The NFL club in Washington, D.C. has faced pressure for years over the derogatory term the team uses as a nickname. Public awareness and media coverage of this pressure has intensified over the past couple of years, but team owner Dan Snyder has remained steadfast that he will no be changing the name of the team. He has faced lawsuits, protests, and a denial of the copyright all while maintaining that the term "redskin" is not offensive. Roger Goodell and the rest of the league have stood by Snyder, but have recently begun to back off from their support. Despite the diminishing support of the league, it seems apparent that Snyder is going to remain firm and would never change the name of the team while he owns it. However, a recent report by Mike Wise at ESPN (you can read that here) states that at least two members of the British Parliament wrote to Goodell strongly urging that the team name be changed. Washington is scheduled to play in London this upcoming season. There are a couple of reasons that this new pressure from abroad could be the catalyst to change the name.
1) Despite all of his bumblings, Goodell's main jobs are to maximize league revenue and to maintain the image of the league. The two members of Parliament (Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin) said in their letter that having a team using a racial slur as a name goes against what the British have been working hard to combat in their own football (soccer) league. England has strict anti-racism laws pertaining to sports stemming from the Football (Offences) Act of 1991. Sending a team to play in London whose name goes against this act would be a huge blow to the image the NFL is trying to portray in England. Parliament has also suggested that they will discuss having the network that airs the games in London not air them. That would be a blow to league revenues.
2) Smeeth and Austin did say that if the name will not be changed, the least the NFL could do is send another team in their place. This could be an option, but may prove to be too tricky for the league to accomplish. The Cincinnati/Washington game in London is scheduled to be a home game for the Bengals. Their other home opponents are Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Denver. The level of interest of any of these teams to change from going to Cincinnati to London is questionable at best, and this would cause a scheduling nightmare for the league. While the full schedule has not been released, it's close to being done and changing the London opponent would affect bye-weeks and the schedules for the other opponents for the team that replaces Washington in London. It would be easier to change the name.
So, to help our good friends Dan and Roger out, here are a few suggestions for a new team name:
1) Washington Iconoclasts: Snyder has already shown a willingness to besmirch Native Americans so this is sort of an ode to him (though he'd probably love that) and would be a nod to George Preston Marshall who changed the name of the team to the Redskins in the first place. It's also an ode to the extreme right wing members of our government.
2) Washington Potomacs: This would recognize the river in Washington, D.C. and would be a somewhat inoffensive way to "honor" Native Americans as Snyder claims his current team name is doing. This also would not require a mascot change, though that could still prove to be problematic with those who are opposed to the current name and mascot.
3) Washington Jeffersonians: When the United States was being formed there were two ideologies that were being discussed (to use a polite term). One was the views of Alexander Hamilton who argued for a strong, centralized government. The other set of views were most prominently held by Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the national government not be so strong and that the individual states should maintain more rights and powers. As Snyder seemingly believes and acts as if his team is a sovereign entity of the league, it would be appropriate to name the team after a Founding Father who most likely would share the same view.
4) Washington Senators: When baseball returned to the nation's capital they had the option to name the team after the previous team in Washington, D.C. but opted to go with "Nationals". This would be a nice throwback option honoring sports history in the city.
5) Washington Pigskins: If Dan doesn't want to change the whole name then what about just changing half of the name? Especially the offensive part of the name? Using this name would also allow fans to continue to dress up as The Hoggetts and actually have it make sense in terms of representing the team. Their mascot could also be a football. Simple, but effective.
What do you think? Could pressure from English lawmakers actually result in the team and league acting on this issue? What do you think the new name of the team should be?
No comments:
Post a Comment