- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, is in a bind. Sure, Snyder has the distinct fortune of presiding over one of the most iconic (and valuable) national football franchises in history. Yet…his football team has the most patently offensive name in professional sport. In fact, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found just that when it revoked the Redskins’ trademark in 1999 because it had the potential to “disparage Native Americans and bring them into contempt or disrepute.” If not for the untimely manner in which the lawsuit was brought, Snyder may have lost his valued trademark.
Mike Wise, sports columnist for The Washington Post, recently summarized one Native American’s stance on the name: “When I visited the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota in 2007, a man named Leonard Littlefinger told me that if I walked into a bar on the reservation and said “Redskins,” I would possibly be knocked unconscious.”
Jim Vance, a local DC TV anchor, weighed in on the issue as well: “Back in the day, if you really wanted to insult a black man, attack a Jew, an Irishman, and probably start a fight, you threw out certain words. You know what they are. They were, and they are, pejoratives of the first order, the worst order, specifically intended to injure. In my view, ‘Redskin’ was and is in that same category . . . . The name sucks. We need to get rid of it.”
Should Snyder give in to the recent criticism over his team’s name, the Redskins’s rank among the world’s most valuable franchises will surely be in jeopardy (Manchester United, the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Yankees are the only franshises ranked ahead of the Skins).
Will Snyder change the name, then? No chance. He has nearly 1.56 billion reasons not to. However, if he wants to relocate the team’s stadium from Landover, Maryland to the nation’s capitol, he may have to.
Tagged with: sports
Recent Blog Posts
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
- What to Expect After Teva v. Sandoz?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution