Sign in to follow this  
HouseBowlrz

NFL Blocks Veterans Group's Super Bowl Ad, Considers It "Political Statement"

Recommended Posts

So the National Football League has rejected a spot for Super Bowl 52 from AMVETS (American Veterans), the country's largest veterans service organization ... 

 

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/01/nfl-blocks-vet-groups-please-stand-super-bowl-ad/?utm_source=foramerica&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook

The article cites: "The Super Bowl game program is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams and the Super Bowl," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told USA Today Sports. "It’s never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement."

 

Considering at least four sponsors who put together ads for SB51 - Coca Cola, Budweiser, 84 Lumber, Audi - that were definitely politically driven in the wake of a presidential executive order (and I think there were two more sponsors who did such), this would show obvious hypocrisy on the part of the NFL.

 

This same spot by AMVETS will air during the NHL and NBA All-Star games as well as some NASCAR events which, presumably, would include the Daytona 500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the NFL goofed here. 

 

I support the freedom of speech of people opposed to kneeling as much as I do those kneeling. 

 

Let both sides be heard. Only the government should butt out in its efforts to suppress political speech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ad absolutely is a political statement (and a simplistic one IMO)

 

but the NFL should have just shut up and let it be aired.  This will only backfire on them.

 

(the story says that the NFL tried to get AMVets to make a minor change like "Please Stand for Our Veterans" so that the ad would be actually honoring veterans, but AMVets refused.  They want to push the hot button.  I suspect they actually are quite happy that the NFL did this, and wanted it to happen.  Donations to AMVests from angry veterans are sure to skyrocket.)

 

 

11 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I think the NFL goofed here. 

 

I support the freedom of speech of people opposed to kneeling as much as I do those kneeling. 

 

Let both sides be heard. Only the government should butt out in its efforts to suppress political speech. 

 

Not sure what you are saying here.  The NFL isn't the government.  It can deny ad time if it wants.  It's not smart for the NFL to do so, but the government (and the Constitution) are not implicated here.  

Edited by Predicto
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, HouseBowlrz said:

this would show obvious hypocrisy on the part of the NFL.

 

It's not hypocrisy, it's desperation. The NFL doesn't want to take a side on players kneeling, they'd prefer the issue go away and nobody ever mention it again.

 

The NFL is a business that sells a product, and they want to sell it to everyone... White, Black, rich, poor, conservative, liberal, gay, transgender, straight, legal, illegal, etc. Money is money. Michael Jordan once said he didn't get involved in Democratic politics because "Republicans buy shoes too".

 

If I had to guess, the NFL's owners probably side politically with the people that made that ad, for the most part. They're billionaires, a group that tends to be conservative.

 

But, they're also billionaires because they like to make money, and they know that whenever the players kneeling comes up, they lose. If they don't try to stop it, people call for boycotts. If they do try to stop it, people call for boycotts (and they piss off their employees to boot). They can't win.

 

So, they hope it will go away, and in this case they're trying to keep the issue from even coming up,

 

It might backfire, though. Someone in their PR division should have googled the "Streisand effect" before making this decision.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying I’m for freedom of speech🧐

 

even when what’s being said is dumb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech isn't the right to buy advertising.

 

Probably not good PR for them, but as I've said all along,, if people choose to boycott, bye. 

Won't affect me watching the game, except maybe to lower prices.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bang said:

Freedom of speech isn't the right to buy advertising.

 

Probably not good PR for them, but as I've said all along,, if people choose to boycott, bye. 

Won't affect me watching the game, except maybe to lower prices.

 

~Bang

EXACTLY!

Freedom of speech does NOT guarrantee you the right to a media platform.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the nfl also 'blocked' an ad that was to advocate for immigrants a year or two ago. the ad showed the struggle of an immigrant boy/family coming to the country.

 

they made them significantly reduce the commercial to the point where you had to go on the internet and see it to actually get the political statement.

 

i believe it was a coke commercial? can't remember...

 

just want to point that out before the right wing people get all up in arms about hypocrisy and crap.

 

(i do recall the people on the right that i knew, at the time, applauding the NFL because they "didn't want to see that sort of thing while trying to enjoy the super bowl")

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok it was 84 lumber and the real message was about the wall

i was close. memory going in my old age

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme of things, this matters absolutely 0 to me.  If they don’t want to sell them advertising, then don’t.  

 

What you shouldn’t do is become a giant **** and complain about it in the court of public opinion.

Edited by Springfield
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tshile said:

ok it was 84 lumber and the real message was about the wall

i was close. memory going in my old age

 

 

What is interesting is that OP appears to believe that 84 lumber got to air its full ad at thle last Super Bowl (it didn't), and that shows the NFL is "hypocritical."  

 

Alternative facts strike again, I guess.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a huge buzz about the Tim Tebow abortion ad ~5 years ago and in the end it was pretty anti-climactic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing this is EXACTLY the response the Veterans group was looking to get.  They didn't want to pay for the ad.  They wanted the NFL to not allow them to pay for and air it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I'm guessing this is EXACTLY the response the Veterans group was looking to get.  They didn't want to pay for the ad.  They wanted the NFL to not allow them to pay for and air it.

 

Not pay for the ad, get the masses to watch it to find out how “controversial” it really is (probably not very).  Genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep saying "aired" and "watch" but this isn't a TV ad, that would be up to the network to decide.  This is an ad in the (paper) game program the NFL produces.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, China said:

People keep saying "aired" and "watch" but this isn't a TV ad, that would be up to the network to decide.  This is an ad in the (paper) game program the NFL produces.

 

Huh.  Helps to read the article.

 

Still frivolous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, China said:

People keep saying "aired" and "watch" but this isn't a TV ad, that would be up to the network to decide.  This is an ad in the (paper) game program the NFL produces.

 

The pic in the link?

What is objectionable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i'd need to see the ad but my first reaction is that it's silly to censor them IF the reason they're doing is because they disagree. The whole point of the protests was to start a conversation. The people who are kneeling may have feelings and concerns that are valid and worth listening to. The people who are uncomfortable with the kneeling may have feelings and concerns that are valid and worth listening to. There's an intelligent, productive conversation to be had here. Problem is, there's a good chunk of people that just don't want a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm one of the few that misses Superbowl ads being funny.  Now they're all somber and serious.  A couple of years ago I was at a Superbowl party and there was one ad, can't remember which, but everyone in the room did a collective WTF.  The 84 Lumber ad last year? Gtfo, can we just get one day without being reminded about social issues?  

 

NFL goofed here, but I agree that this is the response that the Vets were looking for.  NFL just wants this story to go away, I agree with that take, too.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is admittedly an overly simplistic observation but aren't there better places a Veteran's group can spend the money it would take to buy ad time during the Superbowl? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Springfield said:

 

Huh.  Helps to read the article.

 

 

From the article

Here's the ad.

Quote

The country’s largest veterans service organization, AMVETS (American Veterans), was offered the opportunity to create an ad in the Super Bowl LII program

636522495164916021-amvets-ad.jpg

McCarthy said AMVETS had an opportunity to change the wording in the ad from “Please stand” to other options such as “Please Honor Our Veterans” or “Please Stand for Our Veterans.”

An ad for the Veterans of Foreign Wars reading “We Stand for Veterans” was approved by the Super Bowl program. 

 

Edited by Spearfeather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ad is more than just political, it hits on a management and labor issue the NFL is has been struggling to manage for a while now.  It's understandable they'd want nothing to do with it.  The last thing they need is for that issue to dominate headlines again. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going off a hunch here:

 

Amvets is a legitimate charity (highly regarded by Charity Navigator: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11547 ) that helps veterans.  Their official website is http://amvetsnsf.org/ and makes no mention of the NFL controversy.

 

The ad points us to http://amvets.org/ which is a completely different website that looks very similar and features the NFL controversy very prominently. Beyond that the site is loaded with ads. The page showing their financials shows their spending to be >2x the Amvets spending shown on the charity navigator site. I won't even go into the fact that the programs they claim to offer to vets have vastly different names than the ones on the first Amvets site. Finally the two charities (on their history pages) claim different founding dates (1944 versus 1948) even though they claim the same address in Maryland.

 

Something is off.

Edited by balki1867
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.