Thread: NFL fines Cameron Heyward for honoring his father Ironhead, who died from cancer

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

They're doing something. Sorry $1 million isn't good enough for you. I'm sure the ACS appreciates the donation, and the attention it brings. Again - it's Breast Cancer Awareness month, not a cure. They are making women aware they should be checking themselves, or getting a mammogram on a regular basis.

Still waiting for proof that the NFL itself manufactures the apparel, and sells 100% of it.

Like I said... 1 million is a lot of money. The NFL is making the popularity of the NFL available for the color pink to be branded. We are just pointing out that the NFL isn't doing it out of the "kindness of their hearts." That's the point that is being made.

Just because they are "doing something"...doesn't mean it can't be discussed as to what they are REALLY doing. That's what discussions are for.

Eventually, the IRS will remind the NFL of that, and this promotional stunt will backfire just as TNF has. There's already growing public "awareness" the owners will do anything (to anyONE) for a fast buck; exploiting cancer victims to promote the NFL, making a tidy profit AND avoiding taxes on those profits won't help.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

They're doing something. Sorry $1 million isn't good enough for you. I'm sure the ACS appreciates the donation, and the attention it brings. Again - it's Breast Cancer Awareness month, not a cure. They are making women aware they should be checking themselves, or getting a mammogram on a regular basis.

Still waiting for proof that the NFL itself manufactures the apparel, and sells 100% of it.

YOU CITED THE ARTICLE THAT SAID IT!

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

http://www.attn.com/stories/3491/whe...ancer-money-go

Debating yourself now? The sole question's the difference "[the company that makes the merchandise and sells it] is often the NFL or individual teams" and ALWAYS the NFL, but that's pure semantics. The NFL jealously guards its highly profitable brand, rarely farming it out to third parties, and only with a licensing fee guaranteeing the NFL the lions share of profits. All the pink NFL gear is typical of that, "often" sold by the NFL for DIRECT profits, and otherwise through profitable third party licensing. The NFL's doing four things:

1) Advertising to expand its female market,
2) Placating that markets outrage at the NFLs indulgence of wife-beater and rapists, while hiding, denying and discrediting proof football causes kids serious brain damage,
3) Posting profit margins bigger than the NFL itself and
4) Not paying a cent of taxes on those "charitable" profits.

None of those are good things, and all outweigh any incidental marginal good done purely as a necessary means to their venal ends.

Originally Posted by King87

Joel is dominating this thread.

That was weird to type.

Imagine how I feel: In just three days, as many or more of my fiercest critics have said something like that, each on different topics. It's confusing; I need to make a chart to know whose voodoo dolls to throw in the fire in which threads. And I feel guilty dismantling the arguments of people who just providing me SUPPORTING arguments elsewhere. I still DO it, of course, because after one develops a taste for that it's a hard habit to break; I'm sure every law student understands.

Almost feels like being in Congress, y'know, 30 years ago, when people who strongly differed on 90% of issues still cooperated on their few points of agreement. They even reached a consensus that tax hikes WITH spending cuts are the ONLY way to balance a budget, then DID it, for the first and ONLY time since LBJ was bombing commies.

The NFL does not have manufacturing plants - they use 3rd party manufactures to make the merchandise. Frankly, even if they did own them, they'd still have to pay for the buildings, machines, raw materials, labor and shipping of those products produced.

I get that a percentage of the merchandise is sold via NFL.com or individually owned stores at the stadium and otherwise. As mentioned before, there are 100's of non-NFL owned retail locations to buy gear, and I'd guess make up a larger percent of total sales. And, please don't forget that just because the NFL itself is selling the merchandise, that there isn't a cost associated in those sales. Buildings, utilities, credit card charges, employee expenses (taxes, healthcare, etc). It's not free to run a business.

In 2013, ESPN’s Darren Rovell, a sports business analyst, reported that the NFL says it takes a 25 percent royalty from the wholesale price of pink products, which is half the price of retail, and then donates 90 percent of that royalty to ACS.

I really don't understand why you guys are bitching. Who cares if part of the reason they do it is to gain support/customers for their business. Isn't that what a business is supposed to do? At least they chose a worthy cause, which does benefit from the association.

PS - your 1st point above is correct. You know, it's what a smart business should do. Align yourself with a worthy cause and extend your brand. Well, you probably don't know this because it's the smart thing to do.

2-4 are just stupid and mostly incorrect.

The NFL does not have manufacturing plants - they use 3rd party manufactures to make the merchandise. Frankly, even if they did own them, they'd still have to pay for the buildings, machines, raw materials, labor and shipping of those products produced.[/QUOTE]

All that'd be fine if the NFL kept ONLY enough "charity" revenue to cover those costs, but Chinese factories with enslaved kids don't cost $19 of the $20 the NFL collects on each pink baseball cap. Profit=/=charity: That's why it's taxable, even though the NFL's paying NO taxes on its "charity" profits. It's not a charity: It's a federal crime.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I get that a percentage of the merchandise is sold via NFL.com or individually owned stores at the stadium and otherwise. As mentioned before, there are 100's of non-NFL owned retail locations to buy gear, and I'd guess make up a larger percent of total sales. And, please don't forget that just because the NFL itself is selling the merchandise, that there isn't a cost associated in those sales. Buildings, utilities, credit card charges, employee expenses (taxes, healthcare, etc). It's not free to run a business.

See, it's not hard to admit what Cancer Awareness Month REALLY is (i.e. NOT a charity.) Except on tax forms, of course.

Again, if the NFL ONLY kept enough revenue to cover cost, and gave anti-cancer research the rest, there'd be no problem, however cynically exploitive the motive. But it's not selling the pink merchandise for 10% above cost and donating all profit to the ACS, and IS charging third party manufacturers and retailers a hefty fee for using the NFL logo, and keeping HALF (even though its COST is $0:) YOUR article said THAT, too. Did you read all of it, or just skim for the convenient parts?

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I really don't understand why you guys are bitching. Who cares if part of the reason they do it is to gain support/customers for their business. Isn't that what a business is supposed to do? At least they chose a worthy cause, which does benefit from the association.

Sure: It's just not what a CHARITY is supposed to do; that's why GENUINE charitys are tax-exempt, but BUSINESSES aren't. There's a good chance the NFLs latest PR damage control inflicts MORE damage in the form of a FEDERAL INDICTMENT. Which would be the FOURTH legal disaster brought on the NFL by a Commissioner hired for his legal knowledge; I have NO idea how that man remains employed. If he's allowed to "protect the Shield" (an idiotic phrase: A shield IS protection) much longer, there won't BE one.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

PS - your 1st point above is correct. You know, it's what a smart business should do. Align yourself with a worthy cause and extend your brand. Well, you probably don't know this because it's the smart thing to do.

So we're agreed NFL Cancer Awareness Month is a for-profit, taxable, BUSINESS, not a nonprofit, tax-exempt, CHARITY? Better hope the US Attorney General disagrees.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

2-4 are just stupid and mostly incorrect.

2) The NFL's NOT taking big ongoing public hits for Rapistburger and Ray Rice (among countless others) and DECADES of concealing, denying and trying to discredit footballs brain injury risks despite KNOWING about them all along? Remember, it offered and the NFLPA accepted a $765 MILLION settlement to avoid a trial for the last one: And the judge threw it out on the grounds it was TOO LOW. The billion dollar business is looking at billion dollar DAMAGES for decades of crippling employees while lying to them about it.

Soccer moms (even NASCAR dads) are pulling whole rosters of their precious little angels (i.e the next generation of players and fans) out of youth football. Because they don't want their 10-year-old murdering them in their beds on a whim for reasons he doesn't even know, or doing the same to their grandkids 30 years later. It's like tobacco companies saying, "of course cigarettes aren't harmful or addictive; now let's add caramel so people smoke more." Except smokers don't shoot their familes 20 years after quitting.

Multinational corporations DIDN'T cancel NETWORK ads when the NFL shrugged off video of Ray Rice punching out his wife? That hit the NFL where it lives: It counts on commanding such consistently huge ratings networks fall over each other in bidding wars for NFL broadcast contracts, but what happens when those contracts start COSTING networks profits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baseball_Network

3) 90% of revenue from "charitable" merchandise sales don't have a higher profit/cost ratio than the rest of the NFLs business? I guarantee none of the employees making and selling it (even at third parties) collect so much of that revenue the NFL has to impose a salary cap just to ensure the owners get half.

4) The NFL pays tax on sales of Cancer Awareness Month merchandise? It definitely PROFITS from them, so should, but calling those profitable ads "charity" means it doesn't.

*shrugs* If you can't be bothered to read stuff you link, that's no one elses fault nor problem.

Originally Posted by Northman

Regardless of where you stand when it comes to how much of it is for promotion of the league vs how much of it is for actually caring at least they are doing something rather than nothing. I mean, is this something we should really be arguing about? I mean really?

Somebody is being wrong on the Internet, North, let's do this shit.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Somebody is being wrong on the Internet, North, let's do this shit.

The problem is, people who are wrong on the internet go right on being heedlessly wrong whether corrected or not.

I think the nfl should stop the salute to service because they get paid to do and make money off the merchandise.

I also think players should stop playing, because they get paid and should do it for the love of the game plus expenses.

I bet cancer research would shit if the nfl stopped October awareness. The million is irrelevant, the publicity and awareness is what counts.

Plus wtf ate you guys taking about, you ate American, your country is built on this kinda stuff.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

I think the nfl should stop the salute to service because they get paid to do and make money off the merchandise.

As long as the NFL pays taxes and neither calls it charity nor uses it to distract from players beating and raping soldiers while the game turns military brats into psychos, no prob.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

I also think players should stop playing, because they get paid and should do it for the love of the game plus expenses.

None of the players ever pretended they were performing some magnaminous public service volunteer work, and most pay over a third of their salary as taxes.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

I bet cancer research would shit if the nfl stopped October awareness. The million is irrelevant, the publicity and awareness is what counts.

I bet cancer research wouldn't miss a beat; it's not like the public was "unaware" of it before the NFL decided to pander to non-male viewers, got caught lying about football causing kids brain damage and decided buying victims flowers was the right way to deal with rape and other assault. If anything, research in preventing, treating and curing the myriad OTHER forms of cancer would benefit from the NFL not focusing the spotlight on a specific one it can paint pink. That missing 8% of NFL "charity" wouldn't break the ACS.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

Plus wtf ate you guys taking about, you ate American, your country is built on this kinda stuff.

We don't eat Americans: Speak English or ****. Anyway, Dickens says YA'LL invented sweatshop factories; we just took them to the logical extreme (THAT'S our hallmark. )