Analysis: It wasn't a ‘woke' decision to change the Washington football team's name. It was a business call
It wasn't 'wokeness' that led to that moment. It was capitalism. Corporate sponsors made the decision, not politicians or fans.
On July 2, 2020, after the murder of George Floyd in late May and the resulting national conversation on race and racism, FedEx – the title sponsor of the team's stadium at the time – called on the franchise to change its name.
Nike removed Redskins apparel from its website on the same day. The next day, the league and the organization announced that they were reviewing the team's name. Soon, Amazon, Target and Walmart also removed Redskins merchandise from their stores and websites.
At a time of heightened corporate sensitivity to racism, the franchise suddenly saw the possibility of millions of dollars in revenue being lost due to the Redskins name. After years of controversy, the organization's then-leadership finally saw the financial writing on the wall and gave up a fight they had promised to wage forever.
On July 13, the team announced it was retiring its name and logo and would go by the name Washington Football Team for the time being. Less than two years later, after a contest to rename the team, it became the Commanders.
None of this came about quickly, or without a fight. This was a conversation, and a decision, years in the making. Protests occasionally popped up around Washington Redskins games in the 1990s and early part of the 21st century, but there was no evidence of a groundswell to change the name.
In 2013, the National Congress of American Indians, representing 1.2 million people in its member tribes, announced that it opposed the moniker.
The team consistently replied by saying it was honoring the achievements of Native Americans by keeping the name. As evidence, then-team president Bruce Allen said that three high schools with a majority Native American student body used the name. The team and its supporters mentioned a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that found that a majority of Native Americans were not offended by the name.
Then again, the use of public polling methods to measure a small, diverse population also came into question and was criticized by experts.
More than a decade ago, Sports Illustrated's Peter King led the way, as did a few other sports journalists, including myself, publicly stating that we would no longer use the name – a name that each of us had said thousands of times in our careers covering the NFL.
'Try explaining and defending the nickname to a child,' I wrote in 2013. 'It's impossible.'
Back then, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was still defending the team's name, but he said in radio interviews that he wanted to 'listen' on the issue.
'We'll always listen, and we'll always be open,' he said on ESPN Radio August 1, 2013, when asked to compare his defense of the Washington team name with his comments on Philadelphia Eagle Riley Cooper's racist slur at the time, which were anything but a defense: 'Obviously wrong … insensitive and unacceptable,' Goodell said of Cooper's language.
Goodell went farther a month later while speaking to a Washington radio station: 'Ultimately it is Dan (Snyder's) decision, but it is something I want all of us to go out and make sure we are listening to our fans, listening to people that have a different view, and making sure we continue to do what is right. We want to make sure the team represents the strong tradition and history that it has for so many years. … If we are offending one person we need to be listening and making sure we are doing the right things to address that.'
As the battle reached a crescendo, a federal judge in Northern Virginia ordered the cancellation of the team's federal trademark registrations in 2015 because the team's name was viewed as 'disparaging' to Native Americans. It was the team's biggest legal and public relations loss to that point.
That decision came two years after then-owner Dan Snyder told USA Today sports reporter Erik Brady that he would 'NEVER' change the Redskins' name.
'We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.'
Seven years later, the name was gone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump trade deal with EU leaves Europe relieved − and worried
The Europe trade deal will see the U.S. impose a 15% import tariff on most EU goods − half the threatened rate but much more than Europeans hoped for. BRUSSELS − European governments and companies reacted with both relief and concern on Monday to the framework trade deal struck with President Donald Trump, acknowledging what was seen as an unbalanced deal but one that avoided a deeper trade war. The agreement, announced on July 27 between two economies that account for almost a third of global trade, will see the U.S. impose a 15% import tariff on most EU goods − half the threatened rate but much more than what Europeans hoped for. Many of the specifics of the deal were not immediately known, however. More: Trump and EU reach trade deal ahead of looming deadline "As we await full details of the new EU–U.S. trade agreement, one thing is clear: this is a moment of relief but not of celebration," Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever wrote on X. "Tariffs will increase in several areas and some key questions remain unresolved." Trump said the deal, including an investment pledge topping the $550 billion deal signed with Japan last week, would expand ties between the trans-Atlantic powers after years of what he called unfair treatment of U.S. exporters. It will bring clarity for European makers of cars, planes and chemicals. But the EU had initially hoped for a zero-for-zero tariff deal. And the 15% baseline tariff, while an improvement on the threatened rate of 30%, compares to an average U.S. import tariff rate of around 2.5% last year before Trump's return to the White House. More: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income European Commission chief Von der Leyen, describing Trump as a tough negotiator, told reporters on July 27 that it was "the best we could get." European stocks opened up on July 28, with the STOXX 600 at a four-month high and all other major bourses also in the green. Tech and healthcare stocks led the way. More: TACO or tariffs? Trump's big trade deadline is coming. Here's what to expect "The 15% rate is better than the market was fearing," said Jefferies economist Mohit Kumar. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal, saying it averted a trade conflict that would have hit Germany's export-driven economy and its large auto sector hard. Not the end of the story French government ministers said on July 28 that the deal had some merits − such as exemptions they hoped to see for some key French business sectors such as spirits − but was nevertheless not balanced. Industry minister Marc Ferracci stressed more talks - potentially lasting weeks or months - would be needed before the deal could be formally concluded. "This is not the end of the story," he told RTL radio. European companies, meanwhile, were left wondering whether to cheer or lament the accord. "Those who expect a hurricane are grateful for a storm," said Wolfgang Große Entrup, head of the German Chemical Industry Association VCI. "Further escalation has been avoided. Nevertheless, the price is high for both sides. European exports are losing competitiveness. U.S. customers are paying the tariffs," he said. Stellantis shares were up 3.5% and car parts maker Valeo jumped 4.7% while German pharma group Merck KGaA rose 2.9%, in a sign of relief for those sectors. Among the many questions that remain to be answered, however, is how the EU's promise to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. and steeply increase energy purchases can be turned into reality. It was not immediately clear if specific pledges of increased investments were made or whether the details still must be hammered out. And while the EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases over the next three years, including oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and nuclear fuel, the U.S. will struggle to produce enough to meet that demand. While U.S. LNG production capacity is due to almost double over the next four years it will still not be enough to ramp up supplies to Europe, and oil production is expected to be lower than previously forecast this year. Despite the lingering unknowns, analysts stressed the deal still helped decrease uncertainty. Oil prices rose on Monday, as did the euro. "Now that there is more clarity, you would think that not only in the United States, but around the globe, there will be a little bit more willingness to look at investment, to look at expansions, and to look at where the opportunities are," said Rodrigo Catril, senior currency strategist at National Australia Bank.
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
How Trump's 'no shrinking violets' DOJ is digging in on Schiff's mortgage dealings as legal peril looms
The Department of Justice is likely digging into Sen. Adam Schiff's mortgage paperwork trail stretching back to a Maryland home purchase from the early 2000s as it weighs whether it has an airtight case to potentially prosecute the longtime political foe of President Donald Trump, according to a Cornell Law School professor. "The one thing they don't want to do is to bring a case that fails," William Jacobson told Fox Digital in a Zoom interview, referring to the DOJ potentially investigating Schiff's alleged mortgage fraud. Jacobson is a clinical professor and the Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell. "Either it fails legally, or it fails in court. They don't want to lose that case if you're going against a major political opponent. And that's part of the calculation that will take place." Jacobson talked about the ins and outs of the Democratic California senator's potential legal woes following the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency sending a letter to the DOJ this year claiming that Schiff falsified banking and property documents by listing two homes – on two separate coasts – as his primary residence out of an effort to allegedly get more favorable loans. The DOJ has not yet said whether it would take up the case, but is likely digging into Schiff's paper trail as it weighs whether to move forward, Jacobson explained. "I would expect that the first thing the Department of Justice is going to do is to gather documents. There will be a paper trail here. There will be many things that are documentable, and not 'he said, she said,' as to where Adam Schiff was actually living," he said. As investigators go through the documents, they will ask questions such as: What was his actual primary residence? What did he sign? Who was present when he signed? Did he have conversations with people about it? The law professor, who founded the popular conservative legal blog Legal Insurrection, said that there will likely be a "significant paper trail" to go through due to the case stretching back more than 20 years and due to companies keeping tight records following the 2008 financial crash. "Mortgage companies preserve all of these things because of the financial crisis and other things. They have to maintain these records. . . . And I would expect that that would be the first thing the Department of Justice would look at is the paper trail and the circumstantial evidence as to where Adam Schiff was, in fact, living," he continued, remarking that there are "no shrinking violets" at the Trump DOJ. Schiff first fell under scrutiny this year in May, when the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) sent a letter to the Department of Justice sounding the alarm that, in "multiple instances," Schiff allegedly "falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property." At the heart of the issue are two properties purchased by Schiff: a home purchased in 2003 in Potomac, Maryland, for $870,000 under a Fannie Mae-backed mortgage agreement for $610,000 at a rate of 5.625% over a term of 30 years, and a 2009 Burbank, Calif., condo. Schiff reaffirmed the Potomac property as his principal residence in mortgage refinancing paperwork in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013, according to the FHFA letter to the DOJ. Over the same time frame, Schiff took a homeowner's tax exemption on the Burbank condo while also claiming that home as his primary residence for a $7,000 reduction off of the 1% property tax, FHFA Director William Pulte wrote in the letter to the DOJ, citing media reports. In 2023, the letter continued, a spokesperson for Schiff asserted that "Adam's primary residence is Burbank, California, and will remain so when he wins the Senate seat." FHFA is an independent federal agency that oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System. In 2020, Schiff refinanced his mortgage, listing his Maryland home as his secondary residence. Trump publicly slammed Schiff over his mortgages in July on Truth Social, accusing him of fraud and putting the issue back on the public's radar following 2023 news reports on Schiff's homes in Maryland and California. "I have always suspected Shifty Adam Schiff was a scam artist," Trump posted to Truth Social Tuesday. "And now I learn that Fannie Mae's Financial Crimes Division have concluded that Adam Schiff has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible Mortgage Fraud." "Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA because he was a Congressman from CALIFORNIA. I always knew Adam Schiff was a Crook. The FRAUD began with the refinance of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, and continued through multiple transactions until the Maryland property was correctly designated as a second home on October 13, 2020." Schiff has repeatedly denied and brushed off the accusations, including refusing to answer questions from Fox News Digital about his alleged mortgage fraud when confronted in the nation's capital on July 16. "Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason. So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown. And this baseless attempt at political retribution won't stop me from holding him accountable. Not by a long shot," he posted to X in July following Trump's initial Truth Social attack on Schiff's mortgages. "This is just Donald Trump's latest attempt at political retaliation against his perceived enemies. So it is not a surprise, only how weak this false allegation turns out to be. And much as Trump may hope, this smear will not distract from his Epstein files problem," he added. Schiff's primary residence discrepancies first hit the public's radar in 2023, when Schiff launched an ultimately successful campaign to serve in the Senate after decades in the U.S. House. CNN published the first news article detailing that Schiff had claimed the Maryland home as a primary residence while also taking a homeowner's tax exemption on the Burbank condo. The campaign said at the time that Schiff's two properties were listed as primary residences "for loan purposes because they are both occupied throughout the year and to distinguish them from a vacation property." Trump and Schiff have long been political foes, which was underscored during Trump's first administration when Schiff served as the lead House manager during the first impeachment trial against Trump in 2020, and when Schiff repeatedly promoted claims that Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. Days after Trump first posted about Schiff's mortgages in Maryland and California, the president's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, declassified documents that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia collusion probe after Trump's election win against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016. Schiff was an incredibly vocal lawmaker amid the Russian collusion claims, most notably when the House censured him in 2023 over his promotion that Trump's 2016 campaign colluded with Russia. Schiff served in the House representing California from 2001 to 2024, when he was sworn-in as a senator after his successful 2024 campaign to serve in the nation's upper chamber. Schiff served as the ranking member of the House intelligence committee from 2015 to 2019, before becoming the committee's chair from 2019 to 2023. In that role, he was kept up to date on classified materials surrounding the Russian collusion claims. Trump also recently invoked Gabbard's alleged revelations while attacking Schiff over his mortgages in another Truth Social post. Trump went on to ominously warn during a White House event last week that Schiff has "a lot of other things far worse than" his mortgage inquiry. "He defrauded banks and insurance companies and the federal government, but it's, very simple. It's mortgage loan fraud ... But he has a lot of other things far worse than that. So no Adam Schiff, they have him 100% on mortgage fraud," Trump said last Tuesday from the White House while hosting a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Jacobson said that Democrats have boxed themselves out of attempting to claim that Trump is targeting a political foe over the mortgage criminal referral because the party had spent the last decade launching "lawfare" at Trump. "One of the ironies here that I think everybody understands, is that Democrats launched a lawfare campaign against Donald Trump. And it didn't just start once he took office this year. It's been going on for a decade," he said. "They have used every tool available to try to destroy him, including through criminal prosecutions, including through federal investigations. . . . They've really tried to get him. And for them now to say, 'oh, just because we did that to you for 10 years doesn't give you the right to do it to us.' Legally, that's sound. I mean, you have to prove your case in court. But politically, I don't think that's going to fly. Democrats screaming that Donald Trump is weaponizing prosecutors against them is not going to really impress a lot of people." Jacobson speculated that there will likely be more woes for Schiff in the coming days, but that potential legal cases hinge on prosecutors. "We don't know where this is going ahead, of course, but it does appear that Adam Schiff is in the sights of Donald Trump. No surprise about that, because Donald Trump has been in the sights of Adam Schiff for a decade. So, I fully expect that there will be more here. The question is going to be really though, once it moves into the realm of prosecution, what are the prosecutors going to do?" The Department of Justice declined comment when approached about potentially investigating and taking up the Schiff case. Schiff's office did not respond to Fox Digital's request for comment.
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
Auto Part Of U.S./EU Tariff Deal Gets Mixed Reception
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at ... More Trump Turnberry golf club on July 27, 2025 in Turnberry, Scotland. (Photo by) The German auto industry association said agreement between the U.S. and the European Union on a new tariff regime avoided a trade war but will be a financial burden on its carmakers. The German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) said in a statement it was a positive that the agreement averted a transatlantic trade war. But the VDA also said the U.S. tariff of 15% on automotive products will cost German automotive companies billions annually. Meanwhile, Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes stock prices fell more than 1% Monday after news the U.S. and the EU agreed new tariffs on auto imports. Rather than a negative opinion on the deal, the stock price falls reflected their strong reaction last week on expectations a deal would be agreed. The new tariffs are a substantial improvement on the recent increase to 27.5% charged on European auto imports into the U.S. but still four times the previous charge of 2.5%. Last week, the STOXX Europe 600 Automobiles & Parts Index, which tracks European automakers and suppliers, jumped 3.4% on news Japan had agreed a 15% tariff on its auto exports to the U.S. That rally was led by Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes. On Monday, the index slid 0.2%. Experts had predicted the Japan deal was likely to be the same as that offered to Europe. A Reuters Breakingviews column on the agreement was headlined 'EU's lopsided Trump trade deal will be short-lived'. The column, by Pierre Briancon, said the deal would have at least removed some uncertainty. 'Nevertheless, the tariff level still amounts to capitulation by Brussels. It must be compared not to Trump's threats, but to the 1.47% rate previously applied to European goods crossing the Atlantic. Only two months ago, several EU governments were warning that a 10% across-the-board charge, similar to what the UK had obtained, would be a red line that should trigger some form of response,' Briancon said. 'In addition to the added trade friction, the EU has also promised to import more energy – spending $250 billion a year on American oil and gas – and could invest some $600 billion stateside. That, at least, is Trump's interpretation of the deal. It's unclear whether these figures represent incremental amounts, or what time frame the president had in mind. Fuzzy as they are, these EU pledges at least do not look very binding,' according to Briancon. Not many details The deal, announced by President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, didn't reveal many details. German automakers had been hoping for additional concessions to increase their production in the U.S. and incentivize investment. Exports from the U.S. of German production would also earn concessions. Volkswagen has talked about adding Audi output in the U.S. BMW is the biggest German auto exporter from the U.S., shipping nearly 225,000 vehicles with a value exceeding $10 billion in 2024. Mercedes is another significant exporter. Volkswagen has a U.S. factory but doesn't export much. Another idea would mean for every German export from the U.S., one import would be allowed free of duty, or at a reduced rate.
