The Big Game: Federal Government vs. the NFL

More than ever before, Congress and the White House are challenging football.

President Obama throws a football at Soldier Field in Chicago.
National Journal
Kaveh Waddell
Add to Briefcase
Kaveh Waddell
May 30, 2014, 7:33 a.m.

In re­cent months, polit­ics and Amer­ic­an foot­ball have been clash­ing in­creas­ingly of­ten. Con­gress and the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion have found them­selves on the op­pos­ite side from the NFL over is­sues ran­ging from health con­cerns and dop­ing to a team’s ra­cist name and the league’s non­profit status.

Pres­id­ent Obama is the most re­cent entrant to the fray. Fol­low­ing a smat­ter­ing of com­ments over the course of the two years that hin­ted at his con­cern over con­cus­sions in foot­ball, Obama brought to­geth­er lead­ers of na­tion­al sports leagues at the White House on Thursday for a Healthy Kids and Safe Sports Con­cus­sion Sum­mit. At the event, the pres­id­ent an­nounced nu­mer­ous part­ner­ships with sports or­gan­iz­a­tions, in­clud­ing a $30 mil­lion pro­gram in con­junc­tion with the NCAA and the De­fense De­part­ment for con­cus­sion edu­ca­tion, and a $25 mil­lion pledge from the NFL to fund a vari­ety of strategies to re­duce con­cus­sion rates. While the con­fer­ence fo­cused on the safety of young people, the NFL could be wor­ried that fu­ture gen­er­a­tions of pro foot­ball play­ers (or their par­ents) might shy away from the sport in fa­vor of safer pas­times.

Obama has re­marked on safety in foot­ball be­fore. Last year, he told The New Re­pub­lic, “I think that those of us who love the sport are go­ing to have to wrestle with the fact that it will prob­ably change gradu­ally to try to re­duce some of the vi­ol­ence.” In a con­ver­sa­tion with The New York­er in Janu­ary of this year, Obama said out­right, “I would not let my son play pro foot­ball.”

The com­plaints over safety aren’t com­ing out of nowhere. In Au­gust 2013, un­der na­tion­al scru­tiny, the NFL settled a law­suit brought against it by former play­ers for $765 mil­lion. The sum will be ap­plied to­ward med­ic­al ex­ams and re­search, lit­ig­a­tion ex­penses, and com­pens­a­tion for af­fected play­ers.

Months after the law­suit settled, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in­tro­duced a bill to strip the NFL of its non­profit status. Un­der cur­rent law, the league is ex­empt from taxes be­cause it qual­i­fies as a 501(c)(6) or­gan­iz­a­tion along with “busi­ness leagues, cham­bers of com­merce, real es­tate boards, and boards of trade,” ac­cord­ing to the IRS. A fea­ture in The At­lantic out­lined the big-tick­et costs that NFL teams pass on to tax­pay­ers.

Most re­cently, the foot­ball team in Wash­ing­ton has been un­der fire for re­fus­ing to change a name that is a ra­cist slur. A band of 50 Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors came to­geth­er to sign a let­ter sponsored by Sen. Maria Can­t­well, D-Wash., ur­ging the com­mis­sion­er of the NFL, Ro­ger Goodell, to throw his weight be­hind a name change for the team.

On Thursday, the NFL tried to strike back with an ill-fated Twit­ter cam­paign. The of­fi­cial ac­count of the Wash­ing­ton foot­ball team tweeted an at­tempt to rally sup­port be­hind its name and send a clear mes­sage to Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev.:

Think­Pro­gress com­piled some of the fal­lout that the com­mu­nic­a­tions team be­hind the tweet may not have an­ti­cip­ated, made up of replies that ranged from “ob­stin­ate ig­nor­ance” to “overt ra­cism.”

Once an es­cape from polit­ics, foot­ball — the most pop­u­lar sport in the U.S. for the 30th year run­ning — is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly tangled up with a Con­gress suf­fer­ing from re­cord-break­ing low ap­prov­al rat­ings. The pace only seems to be in­creas­ing: The gov­ern­ment and the NFL may re­main strange bed­fel­lows for some time.

What We're Following See More »
BUT IS HE A YES VOTE?
Cornyn Attempting to Get McCain Back for Health Vote
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
“TIME HAD RUN OUT” FOR ILL BABY
Charlie Gard’s Parents End Legal Fight
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court 'time had run out' for the baby. Mr. Gard said it meant his 'sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy' will not reach his first birthday on 4 August. 'To let our beautiful little Charlie go' is 'the hardest thing we'll ever have to do,' his mother said. Charlie's parents said they made the decision because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy.

Source:
AGENCY SOUGHT TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION
11 States Sue EPA Over Chemical Rule
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Eleven states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its June decision to delay implementation of a chemical safety rule" until 2019. "The state attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman (D), argue the rule is important for 'protecting our workers, first-responders and communities from chemical accidents' and should be allowed to take affect as planned by the Obama administration’s EPA.

Source:
ULTIMATUM ON ACA
Trump: You’re With Us Or Against Us
2 hours ago
THE LATEST
$1.6 BILLION SET ASIDE FOR WALL
House Freedom Caucus Chair: Shutdown Over Wall Funding Unlikely
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on Monday said that funding for President Trump's controversial border wall is unlikely to cause a government shutdown. 'The odds of a government shutdown are very minimal when it comes to that,' the conservative lawmaker said at an event in Washington, D.C. 'I do think the funding of the border wall will happen,' he added. Appropriators have set aside $1.6 billion to fund new wall and fencing sections on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border covering a few dozen miles."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login