months.
Dan Snyder has yet to fold, but some players and former players are coming to terms with the possibility of a name change. In an NBC Sports article by Ryan Homler, former Redskins star Brian Mitchell spoke at length about the name change discussion. Mitchell emphasized the need to be open-minded and adaptable in times like these, and expressed understanding for the current state of the name.
“Everybody wasn’t offended,” Mitchell said of his past teammates and coaches, in regards to the name. “But guess what? Those words left. You stopped using those words. If something is offensive, we have to get to the point where we think of that all the same. In this life, things change, whether we want it or not sometimes. But I’ve always been told by my coaches when I played sports, you have to adjust. I think the same thing has to happen in life.”
“What needs to happen is you need to have adults to sit down, and have a conversation. An educated, mature conversation, and then come up with a decision. You don’t go into the decision with a closed mind. You don’t go into a conversation with a closed mind. You go into it with an open mind and just listen.”
Dan Snyder has avoided that very conversation for a long time. But with what’s at stake now, a conversation may ultimately be inevitable.
What does Dan Snyder’s legal win mean?
With all this talk about the name change, one may remember a legal win struck by Dan Snyder in 2017, via the Supreme Court. In June of that year, the Supreme Court, per NBC Sports’ J.P. Finlay, struck down parts of a law that prohibited trademarks on offensive language. This, in turn, protected the Redskins name from a forced legal change.
This decision, at the time, was viewed as a near-terminal development in the Redskins name discussion. It was a statement that no matter how overwhelming the pressure became, Snyder could not be forced to change the name through litigation.
You might remember that Snyder celebrated that decision, as he had previously said he would NEVER — all caps — change the name of his childhood franchise. And you might be thinking to yourself, “What does Snyder’s legal win mean in this context?”
In the context of business, Snyder’s legal win doesn’t mean anything. The Supreme Court’s decision protected Snyder from the law, but not from the LLC’s. Just as Snyder has the legal right to maintain the trademark of the Redskins, other companies have the legal right to terminate their business relationships with Washington if they deem the name offensive.
We’ve already seen this slippery slope start to steepen its incline, as both FedEx and Pepsi have requested a name change from the Redskins, and have been pressured to cut business ties by their stockholders. We’ve also seen Nike pull their Redskins apparel from their online shop, a move that figures to be very significant, not on the legal circuit, but on Dan Snyder’s balance sheet.
What is Dan Snyder’s breaking point?
As of last night, ESPN’s Josina Anderson reported that Snyder still has no plans to change the team name, even amidst this new wave of pressure, relaying that Snyder touted his franchise as one that has contributed heavily to the Native American community monetarily.
Snyder has held his ground in the past, when faced with the prospect of changing the team name, often delaying the conversation for years at a time with his firm stance. It makes sense that Snyder would be such a fervent supporter of the name; he’s a longtime fan of the team who grew up during the franchise’s golden years. Many other fans have similar experiences. The team’s history is endearing, and it was under the Redskins name that they found success.
But Snyder has also never faced as much pressure as he’s facing now. Businesses have not all of a sudden cut their ties with the owner’s team, and gear outfitters have never gone as far as to refuse selling merchandise with the Redskins logo. We can’t distinguish Snyder’s breaking point yet, but in reality, we likely haven’t reached it yet.
But if things continue to trend upward like they have in the past 24 hours, we could see Snyder’s breaking point for the first and final time.
How should Redskins fans feel about changing the name?
We can talk and argue all day about whether the name change is warranted or not, but the fact of the matter is, the business partners of the Redskins are long past that discussion. They’ve levied the judgement that they can no longer financially support a franchise with the Redskins’ name, and thus, we have to address the reality of a potential change, and what it might entail.
The subjects which a name change entails number in the dozens, but one question stands out at the moment, as it pertains to the franchise’s very audience: How should Redskins fans feel about changing the name?
There’s no one specific answer to this question. Feelings will vary from person to person. A younger fan who’s grown up in the twenty-first century certainly isn’t going to feel the same way that a fan who grew up in the 1980’s is going to feel.
With the Redskins specifically, much of the appeal comes in their illustrious history. They’re one of the oldest franchises. They won three Super Bowls in the span of a decade in the late twentieth century, featuring a dynamic ensemble that included Joe Gibbs, Joe Bugel, the Hogs, the Posse, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, John Riggins, and Darrell Green, among many others.
It’s a tough ask, to expect a fan base rooted in this success, to suddenly see its representative badge vanish. And just as we should show empathy toward those unseen people who may be offended by the name, we also have to show empathy for those who’ve fostered an emotional connection to the team’s mascot over the years.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way; as I’ve said recently, I’m not in a position to be personally offended by the name, but as a white male, I can’t let my limited life perception block out other viewpoints and experiences that are currently inaccessible to me. There’s only so much any of us can know, experience, and control, and the name discussion has proven that statement to be true in its entirety.
In my opinion — and again, I don’t expect others to feel the same way — I think a name change could be a good thing, just from a football perspective. The Redskins made a monumental transition at the start of the decade, moving on from Bruce Allen and hiring Ron Rivera. For the first time in a long time, things are looking up for the franchise on the field. And the name change may be an opportunity to double down on that strong change of direction, and officially move into a new era of Washington football, one that no longer clings to past successes while wallowing in modern mediocrity, using the past as a crutch to maintain relevance.
I think there’s a way for the past to be respected, while following a new path for the future, in respect of those who want change. It’s never going to be an easy discussion to have, but with the dominos starting to fall on Dan Snyder’s table, it’s a discussion we may no longer be able to avoid.