ADVERTISEMENT

NFL teams were paid $5.4 million by Dept. of Defense to salute U.S. troops during games

J

jay_hq

All American
Apr 24, 2010
6,817
3,349
113
i always thought this was done for free as a kind gesture for the troops. guess not.

"The Department of Defense and the Jersey Guard paid the Jets a total of $377,000 from 2011 to 2014 for the salutes and other advertising, according to federal contracts. Overall, the Defense Department has paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million during that time, of which $5.3 million was paid by the National Guard to 11 teams under similar contracts."

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/05/taxpayers_pony_up_for_jets_salutes_to_nj_national.html
 
Another joke by our federal government as well as yhe NFL. One would definitely think the NFL would do this for free as a public service. The greed factor here is ridiculous and the government is just as bad to pay. The government money could be better spent on other projects and if the NFL were smart they would designate these finds yo help provide health care etc for older retired players who have injuries. Mike Ditka has been championing this cause.

If the NFL keeps things like this up they can only blame themselves if they lose out on some of the various perks they now have from the feds.
 
I think most of the money paid to NFL and MLB teams is for security, metal detectors and the like. That article is complete garbage.
 
So to be clear...the military advertises with undisclosed "sponsored content," pitched to impressionable young men who are frothed up and have a certain appreciation for violence. A percentage of them are so moved by the rousing cadences of "USA USA USA" that they sign up, get their legs blown off for the military lobby, suffer from PTSD, and commit suicide at twice the rate of non-vets.

And taxpayers PAY for it?
 
RUJohnny said:
So to be clear...the military advertises with undisclosed "sponsored content," pitched to impressionable young men .....
Click to expand...

Who watch and/or attend NFL Football games.

Seems like the military knows what its doing in regards to targeting potential servicemen (and women) by sponsoring the #1 (and most watched) regular season sporting events.

Where else would you like the military to advertise/target potential volunteer service men and women?

Soap Operas?

Infomercials on at 3 AM?

If you don't like the military advertising, maybe you should start a movement to bring back the draft, that way, military would not have to spend $$$ advertise/marketing to potential volunteers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUforester72
WhiteBus said:
I think most of the money paid to NFL and MLB teams is for security, metal detectors and the like. That article is complete garbage.
Click to expand...

While the Dept of Defense may spend money for NFL security, this article is specifically about money spent on advertising and sponsorships.

(I agree with your assessment that the article is complete garbage. It relies heavily on political comments by Sen, Flake with no analysis of what money was actually spent for each sponsorship activity. The article glosses over the Jets' comment that support of the armed forces is separate from the NJ National Guard's sponsorship of the team.)
 
RUJohnny said:
So to be clear...the military advertises with undisclosed "sponsored content," pitched to impressionable young men who are frothed up and have a certain appreciation for violence. A percentage of them are so moved by the rousing cadences of "USA USA USA" that they sign up, get their legs blown off for the military lobby, suffer from PTSD, and commit suicide at twice the rate of non-vets.

And taxpayers PAY for it?
Click to expand...

Yep, as always, war is hell.
 
You guys really think that the Department of Spending Money, which includes the advertising and marketing wings of the DOD, doesn't want to pay for this? How do you think they are going to be approved for increased funding/budgets/salaries if they don't spend their allocations? And why do you think they like spending money on pro sports? The answer is the same everywhere money is spent on pro sports--for the perks, namely, tickets to games and meeting the players and owners and maybe even rub elbows with Erin Andrews. Human nature is what it is, so let's not pretend that the military folks would rather spend money advertising on daytime soaps when they can spend money the same money (or less) and get sideline passes.
 
RutgersRaRa said:
You guys really think that the Department of Spending Money, which includes the advertising and marketing wings of the DOD, doesn't want to pay for this? How do you think they are going to be approved for increased funding/budgets/salaries if they don't spend their allocations? And why do you think they like spending money on pro sports? The answer is the same everywhere money is spent on pro sports--for the perks, namely, tickets to games and meeting the players and owners and maybe even rub elbows with Erin Andrews. Human nature is what it is, so let's not pretend that the military folks would rather spend money advertising on daytime soaps when they can spend money the same money (or less) and get sideline passes.
Click to expand...

Increased salaries? That's a pretty uninformed statement. There was a federal pay freeze three out of the last four years before they got a whopping 1% increase this year.
 
bitnez said:
Increased salaries? That's a pretty uninformed statement. There was a federal pay freeze three out of the last four years before they got a whopping 1% increase this year.
Click to expand...
Doesn't negate the rest of what was posted, and doesn't account for the fact that once the freeze is lifted the money will still be spent on advertising in sports. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I'm keeping the human self-interest dynamic in play.
 
RutgersRaRa said:
You guys really think that the Department of Spending Money, which includes the advertising and marketing wings of the DOD, doesn't want to pay for this? How do you think they are going to be approved for increased funding/budgets/salaries if they don't spend their allocations? And why do you think they like spending money on pro sports? The answer is the same everywhere money is spent on pro sports--for the perks, namely, tickets to games and meeting the players and owners and maybe even rub elbows with Erin Andrews. Human nature is what it is, so let's not pretend that the military folks would rather spend money advertising on daytime soaps when they can spend money the same money (or less) and get sideline passes.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand advertising. They goal is to reach your target market (in this case, mostly young men and some young women), and a great way to do that is to advertise and sponsor NFL games.

Same reason why u see a.lot of military advertising all across ESPN Channels....but do you think ESPN should just "give" the Military free advertising too?
 
Last edited:
Knight_Light said:
I don't think you understand advertising. They goal is to reach your target market (in this case, mostly young men and some young women), and a great way to do that is to advertise and sponsor NFL games.

Dame reason why u see a.lot of military advertising all across ESPN Channels
Click to expand...
Yes, advertising and marketing are conceptually very simple, and I grasp the concept. I am looking at it from the psychology of the supply side, not the demand/viewer side. And those on the supply side of advertising--those creating it--are in the government, and they have budgets that must be spent. The impetus for this thread was that the NFL shouldn't charge for having the military honored at games, and my point was that there are forces at work that make it preferable for them spend their budgets. Net-net is that even if the NFL offered to do it for free, it doesn't mean that the DOD's advertising department would accept a freebie, especially if the NFL stipulated that the NFL would be in charge of the production rather than the DOD using their personnel. Nobody on here knows the specific arrangements, but the knee-jerk reaction to slamming the NFL is based on lack of information. The DOD might have essentially said, "Thanks, but no thanks for your offer, we'd rather spend the money, be in charge of the production, and as a by-product be on the sidelines for the events."
 
Wow. $5.4 million. They could have bought like the window glass on a single jet for that money.
 
RobertG said:
Nor does it mean that the DOD could legally accept it for free according to the FAR.
Click to expand...
Good point, as these rules were partially (or entirely) designed to keep government from strong-arming, or otherwise enticing, the private sector into doing things for free.
 
RU62 said:
Another joke by our federal government as well as yhe NFL. One would definitely think the NFL would do this for free as a public service. The greed factor here is ridiculous and the government is just as bad to pay. The government money could be better spent on other projects and if the NFL were smart they would designate these finds yo help provide health care etc for older retired players who have injuries. Mike Ditka has been championing this cause.

If the NFL keeps things like this up they can only blame themselves if they lose out on some of the various perks they now have from the feds.
Click to expand...

I definitely thought that this was done as a kind gesture by the NFL to our troops overseas. I am very disappointed in this. The NFL should Give the money paid by the armed services to wounded warriors project. What a disgrace!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back