1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser
Controversy!NFL

Beginning Of The End For The Redskins Name? Roger Goodell May Be Softening On The Issue


An NFL team changing its name because it was forced to do so? Seems impossible, because as we learned earlier today, the NFL rules everything. But this controversy with the Washington Redskins name just doesn’t seem to be going away, no matter how hard that Dan Snyder and Bruce Allen try and wish it into the cornfield.

And now they may have lost a key, staunch supporter. Commish Roger Goodell, who just three months ago had come down firmly in support of keeping the name, seems to have done a sudden Frank Pentangeli u-turn on the issue.

What caused the change heart? A horse head in his bed? The answer is shrouded in mystery. What we do know is that Goodell is appearing to crack, and if he goes, that could bring down the whole dam. Huffington Post:

“If we are offending one person, we need to be listening and making sure that we’re doing the right things to try to address that,” Goodell said during an interview with LaVar Arrington and Chad Dukes on 106.7 The Fan in Washington on Wednesday.

Dukes raised the polarizing subject of the Redskins’ name with Goodell, asking if the power to alter it rested solely with team owner Daniel Snyder, who has previously insisted that he will “never” agree to a change.

“Well, as you guys know, I grew up in Washington. So, the Colts were my team early on, and then I became a Redskins fan,” Goodell responded. “I know the team name is part of their history and tradition — and that’s something that’s important to the Redskins’ fans — and I think what we have to do though is we have to listen. If one person’s offended, we have to listen. And, ultimately, it is Dan’s decision. But it is something that I want all of us to go out and make sure we’re listening to our fans, listening to people who have a different view, and making sure that we continue to do what’s right to make sure that team represents the strong tradition and history that it has for so many years.”

Goodell had defended the Redskins name as recently as this past May, when he wrote a letter to Congress which included:

“For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.”

That’s some bullshit, of course, at which Goodell excels. In fact, the franchise has a pretty poor record in diversity and unification, being as it is the last NFL team to sign a black player.

It wasn’t until 1962 that team owner George Preston Marshall signed an African-American player — Heisman-winning running back Ernie Davis — and then only because he was forced to do so. The federal government had to in effect step in to integrate the Redskins, as Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall told Marshall that the team would be kicked out of its stadium if they didn’t do so. (D.C. Stadium was a federal government property).

History may somewhat be repeating itself.

In August, Slate announced that it will no longer refer to the team as the Redskins. And this past July, Redskins icons Art Monk and Darrell Green came out in favor of changing the name.

It’s estimated that a name change would cost the NFL $20 million in rebranding, so don’t look for anything to happen soon — especially in light of the fact that the league just shelled out more than $700 million in that concussion settlement.

But the glacier is beginning to move. Probably should start thinking of a new name now and beat the rush.

We’ve already got “Redtails” (thanks, Washington D.C. councilmember David Grosso — we’ll get back to you). The “Whiteskins”? That’s more like it.

READ: Roger Goodell’s Defense Of The ‘Redskins’ Name Is Bullshit, But One Line In Particular Reveals The True Depths Of His Bullshit [SportsGrid]


  • Frank DiSalle

    How about the Washington Greenbacks? There’s plenty of those in the DC area ?

    Or, better yet, the D.C. hypocrites?

  • Touma

    While we are at it, I would like to make a formal complaint about another team, the Vikings. Vikings are stereotyped as pillagers, rapists, and mass murderers. As a white man of European descent, I am offended that the NFL uses a white man’s image to be depicted with such a barbaric stereotype.

    I am also offended by the use of the word Giants for the team from New York. Tall people face a lot of discrimination, with giant being at the top of the list of names they are called. Please stop using this offensive name!

    You also might want to change the Saints. That might offend the not religious among your fans.

    After all, despite the majority of people not being offended by these names, if even one person is offended you need to be talking about changing the names. :)

  • skippy

    It’s time that other franchises got on the bandwagon – let’s honor the Chinese role in California history – the 49ers can become the San Francisco Chinamen, and we can honor the slaves by changing the Falcons to the Atlanta Darkies, the Saints to the New Orleans Spooks, and honor the Latin American Population by changing to the Miami Spics. Better yet, let’s just get a whole league with nothing but ethnic nicknames.

  • MASSMURDERMEDIA

    the obvious choice here is washington americans… that way they can keep the theme, mascot and colors… after all, what is more american than a native american?…

  • MASSMURDERMEDIA

    as a texan i’m offended by the houston texans… oh, and i’m outraged…

  • Jane Smith

    as a Houstonian, Im offended that the Miami Dolphins are still using a porpoise and it’s that Dan Marino’s fault the laces were out….


© 2014 SportsGrid, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram | Sports Statistics Provided By Rotowire