Senator threatens NFL's tax-exempt status over the Redskins name

[Admiral Yi]

I miss Chief Noc-A-Homa

Refresh my memory.

[Syt]

I miss Chief Noc-A-Homa

Refresh my memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Noc-A-Homa

[alfred russel]

For the 2015 NFL season, several name changes were instituted.  The Detroit Lions are now known as the Niggers, the San Francisco 49ers are now the Faggots, the New York Giants have been renamed the Guineas, and the New York Jets will from now on be known as the Kikes.

When prompted for comment, Mr. Alfred Russel shrugged and said, "Meh.  Doesn't really seem any more offensive than the Redskins."

I don't think those name changes would be okay. If you picked that up from my posts, you may want to reexamine your interpretation of them, because you have missed something.

[derspiess]

I miss Chief Noc-A-Homa

Refresh my memory.

He had a teepee in the stands at Braves games & would come out & do a dance every time the Braves hit a home run.

[Neil]

And nigger isn't a name to demean blacks, because it comes from the French word for "black."

No, nigger isn't a name to demean blacks, because the only people who use it are blacks and white suburban teenagers who wish they were black.

[derspiess]

Actually, Fightin' Krauts would be an awesome team name.  Think of the mascot possibilities.

A giant bratwurst.

Brewers already have that one covered.



I'm thinking a caricatured Imperial German dude with pickelhaube & monacle.

[Neil]

The difference between Redskin and faggot is that faggot is actually offensive, since it implies that the person being called a faggot is gay.  That's the worst thing you can be.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Name should be changed because it's controversial in a negative way, makes poor business sense. No one in the area is going to abandon the team over a name change, and anyone it alienates now is going to be more likely to buy merchandise or tickets after than they are now. Further, some die hard fans will buy more merchandise in the first few years to have new gear with the new team name on it.

As for the NFL tax exempt status, I think Forbes actually had two good articles on it. One that explained pretty accurately that as a 501(c)(6) [trade organization, chambers of commerce...professional football association] it's pretty obvious why the NFL is similar in theory to other 501(c)(6). Probably 99% of the outrage are all the yokels that think non-profit has to mean "charity", when in fact that's what a 501(c)(3) is, which the NFL is not. However, all non-profits are supposed to have certain features, for example not primarily benefiting a small number of individuals who control the non-profit. Under that framework it is actually probably not appropriate that the NFL as we know it is a non-profit. That's the first article I read on Forbes, but the second actually explained that in spite of that, there is probably no positive tax impact for NFL owners to have the NFL as a non-profit.

As a matter of practice, the NFL returns more to its members than they pay in as dues. The dues that the owners pay are tax-deductible just like your membership dues for any trade association are (ex Chamber of Commerce.) The money that comes back is considered taxable revenue for the organization. Because the dues are tax-deductible but the money coming back is normal revenue, essentially that makes it similar to if I buy something for $50 and later sell it for $70, my tax is calculated on the $20 capital gains so the owners are taxed on the full total of their returned revenue from the NFL but have already taken deductions for all their contributions into the NFL coffers meaning effectively they're paying tax on the "gain."

The NFL itself has never had an incentive to book much of a profit and in fact has an incentive to go into the red every year, as the NFL exists for the benefit of the team owners in toto, not for itself. Its leadership is ultimately beholden to the team owners. The Forbes journalist makes a decent argument that if the NFL were a normal LLC with the 32 team owners as its only shareholders then they'd actually get to collectively take cost of business deductions they don't get to take now, in aggregate this would probably mean that professional football as a whole (the 32 team ownership entities collectively) would pay less aggregate tax than it does now. It appears the primary economic benefit in having the NFL umbrella organization a non-profit is certain liabilities are kept on the books of the NFL instead of on the books of the individual teams, but from a tax perspective it's actually doing the exact opposite of what a good tax shelter would do--it increases aggregate taxes paid by its controllers and removing its tax exempt status would likely lead to less total tax revenue derived from professional football.

[celedhring]

WHile I think the Redskins are a pretty easy and obvious case, there are other situations where it's much murkier.

I mentioned the UND Fighting Sioux.  They were caught up in the same NCAA issues as Stanford.  The University was told to go and get the blessing of the two local Sioux tribes to be allowed to use the name.  I voted in favour.  The other simply never had a vote.  It wasn't good enough, and they had to change their name despite being a very respectful and positive use of Sious symbols and name.

I also think people should just get over themselves. I can't think of a single team name that would offend me. Maybe that is because I'm white. But I'm of Italian ancestry, and if Dan Snyder wants to call the team some derogatory name toward Italians, I don't care. If he wants to single me out and change the name to "AR's Female Ancestors were all Dirty Whores", I really don't care about that either. I just think it would be a hard name to fit on a jersey.

Even us Spaniards get some fairly silly sports names/mascots and we are long gone from the continent.

[Valmy]

I would think the obvious difference is that the Washington Redskins aren't actually linked to any indian groups in any way.

The entire reason the name was picked was to piggyback on the Boston Braves Baseball Club.  They could have easily been the Washington Red Sox.

[Valmy]

Even us Spaniards get some fairly silly sports names/mascots and we are long gone from the continent.

There are Mexican Matadors you know.  But yeah there are teams called 'The Knights' or 'The Kings' or 'The Barons' even though we have long since done away with aristocratic titles.

[Admiral Yi]

Weirdest team name has to be the Demon Deacons.

[Valmy]

Weirdest team name has to be the Demon Deacons.

And their rival the Blue Devils.  They should call the game the 'Satan Bowl'.

[derspiess]

Then there's the UC Santa Barbara Gauchos, which I find horribly offensive for obvious reasons.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't think those name changes would be okay. If you picked that up from my posts, you may want to reexamine your interpretation of them, because you have missed something.

Which is not what I picked up from your posts.  My point was that the slur doesn't cease to be offensive just because it isn't offensive to you.  That's the main difference between that and the others I listed.