DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 http://grantland.com/the-triangle/veterans-affairs-the-uneasy-marriage-of-military-money-and-the-nfl/ Anybody post this yet? It is your tax dollars that is going into the uneasy marriage of the military and the NFL. The funny thing is that people think this is a new development. Anyone want to take a guess how many flybys the DoD does for sporting events in a given year? On the order of a thousand. The cost isn't significant (only because flybys count for pilot flight time requirements, so it's rolled in to training budgets - the dollar amount is probably around $300M, but it would be spent either way). It's not just the NFL. It's an uneasy marriage between the military and sporting events in general (and yes, they will do - and have done - flybys over domes and enclosed arenas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 As a Viet Nam vet and with a son in law serving in the Middle East right now I think the govt might be a little more "honoring" if they would give active duty combat soldiers the R and R we got in Nam, better paychecks, GI Bill education benefits....the "honoring" at football games is bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 As a Viet Nam vet and with a son in law serving in the Middle East right now I think the govt might be a little more "honoring" if they would give active duty combat soldiers the R and R we got in Nam, better paychecks, GI Bill education benefits....the "honoring" at football games is bull ****. Hey, we thanked you for your service. Now get back in your cardboard box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Hey, we thanked you for your service. Now get back in your cardboard box. Now THAT's the way we treat our vets...lets cut the flyover crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 6, 2015 Author Share Posted June 6, 2015 I am not sure that I would call this a cash cow. $5 million in 4 years between 14 teams? "The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League more than $5 million in taxpayer money between 2011 to 2014 to honor U.S. soldiers and veterans at games, an investigation revealed this week." "The investigation revealed the Atlanta Falcons collected just over a million dollars, the most cash for any team, and the Green Bay Packers received the single largest payment of $400,000.00" "In New Jersey, the Defense Department and the New Jersey Army National Guard paid the New York Jets a total of $377,000 during the four-year period, according to the federal contracts" So I exagerated to make a point, not the first time that's been done around here. Unseemly is unseemly. I'm not sure you do. Marketing campaigns encompass far more than billboards, radio, television, and print ads. There are literally companies that pay warehouses full of people in foreign countries like India to click on produced media to force if to go "viral," so that the ads that accompany the page will be seen. If you see someone on your favorite TV show drink from a can of Pepsi, or get into a cab with an ad on the side, that product was placed very deliberately. Even the cars that actors drive in movies represent sponsorship. There are companies that scour social media sites and mine individual's data so that your personal computer will display advertising tailored to your personal preferences. For that matter, I would submit that there is very little that is "honest" about standard advertising. Why would we expect the military to be any different? I suppose then that we'll just have to say that I'm more "idealistic" than many around here. That's not the right word, but, it's the best I can come up with. Did the NYY & NYM accept payment from the NYFD for their honoring of that department? Why would I expect the military and the NFL to be any different? I suppose because I hold service members, even Howard, in high regard and do think that they deserve to be honored. The NFL? Do they need the extra cash? If you're going to trot out soldiers & sailors to shake their hands while accepting payment with your other behind your back then I have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) I suppose then that we'll just have to say that I'm more "idealistic" than many around here. That's not the right word, but, it's the best I can come up with. Did the NYY & NYM accept payment from the NYFD for their honoring of that department? Why would I expect the military and the NFL to be any different? I suppose because I hold service members, even Howard, in high regard and do think that they deserve to be honored. The NFL? Do they need the extra cash? If you're going to trot out soldiers & sailors to shake their hands while accepting payment with your other behind your back then I have a problem with that. Look at it this way: There are over a million people actively serving in an all volunteer military. As the economy improves, low wage jobs are created, and minimum wages are increasing around the country, it's going to become harder (and more expensive) to fill those boots. A big part of any marketing campaign is referred to as "branding." And, clearly, it is a big part of the American Military brand that in America, soldiers are honored-- constantly. At sporting events, during holidays, state-of-the-union speeches, awards shows, in the cinema, on the news, free meals at Denny's, free upgrades at airports, free drinks at bars, and most certainly during the Super Bowl. I wouldn't be surprised if right now, there were a military marketing executive talking to John McCain and saying, "what the hell are you trying to do? Put us out of business???" Edit: btw- I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Mets, or Yankees received money for events honoring first responders in NYC. It must have been hard to recruit firefighters, and police officers after 9/11, and I'm sure those organizations have marketing budgets, as well. Edited June 6, 2015 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Again (I may sound like I'm up in arms about this, I'm really not), advertising is what it is. It's obvious and everyone knows money changes hands. That wasn't the case here. If the Bills (and other teams) need a cash incentive to salute the military then there's a problem. Yes, from The NFL and The Bills perspective, I agree. They have their hands out. I don't have a problem with the AF advertising. If the payments do indeed stop we'll soon see how vested The League and it's members will be in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Yes, from The NFL and The Bills perspective, I agree. They have their hands out. I don't have a problem with the AF advertising. If the payments do indeed stop we'll soon see how vested The League and it's members will be in the military. If congress succeeds in removing this line item from the military's budget, I would fully expect that either these events stop happening, or (more likely) we will hear announcers saying things like: "Please join us in honoring our military, brought to you by Oscar Meyer, and Verizon Wireless..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Just to take this in a different direction. Why was the Fifa thing a scandal. Call it an auction to host the games and nobody gets arrested. To me this is the same thing, paying for air time to promote your product. In fifa's case , countries promoting their city, country and tourism. In the militaries case paying to promote their product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) It was the DoD who wanted to use the time for military PR. If they dont pay any more you wont see any more than token references before national anthem. Teams would be leaving too much money on the table from other sponsors otherwise So I exagerated to make a point, not the first time that's been done around here. Unseemly is unseemly. I suppose then that we'll just have to say that I'm more "idealistic" than many around here. That's not the right word, but, it's the best I can come up with. Did the NYY & NYM accept payment from the NYFD for their honoring of that department? Why would I expect the military and the NFL to be any different? I suppose because I hold service members, even Howard, in high regard and do think that they deserve to be honored. The NFL? Do they need the extra cash? If you're going to trot out soldiers & sailors to shake their hands while accepting payment with your other behind your back then I have a problem with that. I think it's a form of advertising more than honoring. You don't pay people to honor someone....DoD knows this and chooses to pay. If the league is going to give out freebie honories theres a whole lot of other worthy candidates too. Edited June 6, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 The number of people who can't grasp the CLEAR difference between honoring and advertising is ridiculous. Jesus. It's not difficult. Read all three pages over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) The number of people who can't grasp the CLEAR difference between honoring and advertising is ridiculous. Jesus. It's not difficult. Read all three pages over again.Either the DoD doesn't know the difference or theyre purposely being misleading when they say "such and such team" is honoring armed forces without disclosing its a paid advertisement. Methinks its the latter as it serves as a better recruiting tool...and people shouldnt kid themselves, that is their primary motive. Edited June 6, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 The number of people who can't grasp the CLEAR difference between honoring and advertising is ridiculous. Jesus. It's not difficult. Read all three pages over again. Most people can't even grasp the definition of "honoring." They think it doesn't go beyond embarrassing platitudes like "Thank you for your service." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 The military paying to advertise with the NFL is a catch-22 They have a budget to spend to advertise, if the don't spend enough it gets cut...the next fiscal year. It's a touchy subject, I understand. The NFL teams that took the money should follow suit and give the money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 The number of people who can't grasp the CLEAR difference between honoring and advertising is ridiculous. Jesus. It's not difficult. Read all three pages over again. I think it's more accurate to call it "branding." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 7, 2015 Author Share Posted June 7, 2015 It was the DoD who wanted to use the time for military PR. If they dont pay any more you wont see any more than token references before national anthem. Teams would be leaving too much money on the table from other sponsors otherwise I think it's a form of advertising more than honoring. You don't pay people to honor someone....DoD knows this and chooses to pay. If the league is going to give out freebie honories theres a whole lot of other worthy candidates too. Then why did only 17 participate? DOD chooses to pay and 17 teams agree to accept that payment. Take the money, I don't have a problem with that. Just make it clear that it is "just another sponsorship." The funny thing is that people think this is a new development. Anyone want to take a guess how many flybys the DoD does for sporting events in a given year? On the order of a thousand. The cost isn't significant (only because flybys count for pilot flight time requirements, so it's rolled in to training budgets - the dollar amount is probably around $300M, but it would be spent either way). It's not just the NFL. It's an uneasy marriage between the military and sporting events in general (and yes, they will do - and have done - flybys over domes and enclosed arenas). Tom...we've had conversations about flybys right here in this very forum. You, I believe, know and remember this. We lamented the fact that they weren't happening because the sponsorship money dried up. This wasn't (to me) anything similar to a flyby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Then why did only 17 participate? DOD chooses to pay and 17 teams agree to accept that payment. Take the money, I don't have a problem with that. Just make it clear that it is "just another sponsorship." Which party do you think is more resistant to disclosing "Paid for by United States Department of Defense"? Edited June 7, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I'm still not getting the outrage. Is it that the government spent money on this? Or that the NFL charged them? Do people actually know what the money was spent on? Someone quoted on the front page that some of the Buffalo Bills money went to signage, and stuff on the BuffaloBills.com website. Either way, just because you didn't know it was sponsored by the military doesn't change anything. It just means you were fooled into thinking the Buffalo Bills (or NFL) were being super patriotic. That shouldn't make a difference in your regard for the Military or what it meant to you. I thought it was tasteful thing to see. These people deserve to be honored for their service even if it is sponsored by their bosses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) It's tax dollars (our money) being moved around, in a symbiotic relationship. The NFL and the military seem to have a close relationship. Perhaps it's just a way for the military to get large sums of money directly to the teams (as opposed to giving it all to the TV networks). Edited June 7, 2015 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 7, 2015 Author Share Posted June 7, 2015 I'm still not getting the outrage. Is it that the government spent money on this? Or that the NFL charged them? You aren't getting it, because for me the answer is neither. I have an issue with the way it was done. I don't care that the money was given. I don't care that the money was accepted. I care that the Bills and 16 other NFL teams accepted the money "surreptitiously" & then the troops were trotted out and "honored." Get right down to it, if I was outraged, I would be outraged at whoever came up with the idea. These people deserve to be honored for their service even if it is sponsored by their bosses. Then is it an honor? How much does it cost to honor someone for their service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts