DOD paying NFL, NBA, MLB and others for patriotic displays

[RiverDog]

Have you guys heard about this?

“What we take issue with,” wrote Flake, who, like McCain, is a Republican from Arizona, “is the average fan thinking teams are doing this on behalf of the military.”


I know that I was under the impression that they were doing it out of true respect and patriotism and not to turn a buck. It's sickening IMO, that a league rolling in dough paying their athletes the way they do would accept money from the federal government for what should be something that's in the same category as supporting the United Way or fighting breast cancer. Or do they get money for that stuff, too?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ear ... -displays/

I suppose you can excuse the DOD for spending money on what amounts to recruiting efforts, but it should be the other way around. The league should be paying the military.

[EmeraldBullet]

What bothers me, is that when the funding is coming from the fed gov, it's really coming out of our pockets.

[RiverDog]

What bothers me, is that when the funding is coming from the fed gov, it's really coming out of our pockets.

Ever since we went to the all volunteer armed forces, the military has had to spend a significant amount of funds on recruitment, and there's no better place to advertise themselves than at an NFL game with a lot of young folks watching or in attendance, so that part doesn't bother me. If they intentionally kept it quiet or if it was coming from someplace besides their advertising and recruiting budget, then I might object.

The real issue here is what was stated by the congressman from Arizona, that the league was giving its audience the impression that it was something that the team was sponsoring as some sort of heartfelt thanks to the men and women who serve or as a way for the team to show their patriotism and their love for their country, not something they were doing for a fee.

[c_hawkbob]

Those are pretty low numbers for the advertising they are getting too; compared to $5M for a single 30 second Super bowl ad it's not much more than operational expenses.

It'd feel more warm and fuzzy if there we no dollars involved, but IMO this is more a politician seizing an opportunity to get his name in the paper than a real issue.

[RiverDog]

Those are pretty low numbers for the advertising they are getting too; compared to $5M for a single 30 second Super bowl ad it's not much more than operational expenses.

It'd feel more warm and fuzzy if there we no dollars involved, but IMO this is more a politician seizing an opportunity to get his name in the paper than a real issue.

The total between all teams in all leagues, so far, is $6.8M, which admittedly isn't going to balance the budget but it's not chump change, either. And I don't think that the Seahawks incurred $150,000 annually of expenses they otherwise wouldn't have incurred to put on such events. I mean, they're going to have something for their pre game and halftime shows, and I doubt that they charge high school bands or Pop Warner football teams to participate on Game Day, but who knows.

Besides, it's not the amount of money that's important, it's the principle.

[FolkCrusader]

Frankly, I'm surprised anyone actually thought teams weren't getting paid. A field size flag is like $50k. It takes dozens and dozens of people to unfurl and hold it up, most of which are getting paid. We're talking about NFL owners here. Guys that had to be sued just to pay cheerleaders. Guys that make taxpayers pay for the very stadiums they milk our dollars out of us in. These are guys that won't let players wear the best shoes for their feet because they signed a deal with another supplier.

Every single bit of airtime is underwritten in some way. Back then recruiting in to anything green was way down. Seems kids weren't as interesting in an all expense paid trip to Afghanistan as some thought they would be. So the military used the on field displays as recruiting advertising. As bob pointed out that amount of money was pretty cheap compared to the alternatives. Nowadays guys that want to stay in the military are taking demotions just to find a billet. So hence, no more patriotic pregames needed.

The military was glad to pay and the NFL owners were glad to take the money. Seems like a fair trade to me.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry I simply don't see a problem with the NFL "charging" for advertising a product. Don't kid yourselves guys, this is zero different than an army ad on CBS or Fox. All businesses that advertise are going to "charge" to promote your product or company, the way It's always been, and the way it will always be.

I can somewhat understand a vet being surprised by it, but offended? Why. They grew up in this country right? They should know how the country works by now I would think.

[RiverDog]

Sorry I simply don't see a problem with the NFL "charging" for advertising a product. Don't kid yourselves guys, this is zero different than an army ad on CBS or Fox. All businesses that advertise are going to "charge" to promote your product or company, the way It's always been, and the way it will always be.

I can somewhat understand a vet being surprised by it, but offended? Why. They grew up in this country right? They should know how the country works by now I would think.

There's a huge difference between a commercial ad and a tribute or ceremony as displayed at NFL games. When CBS or Fox runs an ad for the Army or Navy, you don't see them coming on during the ad and saying stuff like "Fox invites you to join us in honoring our brave men and women.." and so on like the Seahawks do at a pregame or halftime ceremony. There is no apparent, visible connection between the network selling the ad and the customer that's buying the airtime.

On the other hand, at pregame and halftime ceremonies, the Seahawks do everything but wrap themselves in the American flag, creating an inseparable link between them and the military. They are ALWAYS prefaced with something about them and/or the NFL paying some sort of homage to the cause, to "join us in honoring our brave men and women", just like they do with breast cancer awareness, stop domestic violence, the United Way, etc, intentionally giving fans the impression that it's being done to show everyone that they are this great and honorable corporate citizen giving back to our country by supporting our troops. I've been to scores if not hundreds of NFL, NBA, and MLB games and I've always been under the impression that the tributes were being done as a community service and that they were just being gracious hosts and patriotic citizens without receiving any form of compensation, expenses or otherwise.

Let me put it this way: Are you like me and are under the impression that for the past 3+ years of weekly visits to Children's Hospital that Russell Wilson has been donating his time and not getting anything in return except perhaps a free meal and his parking ticket paid for by hospital? Suppose it was revealed that after all these years, that he was receiving $5,000 per visit paid for directly by Children's. Would you feel like you were being lied to?

[c_hawkbob]

You're not really vilifying the NFL for making a bigger deal out of it that was paid for are you?

If it's something planned and executed in conjunction with the DOD (which I guarantee you it is) they can't call it a tribute if there's any DOD money involved? Would you prefer that the NFL only gave the DOD only the amount of advertising content any other corporation would get for the same amount of money and not use the word tribute?

[RiverDog]

You're not really vilifying the NFL for making a bigger deal out of it that was paid for are you?

If it's something planned and executed in conjunction with the DOD (which I guarantee you it is) they can't call it a tribute if there's any DOD money involved? Would you prefer that the NFL only gave the DOD only the amount of advertising content any other corporation would get for the same amount of money and not use the word tribute?

Yes.

The rub with me is that they are using the words "tribute" and "ceremony", along with their associating themselves with the subject by trumpeting their support by eliciting others to "join with them". If they are that desperate for money, I'd rather that they use words like "presentation" other than "ceremony" and "tribute" and dispense with their wrapping themselves in the flag.

But what I would rather they do is to do what they've been giving us the impression they've been doing: Donate to the cause. Provide the service free of charge, expenses and all.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry man, I see what you're saying but I just don't agree. At all.

[RiverDog]

Sorry man, I see what you're saying but I just don't agree. At all.

No problem. Most people don't agree with my refusal to wear another player's name or number on my back, either, but I have what I feel are pretty damn good principled reasons for not doing it. There are some things that I hold some pretty strong opinions about, and this is one of them. Call me old fashioned if you like.

[c_hawkbob]

Has nothing to do with being old fashioned, that's how I'm usually described as well.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Nothing right about this. Pull at the fans' heart strings to pump up the product while pocketing taxpayer dollars. Not really surprised, but it is messed up any way you look at it.

[Seahawks4Ever]

I don't like it that the DoD has to pay, the NFL and the teams ought to do it as their civic duty, besides, they could write it off their taxes too. But, I am NOT going to quibble, I am awfully grateful what out Armed Forces do and the sacrifices they make in order to keep us and many others safe.