The Washington Redskins, who have been named that since 1937, have recently been asked by 10 United States Congressmen to change the name of there franchise. The reason for this request is ‘Redskins’ has a negative connotation and is a racial slur against First Nations peoples. When majority team owner Daniel Snyder was asked about the letter, he vowed he was never going to change the franchises name. Although it could be easy to sympathize with Snyder for not wanting to change the name to keep the rich history of the team, from a business stand point, changing the name would be an incredible move. If the Washington based National Football League team decided to change its name, the stories that would be written could be good publicity for the team. Even the president, Barack Obama, said he would “consider changing it were he the owner.” Hypothetically if the name got altered, fans might be angry and upset with the decision but as Allen Adamson, managing director of Landor Associates, points out, “Memories are short when you are in a monopoly market”.

If the Redskins organization refined the name, they would make a lot of money on the new apparel they would be selling. Moreover, the quantity demanded for all of the throwback gear that would still have the name as “Redskins” would go up in because people love to buy that kind of stuff (ie. Vancouverites wearing there old NBA Franchise Grizzlies gear). Forbes has the Redskins as the third most Valuable NFL team behind the Dallas Cowboys and New England Patriots, and it is about time that the Redskins organization realizes that we are in the 21st century and having a name that offends an entire ethnicity is not ethical. If done right, changing the name would put them in a competitive advantage with these other two teams  because of all the free positive publicity and the increase in apparel sales.

If you were the owner, Daniel Snyder, would you take the financial risk of changing the name of your team to cater the request of these 10 US Congressman?

Arian Foster, who is one of the most prominent NFL running backs, admitted in a recent interview that he broke the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) amateurism rules. Foster, who played College football for the Tennessee Volunteers, expressed his distaste for the amateurism rule in an exclusive four hour documentary. “I dont know if this will throw us into an NCAA investigation, [but in] my senior year, I was getting money on the side,” Foster said in the interview. He explains that he didn’t have any money and he either had to “pay the rent or buy some food”. After a game where tennessee would win, in their sold out 107,000 seat stadium, hundreds of little kids would be outside waiting to see him. When he would return home, reality would set in because he would open his fridge and see no food.

Throughout the history of this rule there have been many cases like this one. It is hard not to sympathize with athletes like Foster because anyone who competes at a high level is constantly bombarded with practices or gym sessions. Having time constraints like this make it impossible to have a part-time job. This puts many of these athletes in similar helpless situations which they have no other alternative. Although it is deemed to be illegal by the NCAA, Arian Foster says “there’s nothing wrong with it. And you’re not going to convince me that there is something wrong with it.”

Do you think the NCAA is ethically allowed to keep the amateurism rule after hearing the issues that Arian Foster had to deal with?