Make no mistake. The NFL isn't a public trust, but rather a (tax-exempt) not for profit-albeit one resembling a feudal fiefdom ("franchise") ruled mostly by gazillionaire "club" owners. Thus by right of self-entitlement, this $10 billion financial juggernaut dictates its own moral compass, or not.
Historically, the latter is more the case-with domestic violence by players incurring fewer game suspensions than substance abuse-despite the fact that 45% of the NFL's audience is women. It's as if the NFL had somehow been granted immunity from the Violence Against Women Act, passed a decade ago. Viewed through a NetBase social media analysis filter, the domestic violence discussion has predictably intensified for the NFL, as shown in the word cloud below, questioning, in particular, the leniency of the NFL's domestic abuse policy.
However, the NFL does have a public fiscal responsibility, enjoying tax exemptions (and tax loopholes) which extend to the teams. Which begs the question of the NFL's ethical responsibility to the public, and its sponsors: The moral obligation of a sponsor to humanity not to punt on the moral standard of whom it's in bed with. As one angry Tweeter ranted: .@Verizon is supporting #Rape and #DomesticViolence against women by forcing .@NFL bloatware on my phone. #WarOnWomen #Shame.
Kudos to Proctor & Gamble, one of the first NFL sponsors to take action when the NFL came under fire for its leniency and equivocating on the recent Ray Rice domestic violence and Adrian Peterson child abuse cases. (More cases have since come to the surface in social media, as well as public records revealing other players with similar charges to their name.)
Previously, a supporter of the NFL's Breast Cancer Awareness campaign, P&G has pulled the plug, instead donating directly to the American Cancer Society's breast cancer research fund. Notably, Nike and Castrol have canceled their sponsorships with Minnesota Vikings Adrian Peterson. Other brands have also dropped warning flags. Budweiser, an iconic football brand who sponsors 88% of the NFL teams, said it was "disappointed and increasingly concerned" by the scandals. No brand is exempt from social media scrutiny on this issue, as the NetBase NFL lens filtered for domestic violence and child abuse reveals in the brand list below.
Stopping short of canceling its sponsorship, Anheuser-Busch issued a statement warning it was "not yet satisfied with the league's handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code." Family friendly NFL sponsors Campbell Soup, Pepsi, McDonald's and others have joined the corporate chorus condemning domestic violence, while falling short of taking an unambiguous moral higher ground by pulling the plug.
To assess damage control, NFL club owners will be tracking ratings and research underway. In one study, when asked whether the NFL handling of the controversy would affect their viewing habits, 15% of men said it would make them less likely to watch, compared to 10% who said it would make them more likely. Among women, the figures were 15% and 5%, respectively.
While the NFL claims to have zero tolerance for off-field domestic violence, you couldn't tell from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's recent 45-minute press conference during which he never once mentioned "women" (or "victims," for that matter) instead, decorously repeating some nonsense about "getting our house in order." Media Post's Barbara Lippert takes "Roger's tree house" to task in her post.
In response to why he had only imposed a two-day suspension against Baltimore Ravens Ray Rice for his sexual assault against (now wife) Janay Rice, Goodell said the NFL didn't have enough "voices at the table." Whether Goodell was relying on archaic NFL protocol or lying about having seen earlier taped evidence of the assault is now in the hands of a former FBI investigator.
There have been plenty of "voices" at the social media table condemning the NFL for treating instances of player domestic violence with a hand slap. On the issue of domestic violence and child abuse (Minnesota Vikings Adrian Peterson), the social chorus is thundering with outrage, with calls for Goodell's ouster and pressuring him to revoke the NFL's domestic violence policy adopted in August, which imposes a six game suspension on players for their first offense. (For the record, substance abuse gets a player only a 4 game suspension.) Sixteen female U.S. Senators have also written Goodell pressing the NFL to adopt a zero tolerance policy on domestic violence and revoke its specious new policy. And the conversation rises to a new disturbing level in social media channels.
With the Ray Rice brutal elevator video now viral, who will explain the value system of "America's favorite pastime" to young viewers and potential future audiences-female and male? This is the question asked by ESPN NFL anchor Hannah Storm in a scathing segment about the Ray Rice video and the outrage of her three daughters.
"I spent this week answering seemly impossible questions about the league's biggest stars. Mom, why did he do that? Why isn't he in jail? Why didn't he get fired? And yesterday, why don't they even have control of their own players?" (Last I heard Storm is still on the job, unlike ESPN's Bill Simmons who was suspended for 3 weeks for calling Roger Goodell a "liar"-2 weeks longer than his colleague who suggested Janay Rice provoked the infamous elevator beating!)
What does this all mean for the NFL's much-coveted female dollar? What does this mean for the NFL female audience of the future? What about ESPN's audience? And what does this mean for NFL brand sponsors whose moral codes uphold and respect women's rights?
To attempt an answer to these questions, first we must hear from Goodell and the NFL: What exactly does "zero tolerance" mean in their playbook?