The Washington Redskins are having a tough November.
The team started the month without cornerback DeAngelo Hall who re-injured himself at home while getting pizza, adding 6-9 months to his recovery time.
On November 2, the team’s bus got into an accident on the way to TCF Bank Stadium in Minnesota where they suffered a disappointing loss to the Vikings, bringing their record to a dismal 3-6 and moving them to the bottom of the NFC East (why yes, my own Philadelphia Eagles are sitting atop the standings… why do you ask?).
On November 12, the team took yet another hit when neighboring Representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, proposed H.R. 5690, which would eliminate tax exempt status for the National Football League (NFL) if “such professional sports league promotes, or allows a member club or franchise connected with such professional sports league to promote, the use of the term redskins in connection with any team or club connected with such professional sports league.” The language is almost a mirror image of S.2884, introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in September; that bill has been referred to committee where it sits – and will likely die.
The introduction of a second bill, however, to yank NFL status over the Redskins name is clearly intended to put pressure on Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder who has refused to consider a name change despite a slew of recent calls to do so. Sen. Cantwell, who authored the first bill, was one of 50 Senators who sent a letter to Snyder, asking him to officially change the team’s name; Snyder has continued to decline.
The name, which has been the subject of speculation and commentary for some time, became a major talking point in 2013 when the Oneida Indian Nation of New York began running a series of radio ads, calling for a change. That same year, a number of media outlets, including Slate, The New Republic and Mother Jones declared that they would no longer refer to the team as the Redskins; other media outlets, including Forbes, have continued to call the team by its moniker.
Calls to change the name have been loud but largely ignored. The public, it seems, is not swayed by those calls. In each of three polls, one poll conducted by ESPN, one conducted by the Washington Post and another smaller poll conducted by Sports Illustrated, a majority of respondents supported keeping the name, Redskins. More than half of the team players surveyed by ESPN likewise supported keeping the name: only one player suggested changing the name.
The Washington Redskins haven’t always been known as the Redskins although the name has been a part of the team’s history for most of its existence. They started out, nearly 80 years ago, as the Boston Braves. The franchise was moved to Washington, D.C., in 1937 and the team began life as the Washington Redskins – moving away from the Braves name in order to avoid confusion with the Boston Braves baseball team. The team’s current logo – which is also part of the controversy – was designed in 1971 and first appeared on team helmets in 1972.
Since steps to change the logo and the name have met resistance within the team and the NFL, the tack has changed and efforts are now being directed towards federal agencies. In June of this year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark registrations for six trademarks using the word “Redskins” affiliated with the team after a lawsuit brought by a group of Native Americans; Snyder is appealing that ruling. The latest move by Rep. Norton is geared towards another federal agency: the Internal Revenue Service.
Currently, the National Football League enjoys tax exempt status under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code which grants status to:
Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, boards of trade, or professional football leagues (whether or not administering a pension fund for football players), not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
That rankles some who find it concerning that the multi-billion dollar organization is considered a charity. But to be fair, the NFL doesn’t claim to be a public charity: there are considerable differences between a section 501(c)(3) organization, often referred to as a public charity, and a section 501(c)(6) organization. Specifically, donors to a 501(c)(6) may not claim a tax deduction for donations to the organization while donors to a 501(c)(3) may take a deduction on a Schedule A (assuming that they itemize) for their donation. Additionally, 501(c)(3) organizations face significant restrictions with respect to lobbying; section 501(c)(6) organizations may engage in substantial lobbying.
The main purpose of a 501(c)(6), as defined in the Regulations, must be “to promote the common business interest” with activities “directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons.” That’s why the NFL finds itself in the company of other professional sports organizations like the National Hockey League (NHL), the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) and Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) – in case you’re wondering, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and Major League Soccer are not section 501(c)(6) organizations. That’s also why the NFL is in the same company as chambers of commerce (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), real estate boards (including National Association of REALTORS) and other professional organizations (such the American Library Association – Allied Professional Association, American Medical Association, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.)
Whether those organizations deserve tax-favored status may be debatable – but it’s noteworthy that neither Sen. Cantwell’s bill nor Rep. Norton’s bill are challenging the appropriateness of the status or the criteria to gain status. Neither seek to challenge whether professional sports organizations should have status: there is no threat to the NHL, the PGA or the LPFA under these bills.
What the bills both seek to do is strip status based on the inclusion of one team. Is that an appropriate criteria? Is it the kind of targeting that we have decried earlier (a la the Tea Party) – just on the other end of the spectrum? Or is it so offensive that it deserves to be singled out?
Chances are that we won’t really find out: according to govtrack.us, the most recent bill has 0% chance of getting past committee and thus, 0% chance of being enacted.
