The Washington Football Team
In July 2020, the National Football League (NFL) team formerly known as ‘The Washington Redskins’ changed their name to ‘The Washington Football Team’. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) rejoiced: they had fought to compel the brand to change its name for sixty years. However, it was not until their concerns aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, following the murder of George Floyd, that the franchise was finally motivated to remove ‘Redskins’ from their name.
As the voices of marginalised groups become more prominent, it is essential that we look carefully at how international sporting franchises have chosen to brand themselves, and consider whether they remain relevant to the present socio-political climate. The conversation around traditional values and cancel culture is likely to be front and centre over the coming decade, as global brands attempt to draw the line between being politically correct and evoking a sense of nostalgia in supporters (which seems to be an essential part of branding).
This essay will examine the political and economic pressures which led ‘The Washington Redskins’ to become ‘The Washington Football Team’; it will consider why changing their name and logo was important for public relations and why, despite this change, many remain unhappy with how The Washington Football Team’s leadership conducted itself. It will conclude with reflections on the role of marketing within an inclusive context, arguing that greater recognition is needed for the concerns of marginalised and underrepresented groups.
The Washington Football Team
The term ‘Redskins’ was used as a racial identifier for Native Americans during the colonial era. In the early 2000s, members of the NACI pointed out that this is ‘an offensive term’ with ‘no grey area’. Even The Washington Football Team recognised that such terms ‘possess a transcendental quality that cuts through the traditional boundaries of our modern world’. The Team’s founder, George Preston Marshall, was an advocate for segregation; he chose to use the essence of ‘savages’ as his brand’s identity in order to market to consumers in the 1930s.
By adopting the moniker ‘Redskins’ within the context of 1930s America, Marshall capitalized on an ideology of bigotry and racial superiority. The ideology of the executive board remained consistent as they chose to ignore 60 years of campaigning from Native American organisations and were the last franchise to include a player of colour. This angle was upheld by Marshall until the drafting of African American running back Ernie Davis, in 1962, facing the risk of government sanction if the franchise continued its refusal to integrate.
In 2020, some sponsors, including Nike and PEPSI, made it clear they would not endorse any brand that perpetuated a socially undesirable image, having realized that millennials are committed to political activism and social justice. To fully engage the activism market all brands attached to the third-party sponsors had to be proactively inclusive. Millennials recognise nicknames like ‘Redskins’ as racial slurs, making the brand seem not only dated and racially insensitive, but also incompatible with the values of a progressive society. Sponsors are very careful not to align themselves with brands that are insensitive to these changes in perception, particularly after incidents of public outrage like those which sparked the Black Lives Matter movement.
Within a week, social media handles had been completely rebranded and an official press release announcing the rebrand was posted on Twitter, garnering 50,000 likes and 22,000 retweets.
Responses to Rebranding
The public response to this post offers an insightful view of the relationship between the rebrand and its consumers. Comments on the official Twitter post reflect the polarised response from conservative and liberal fans. A distinction, known by philosophers as ‘Cartesian dualism’, between the actual sporting team and the franchise’s brand is relevant when considering the differences between conservative and liberal responses to the Team’s rebranding.
Conservative supporters of the Redskins regard the franchise with a nostalgic affection, opting not to objectively separate the sporting team from the franchise’s brand. This was the line taken by the Team’s current owner, Dan Snyder, and former president, Bruce Allen, in refusing to separate the actual ‘sporting team’ from the franchise’s ‘Redskins’ branding when the Team relocated to a new stadium during the summer of 1997.
Allen, along with the Team’s management, chose to recognise the fans who saw the term ‘Redskins’ as one of endearment and ignore those lobbying that the moniker and logo perpetuated racial bigotry. Allen’s conservative faction held that the franchise would lose its ‘essence’ by conforming to the liberal shift toward a more progressive society, particularly among the younger generations where there is a greater receptiveness to cultural sensitivities. Fans called out the rebrand as ‘spineless’, with some tweeting that it was ‘some grade A liberal BS’5. These individuals consider the rebranding an attack on their political views rather than something ‘consistent with the aspirational values of a global brand’.
Roy Halbritter, founder of the ‘Change the Mascot’ campaign, praised the change for ‘closing a painful chapter of denigration and disrespect towards Native Americans and other people of colour’. Native American Congresswoman, Deb Haaland, also felt the rebrand showed progress, commenting ‘about time’ on the official Twitter post. Some have argued that ‘brands have narratives, and our culture is full of political, institutional, and commercial narratives that compete with one another to express their view of the world’; it follows that a brand is always positioned as a subjective entity that is ‘just’ in the mind of the consumer’. Positive reactions to the rebrand underline a liberal shift in brand-consumer dynamics, as corporate culture becomes more inclusive and demands products adapted to the changing consumer landscape.
Even among supporters, however, the circumstances of the rebrand can be controversial. Many on both sides consider the rebrand anything but sincere. The franchise neglected to mention that it had only changed its name after BLM added its voice to a protest which the franchise had been ignoring for decades and only when it faced the threat of losing sponsorship. Critics regard the change as ‘knee jerk’ virtue signalling, harking back to the Team’s financial incentive to change its name. Others, who value the franchise and brand for its nostalgic connection to an America that no longer exists, see it as a submissive liquidation of traditional values.
Branding Moving Forward
The Washington Football Team showed no ambition to be a brand that promotes activism but instead changed only when it was in its own interest to do so. The rebrand came not as an attempt to maintain its reputation or improve its relationship with the public but instead to appease third party sponsors that held the purse strings. The strength of cancel culture has motivated sponsors to prioritize avoiding any negative press. If a rule against oppressive and racist references was implemented, then every franchise would probably conform without opposition.
The rules, however, should not be changed to require teams to have politically correct names – that would be indistinguishable from censorship. Moving toward a liberal and connected world, it would be naive not to expect cultural frictions. How these frictions are handled however will shape the public discourse on such social issues. Modern culture doesn’t expect inclusivity, it demands it, and international brands need to make it clear they are not only aware of the times but also willing to take the initiative in updating their global image. The more franchises with dated branding that includes insensitive images commit to modernizing, the more they will contribute to a corporate culture in tune with progressive values.
In a society that values inclusivism above all else, we should encourage sporting teams to consider the cultural impact of their brand, especially knowing that sport has always been an important social unifier. The liberally inclusive idea of ‘one human family’ demands that the interests of marginalised groups are acknowledged, and each side of the story is heard at the very least. For this reason, it is essential to progress with the knowledge that some things are not objectively offensive but are instead a product of their contextual conception. It is important to correct past wrongs, but it is imperative to be aware how those wrongs came to be.