Skip to content

Owners won’t take up issue of Redskins name at D.C. meetings

716524 Getty Images

With the NFL’s owners gathering on Monday in Washington for quarterly meetings in the wake of President Barack Obama’s remarks regarding the name of the team that plays (close to) there, plenty now wonder whether the issue will be raised by league ownership, at a minimum behind closed doors.

Per a league source, that won’t be happening.

It’s highly unlikely that the topic will be raised in any formal league meetings.  Instead, if the NFL decides that Redskins owner Daniel Snyder needs a nudge, he’ll get it in the form of a visit from Commissioner Roger Goodell and a handful of owners regarded as influential upon Snyder.

“If” remains the key word.  There are no plans for such an effort, and some owners will be reluctant to do anything that would set a potential precedent regarding the twisting of arms to get teams to do what the league wants them to do.

Meanwhile, Peter King of TheMMQB.com reported during Football Night in America that Snyder remains steadfast in his position that the name will never change.

He may never change the team’s name, but he won’t own the team indefinitely.  At some point, the team will be owned by someone who hasn’t painted himself (or herself) into a corner on the issue.

And it could be that the next owner will be approved only with a wink-nod understanding that the first order of business will be to change the name.

Permalink 64 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
64 Responses to “Owners won’t take up issue of Redskins name at D.C. meetings”
  1. Abattoir says: Oct 7, 2013 1:03 AM

    I miss the Brett Favre dailies.

  2. thesportsguy52 says: Oct 7, 2013 1:05 AM

    Because Dan Snyder has slipped silver suitcases into their Mercedes Benz’ over the weekend, a la Alonzo Harris.

  3. hailvictory says: Oct 7, 2013 1:08 AM

    Nor should they. Please move on.

  4. bayafan says: Oct 7, 2013 1:11 AM

    They should just change their name back to the braves then they can keep the same Logo and colors.

  5. mrlaloosh says: Oct 7, 2013 1:12 AM

    Nothing worse than billionaire cowards.

  6. gzinn18631 says: Oct 7, 2013 1:16 AM

    when Snyder dies then you can bring this subject back up. He will never sell the team. The only reason this subject is talked about on his site daly is it gets page views.

  7. charger383 says: Oct 7, 2013 1:18 AM

    Will you shut up about this now?

  8. natureboy4 says: Oct 7, 2013 1:19 AM

    After the ridiculous theft of salary cap space from the redskins by Goddell, Mira, and company, I have to hope that the last thing Snyder wants to do is appease them.

  9. NJ49er says: Oct 7, 2013 1:21 AM

    How offensive would it be to change the name to the Apaches, Commanches or the like?
    Just lose the ‘Red’ Skin reference.
    Problem solved.

  10. doctorrustbelt says: Oct 7, 2013 1:25 AM

    The title of the story should be…..

    “Owners decide to treat racist name issue like they did brain injury issue”.

  11. mschurm1 says: Oct 7, 2013 1:30 AM

    The league should take some salary cap space from the Skins for this name issue.

  12. therealzeitgeist says: Oct 7, 2013 1:31 AM

    As a Denver Broncos fan, count me as a Hogs hater. Plus, I think Snyder is scum-of-the-earth the way he squeezes money out of his team with a taxpayer-funded sucker fanbase.

    But c’mon. The Redskins? They’ve been a feature since the beginning, they’re name is synonymous with the team more than any perceived (and at this point in history, invented) slander. Back then, the notion of Redskins implied stealth and ambush, scheming and winning. The PC crowd has settled on this team for their next hit because they look for targets and got burned over outfits like the Seminoles and the Braves.

    Its time somebody grinded it out, and stood up to the PC police and told them to go where the sun doesn’t shine, then whine. If Snyder holds out, holds true to the franchise he bought – if he cares more about football than PC fads – I’ll respect the guy, which for me is saying a lot.

    If he doesn’t, I hope whatever team they turn into (what would you call that outfit then? The hogs? They’re in DC so call’em the Pigs) never wins a Superbowl again – because somehow of an old Indian curse.

  13. abninf says: Oct 7, 2013 1:31 AM

    So you assume the next owner will be a bleeding heart liberal. Snyder should and could stipulate that the next owner never change it.

  14. franklinandbashandflorio says: Oct 7, 2013 1:32 AM

    As a full blooded native who finds the name offensive I can turn off the tv or switch to a different channel whenever Washington plays a game. Gotta love technology! It would be nice if Snyder would meet with the N.C.A.I., (National Congress of American Indians), to get a different perspective.

  15. kd75 says: Oct 7, 2013 1:33 AM

    If you own something, you can name it whatever you want. I named my cat Eleven and I don’t care what anyone thinks.

    The name Redskins isn’t hurting his bottom line. So why change it?

    Even if he did change the name, the fans would keep rocking their Redskins shirts, hats, jerseys, etc…

    That black dude who dresses up as an Indian Chief won’t stop with a name change. I met him once, he’s a cool guy.

  16. logicalvoiceseys says: Oct 7, 2013 1:34 AM

    #changethename

    It’s offensive, but if it does change it won’t be anytime soon. Imagine a team called the Los Angeles Blackskins, or Cleveland Browns… Oh wait.

  17. 87hollywoodhorn says: Oct 7, 2013 1:52 AM

    not really their place to decide. it should be up to a committee appointed by obama and approved by the us taxpayers. swift justice to a senseless offensive name, shame on the morally bankrupt nfl!

  18. ganja4all says: Oct 7, 2013 2:20 AM

    The liberals continue to make pookie in their panties with this silliness.

  19. 302baller says: Oct 7, 2013 2:33 AM

    Duh as they shouldn’t.

  20. duece8 says: Oct 7, 2013 2:49 AM

    NOR SHOULD THEY! The name does not offend me nor does it anyone in my family and we are native american in Ohio….and if a person walked up to me at a bar and said HEY WHAT’S UP REDSKIN!, to be honest, I would probably take that as a compliment!!! The only insult I have ever heard growing up for me would be INJUN, the word Redskin was never anything disrespectful!!!! It kills me when I hear white people say, “i bet u won’t go into a bar on a reservation and simply say, hey redskin” to someone! Lol u would probably get a confused look back depending on how u say it…. But if u go into a black bar and say hey N-WORD, there will be no confusion! The two words cannot be compared! Becuase one is intended to be an insult and one is not…..as an American Indian I am puzzled by all of this….

  21. gertrudegoat says: Oct 7, 2013 2:51 AM

    One would think our president would have more on his mind than the name of a football team.

  22. addict2sport says: Oct 7, 2013 2:56 AM

    Yet Obama will take it up during a govt lockout.

  23. tlmoon2112 says: Oct 7, 2013 3:10 AM

    And they shouldn’t, good call.

  24. kokomike says: Oct 7, 2013 3:11 AM

    Redskins. 4th most valuable franchise in all of sports. Changing the name will only increase the value of the Redskins name, having the reverse effect of that which is desired by the righteous. Hail to the Redskins will be sung for generations to come.

  25. osiris33 says: Oct 7, 2013 3:17 AM

    In other news, the Chargers name change to the Rainbow LGBT’s will not be “proudly” brought up at the owners meeting either…

  26. greatestgamensports says: Oct 7, 2013 3:22 AM

    Change your name, don’t change your name and it won’t change anything. Your QB will still be a gimp, your D will still be suspect and your season will still be lost.

  27. jimmysee says: Oct 7, 2013 3:36 AM

    Snyder’s stubbornness on this issue is the same stubbornness that will prevent the Redskins from ever winning anything for so long as he owns the team.

    It’s his fatal flaw.

    It’s kind of Shakespearean.

  28. mythoughtsexactlyaye says: Oct 7, 2013 3:37 AM

    Do you not have something better to do other than harp on this day after day?? Look, just because you have an opinión does not make it fact. Being a lawyer you should know that. How about this for a change? For you and the mainstream media…how about reporting in a unbias manner?? WOW…what a novel concept aye?

  29. richdaddy1231 says: Oct 7, 2013 5:24 AM

    I admire Mr. Snyder for not caving in to the PC crowd. The team is named the Redskins…if you don’t like it..tuff

  30. gtmac21 says: Oct 7, 2013 5:50 AM

    IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, AND IT SHOULDN’T! No amount of pressure will force a name change. Political correctness is part of what is wrong with this country today. I’m not a REDSKINS fan, but I think I’ll buy a REDSKINS shirt just to piss off a liberal and watch their heads explode! This may be the one and only time I agree with @logicalvoice

  31. wearethesteelers says: Oct 7, 2013 6:02 AM

    Breast cancer awareness: a great cause. It’s too bad the NFL doesn’t actually care about breast cancer awareness. It only cares about money.

    From a business perspective it makes a lot of sense. It does the following:

    I. Garners new female fans, which is essential in their eyes. Women make up more than half of the television market. Statistics show that women viewership of NFL programming has sharply increased since the Crucial Catch marketing program and other programs geared towards women.

    II. Promotes a philanthropic image for the NFL and its partners.

    III. Crucial Catch apparel profits. While the NFL does donate all proceeds from the auctioned player apparel, it refuses to say how much of its Crucial Catch apparel profits go towards the cause.

    In the end, the NFL commits less than one percent of its profits to all of its associated charities.

    Don’t be fooled. While all we see is pink in October, all the NFL sees is green.

  32. gsomatt says: Oct 7, 2013 6:09 AM

    Or the name will simply be here to stay and everyone will have to accept it.

  33. sfm073 says: Oct 7, 2013 6:11 AM

    You believe the name to be so offensive, but you continue to use it outside of quotes.

  34. skinfangray says: Oct 7, 2013 6:54 AM

    Hopefully, the next owner will be like the current owner and not be so weak minded that they can be told what they are supposed to think and how they are supposed to feel about a team name.

    The ridiculous thing about this topic and the whole “Political Correctness” movement around this country is that we are raising a generation that now has no need to think for themselves. Others like the boobs we have in Congress or the folks at the ACLU will tell you what you are supposed to think and feel about anything they oppose. Of course, they will only oppose it as long the source of their opposition doesn’t support them financially. Once they receive funding from that source, then they will magically tell you that it isn’t offensive anymore.

    Remember, just like the President said, if only one person is offended, then it needs to be looked at to be changed. Well, then if just one person can provide documented proof that the root of the name does not refer the actual skin color of a race of people, but to the painted skin of a warrior associated with race, thereby making it a reference to the bravery of that section of that race, then it should be said that it needs to be left alone. Also, it should also be said that no group of groups of people should be able to benefit financially from the name except the team owner. If he decides to change the name, the group headed up by a very shady woman, should not be able to receive any money from the team, the league or the government because of it.

  35. waldoampere says: Oct 7, 2013 6:55 AM

    I’m shocked the a group of exclusive billionaire owners with absolutely no cultural diversity would side with each other.

  36. allhailkingflacco says: Oct 7, 2013 6:57 AM

    @Mike Florio

    While it’s true that Snyder will not own the Redskins indefinitely, he does have children. He can will the name from being changed once he passes the team down to his kids.

    The Redskins name is good for another 60 years in my estimation. Chew on that Obama.

    #dontgivein

  37. bajagopher says: Oct 7, 2013 7:00 AM

    Lord High Obama has spoken, doesn’t that mean the name is now officially changed? Watch your back Snyder, the IRS will be at your door as soon as the government is running again.

  38. tincansailor981 says: Oct 7, 2013 7:02 AM

    Cowards. They just don’t want to hurt their bottom line.

  39. outlawjerseywhales says: Oct 7, 2013 7:18 AM

    And it could be that Snyder will make it a contractual requirement that any person, persons or corporation that takes control of the team agrees NEVER to change the name.

  40. witchrunner says: Oct 7, 2013 7:21 AM

    Considering this is driven by the PC police and that there is really no one offended by the name, Good for Snyder! And it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that it is not intended to be offending. Just the opposite, it’s high praise and emblematic of the mystical high standing the indigenous people of this country have by the rest of us.

  41. diyhandymantony says: Oct 7, 2013 7:24 AM

    What ever gave you that idea?

  42. diyhandymantony says: Oct 7, 2013 7:26 AM

    If the Redskins win a Super Bowl I bet it would stiffen all thos haters!!!! GO REDSKINS !!!!!!!!

  43. dcredz says: Oct 7, 2013 7:58 AM

    Regardless of my stance on the name, it is a privately owned team – a privately owned business. Forcing a name change is… well, it’d be wrong. Perhaps Snyder should consider it, but if people don’t like it, maybe they should stop following the team.

    Giving them all this publicity, even negative, is good for business. Changing the name would be bad for business.

  44. arwiv says: Oct 7, 2013 8:17 AM

    Don’t know if Snyder has kids, but if he does im sure they’ll get the team….and im sure they’ll keep the name.

  45. ufourya says: Oct 7, 2013 8:23 AM

    And it could be that the next owner will be approved only with a wink-nod understanding that the first order of business will be to keep the name.

  46. mdpgc says: Oct 7, 2013 8:24 AM

    “Redskins!, Redskins!!, Redskins!!!”
    (In my Jan Brady voice)

  47. Patriot42 says: Oct 7, 2013 8:34 AM

    It is refreshing to see someone stand on tradition instead of reacting to those that love to carry picket signs and don’t even know why they protest.

  48. erikinhell says: Oct 7, 2013 8:38 AM

    waldoampere says:
    Oct 7, 2013 6:55 AM
    I’m shocked the a group of exclusive billionaire owners with absolutely no cultural diversity would side with each other.
    =========================
    Are you talking about owners like Shahid Khan?

  49. johnnyquick says: Oct 7, 2013 8:41 AM

    This topic only appeals to a lunatic left wing fringe

  50. diyhandymantony says: Oct 7, 2013 8:43 AM

    As someone that’s grown up in the Washington DC area and still lives here today (60 years) , I feel more strongly about this issue than I probably would otherwise.

    First, let me say that I honestly did not know that the term was a racial slur until this debate gained momentum. Has this term been used past the 18th century? I certainly haven’t heard anyone use it to refer to anything other than the football team. I think I would feel differently if it was still being perpetrated, but I’ve yet to hear anyone make that argument.

    I also don’t think the Redskins franchise encourages use of the term or makes light of any Native American tradition. Has the term experienced a sudden revival since the team was founded? Does the team create cheers, merchandise or collateral that trivializes any group? Did they not change the fight song lyrics years ago?

    Shouldn’t we be more focused on changing behaviors like the Tomahawk Chop? Or Florida State’s pregame ritual of a person dressed in full Native American garb riding in on a horse and planting a flaming spear in the ground? I mean…really?

    Why isn’t more time and energy being focused on use of the n-word in popular music?

  51. diyhandymantony says: Oct 7, 2013 8:43 AM

    As someone that’s grown up in the Washington DC area and still lives here today (60 years) , I feel more strongly about this issue than I probably would otherwise.

    First, let me say that I honestly did not know that the term was a racial slur until this debate gained momentum. Has this term been used past the 18th century? I certainly haven’t heard anyone use it to refer to anything other than the football team. I think I would feel differently if it was still being perpetrated, but I’ve yet to hear anyone make that argument.

    I also don’t think the Redskins franchise encourages use of the term or makes light of any Native American tradition. Has the term experienced a sudden revival since the team was founded? Does the team create cheers, merchandise or collateral that trivializes any group? Did they not change the fight song lyrics years ago?

    Shouldn’t we be more focused on changing behaviors like the Tomahawk Chop? Or Florida State’s pregame ritual of a person dressed in full Native American garb riding in on a horse and planting a flaming spear in the ground? I mean…really?

    Why isn’t more time and energy being focused on use of the n-word in popular music?

  52. sidepull says: Oct 7, 2013 8:55 AM

    Do one of your polls. Then we can take a look at it on PFT front and center.

    Does the team name Redskins offend you?
    Does the team name Redskins not offend you?
    Its football season and I really dont care.

    Of course we would be counting on you to be fair and not pad the numbers in your own favor.

    The responses to each and every article you continue to report on this subject do not favor your opinion. Surely you are aware of that.

    I do respect your right to get on your soapbox even if I don’t agree with your reason for getting up there.

  53. diyhandymantony says: Oct 7, 2013 8:56 AM

    The beauty of the First Amendment is we have the right to free speech. Nowhere is it written that we have the right to not be ‘offended’. If enough folks saw “Redskins” in a negative light, the team would re-brand itself. That OTHER American concept (Free Enterprise) is what should govern the naming of the Washington, DC NFL team, not a small gaggle of politically hypersensitive twits.

  54. diyhandymantony says: Oct 7, 2013 8:58 AM

    Stupid liberals, the name Redskins is an iconic name and used all over the country as a nickname for highschools where Indian tribes once were. The argument that this somehow offensive is only drummed up in the mind and force fed over and over until people actually believe it. Liberals have got their way in numerous colleges and we can only hope the millions of Redskins fans stand up to this attack and that the owner continues to hold to keep the name his fans love

  55. ssigdavis says: Oct 7, 2013 9:52 AM

    Keep the same logo and colors and call yourself the Washington Americans or the Washington Native Americans since that is what the team is truly trying to represent. It is respectful and works well as a theme.

  56. thebuzzonny says: Oct 7, 2013 9:57 AM

    Well the good news is that Daniel Synder is only 47 years old. And since NFL owners rarely sell their teams, the name should be going strong for another 40 years or so. ALL HAIL THE REDSKINS!!!!!!

  57. 2jivecrew says: Oct 7, 2013 11:05 AM

    Bottom line is this: The Snyder owns the team, not you. It’s his decision, not yours. But it’s funny watching you pout about it.

    Billionaires tend to have conservative views so the next owner isn’t likey to reside on your side of the fence either on the issue. Just accept the fact that it’s not anybody’s responsibility to cater to you and your delicate sensibilites. Grow a thicker skin. And the Oneida nation can do the same. since they’re apparently the only ones offended, as evidenced by the fact that you can’t produce any others to bolster your argument…..and we all know you woulda if you coulda.

    I actually swing to the left on most things, but this is too much nauseating PC-ness even for me.

  58. thelegendofteabaggervance says: Oct 7, 2013 11:14 AM

    The notion that Dan Snyder has painted himself into a corner on this issue is ridiculous on its face.

    Responsible reporting this is not.

  59. ganja4all says: Oct 7, 2013 11:41 AM

    I am a Native American. I was born in Washington D.C.. I am not offended by the name,term, etc., nor should anyone else, as the geneticists have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that WE all have our origins in Africa. WE are all, brothers of the same mothers, same skin, same location. Yes, it may be hard to believe, especially if you bought into the
    “I am special because of my race” propaganda. Now, everyone shut up and get back to work. Work for your families and communities….. Oh yea, there are no jobs…..

  60. charge1 says: Oct 7, 2013 12:16 PM

    Hi

  61. waldoampere says: Oct 7, 2013 12:28 PM

    erikinhell says: Oct 7, 2013 8:38 AM

    waldoampere says:
    Oct 7, 2013 6:55 AM
    I’m shocked the a group of exclusive billionaire owners with absolutely no cultural diversity would side with each other.
    =========================
    Are you talking about owners like Shahid Khan?
    =========================
    Yep, I admit that you got me on that one. I shouldn’t have used the word absolutely. It’s only 97% of teams.

  62. bloodklot says: Oct 7, 2013 5:27 PM

    Dan already responded saying that in 2004 they did a poll with Native Americans and 9 out of 10 were not offended. And on a national poll, 8 out of 10 people thought they should NOT change their name. Can the sports reporters and writers stop giving this ridiculous story any more attention? MOVE ON!

  63. captbuff says: Oct 8, 2013 3:00 AM

    I’d consider myself liberal but love the name Redskins. Keep it – if for no other reason than to make Florio mad.

  64. skins1970 says: Oct 8, 2013 12:41 PM

    I’m also a liberal and I don’t want the name changed.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!