Redskins Name Is a Slur, Has No Place in NFL: Trask

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Amy Trask, CBS Sports Network analyst and former CEO of the Oakland Raiders, comments on the controversy surrounding the name of the Washington Redskins and the costs associated with rebranding a professional sports team. She speaks with Mark Crumpton on Bloomberg Television's "Bottom Line." (Source: Bloomberg)

Inviting me.

The political columnist charles said of the redskins conversation -- controversy, it has nothing to do with the sensitivities of a mass of people.

It has to do with simple elementary respect.

Do you believe the redskins name is offensive?

I do.

I think that one need go no further than the oxford english dictionary and look up the word "redskins" and it states right there that it is a derogatory slur.

I understand and appreciate that fans of the team are not intending to offend or hurt anyone.

The fact is, it is a derogatory slur.

As such, it has no place in the current sports landscape or any landscape.

Commissioner goodell addressed the controversy.

He said, i think the reds can have always done this in a way that respects the honor and tradition and history of native americans.

That is something for them to be proud of.

To his comments missed the point?

In my view, they are a bit off the mark.

A number of weeks ago, months ago now, i wrote a few pieces on this.

I have spoken on this.

I have posed this challenge to people.

Try to substitute for the word "redskins" any other derogatory slur directed at any person or group of people.

No one has yet been able to answer that.

You can't do it.

If you say, take redskins out of the team name and logo and substitute another derogatory slur, we all recoil.

Why is it ok to use the word "redskins?" i don't believe it is.

How important are a team's name and logo to brand recognition and marketing strategy?

What are the possible negative effects of rebranding?

A name and a logo are tremendously important in the sense of branding and marketing but also in terms of an identity.

That doesn't mean these things can change.

-- can't change.

The stanford indian is now the stanford cardinal.

They have a very avid fan base.

We have seen this all across the country.

While there are expenses associated with rebranding, there is also additional revenue associated with the avidity fans will show.

Remember, the nfl has a very unique tool.

When there are expenses it wants to bear but it does not want to place on only one team, the nfl can spread those expenses over 32 teams.

When you start to look at the league revenues and the revenues of each of the clubs, the expenses really are fairly minimal when looked at on a relative basis.

So the team's owner dan snyder in your opinion, he does have an economic incentive to change the team's name and the logo?

He would have to spend more time looking at the numbers.

At this point, it is not necessarily an economic disincentive.

Many people have said, it would be so expensive to change the team name and logo.

My response is really threefold.

Those expenses when looked at as a percentage of club and league revenues are fairly minimal.

The league could spread those expenses over the 32 clubs.

Three, there are potential upside revenues because those fans who will remain committed to the team and empirical data shows they will, they will now want to buy the rebranded merchandise.

About the fans, they do by the team's merchandise and licensed items.

You don't think a name change would affect the way they shop?

It might for some.

Some i chopped less.

Some might shop more.

I don't know we know the answer to that.

Let me state it affirmatively.

In my view, this is not a decision that should be entirely economically based.

It is really quite simple.

It is a derogatory slur and the nfl knows better than to perpetuate this.

How difficult is it to weigh the bottom-line impact of a name change with sensitivities to a community?

I think it is more difficult for some people than for others.

I think there is a wide spectrum of people.

Some will tell you, you make the name change without any regard to economics.

Some will tell you to look entirely at economics.

My perspective is different.

I am familiar with league economics.

I am familiar with the economics of each of the 32 clubs and i know that in this analysis, the cost of the name change especially if spread over the league as a whole, on a relative basis should not be what is making this decision for anyone whether they view the name change as necessary or not.

This gets got -- done, do you think?

At some point, yes it gets done.

When that is, i am not sure.

In my view, it should be sooner rather than later.

Amy trask, currently an nfl

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change