Military paid 14 teams to salute the troops.

[Narcosys]

I am disappointed in these teams and saddened by the fact that they would take money to do this.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/11/rpt-military-paid-nfl-teams-54m-salute-troops

[Superman]

I am disappointed in these teams and saddened by the fact that they would take money to do this.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/11/rpt-military-paid-nfl-teams-54m-salute-troops

 

I don't understand why this is looked down on. The military spends a lot of money on advertisement and publicity. Why is this different?

 

Honest question. I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities...

[NewEra]

That actually pisses me off that the military would HAVE to pay. I personally think the NFL is a bunch of over paid premadonnas

[wig]

I don't understand why this is looked down on. The military spends a lot of money on advertisement and publicity. Why is this different?

Honest question. I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities...

Because, until now, people (me) was under the impression that teams were doing it to honor the troops, not take money from them.

Oregon started doing this for the spring game under Chip. If it was for money, I'm very disappointed and think very differently about it.

[csmopar]

I don't understand why this is looked down on. The military spends a lot of money on advertisement and publicity. Why is this different?

Honest question. I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities...

As a veteran I have no issue with this. Heck, they spend millions sponsors racecars and in return, get free tickets to give away

[21isSuperman]

I don't understand why this is looked down on. The military spends a lot of money on advertisement and publicity. Why is this different?

 

Honest question. I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities...

I think it's because people think no one should be paid to salute the military.  They're fighting to protect their country (including those very football players) and the NFL teams are taking money for doing something they should already be doing. 

[Synthetic]

That actually pisses me off that the military would HAVE to pay. I personally think the NFL is a bunch of over paid premadonnas

 

 

If you pay taxes, you already pay for the military's insane defense budget either way. 

[OffensivelyPC]

No different than the NFL striking a deal to donate a portion of profits and making some pink jerseys if you ask me. Whats wrong with two groups collaborating like tis and in the process making one of our troops day?

[OffensivelyPC]

Because, until now, people (me) was under the impression that teams were doing it to honor the troops, not take money from them.

Oregon started doing this for the spring game under Chip. If it was for money, I'm very disappointed and think very differently about it.

 

 

I think it's because people think no one should be paid to salute the military.  They're fighting to protect their country (including those very football players) and the NFL teams are taking money for doing something they should already be doing. 

No offense to any of those people, but if you think anyone gives anything away for free, then that's a bit naive.  Anymore, if you see major corporate/government entities doing something that looks like charity, it's because everyone is pitching in, from the companies who struck the agreement, to tax payers, to the individual donators, and, whether you know it or not, the consumers.  So yeah, there's no problem with this.  If anything, it gives the teams a chance to offer more than just tickets in the nose bleed.  That's what this really does.  I'ts not just that companies don't want to pitch in, but there's been too many instances of people expecting charitable donations to a fault.  Just look at Louisville Cardinals basketball team.  They are still reaming the city and keeping the KYC stadium all to themselves in the name of college sports.

[jvan1973]

If you pay taxes, you already pay for the military's insane defense budget either way.

Which has nothing to do with this particular topic .... at all

[Superman]

Because, until now, people (me) was under the impression that teams were doing it to honor the troops, not take money from them.

Oregon started doing this for the spring game under Chip. If it was for money, I'm very disappointed and think very differently about it.

 

I guess I understand feeling disappointed. I don't understand what's wrong with it, though.

 

This is more than just an announcement at the game about someone in the military. They get four tickets to the game, paid advertisement at the game, including video messages, and soldiers participating in charity events in the city. 

 

The US military spends hundreds of millions on advertising each year: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/war-and-peace-in-30-seconds-how-much-does-the-military-spend-on-ads/252222/

 

To me, it's community engagement on behalf of the military, carried out by one of the more popular businesses in the community. I'm sure the military views it as money well spent, as it helps with recruiting and public engagement.

 

Edit: I think the increased amount of TV advertising the military does is eyebrow raising. But I never assumed that the TV stations were giving that time away for free. 

[Narcosys]

I don't understand why this is looked down on. The military spends a lot of money on advertisement and publicity. Why is this different?

Honest question. I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities...

See new eras post

[Narcosys]

As a veteran I have no issue with this. Heck, they spend millions sponsors racecars and in return, get free tickets to give away

That's a sponsoring. A salute to troops isn't an ad like a racecar

[Superman]

That actually pisses me off that the military would HAVE to pay. I personally think the NFL is a bunch of over paid premadonnas

 

See new eras post

 

TV networks are DEFINITELY overpaid. But they don't give away airtime for military recruitment commercials. Every person, business or entity that wants something of value generally has to pay for it.

[Superman]

That's a sponsoring. A salute to troops isn't an ad like a racecar

 

http://newstome.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/11/falcons-paid-1-million-to-honor-military-hometown-heroes/

 

According to the Falcons, these events often are sponsored. "Sponsored" is code for "somebody had to write a check, because everything is about money." 

[Narcosys]

I guess I understand feeling disappointed. I don't understand what's wrong with it, though.

This is more than just an announcement at the game about someone in the military. They get four tickets to the game, paid advertisement at the game, including video messages, and soldiers participating in charity events in the city.

The US military spends hundreds of millions on advertising each year: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/war-and-peace-in-30-seconds-how-much-does-the-military-spend-on-ads/252222/

To me, it's community engagement on behalf of the military, carried out by one of the more popular businesses in the community. I'm sure the military views it as money well spent, as it helps with recruiting and public engagement.

Edit: I think the increased amount of TV advertising the military does is eyebrow raising. But I never assumed that the TV stations were giving that time away for free.

Them paying to salute has nothing to do with the soldiers performing charity. They do that for free and there is an award specifically for that after so much of a contribution. None of it is passed off as a sponsorship, just honoring troops.

[OffensivelyPC]

I guess I understand feeling disappointed. I don't understand what's wrong with it, though.

 

This is more than just an announcement at the game about someone in the military. They get four tickets to the game, paid advertisement at the game, including video messages, and soldiers participating in charity events in the city. 

 

The US military spends hundreds of millions on advertising each year: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/war-and-peace-in-30-seconds-how-much-does-the-military-spend-on-ads/252222/

 

To me, it's community engagement on behalf of the military, carried out by one of the more popular businesses in the community. I'm sure the military views it as money well spent, as it helps with recruiting and public engagement.

 

Edit: I think the increased amount of TV advertising the military does is eyebrow raising. But I never assumed that the TV stations were giving that time away for free. 

Bottom line is, this stuff costs money.  And everyone can agree that it's good to honor the military in this way.  The idea is to agree on how to share in that costs, because it costs everyone something.  If these agreements didn't happen, then the military wouldn't be honored in the same way.  It would essentially stall out in these "I want to help you, but why do you expect me to take all the monetary risks?"  It's only fair to share in the costs, one would think.  But then articles like this come out and it comes across completely one sided, when in reality, both sides share in equally or close to.

[NewEra]

TV networks are DEFINITELY overpaid. But they don't give away airtime for military recruitment commercials. Every person, business or entity that wants something of value generally has to pay for it.

.

I understand and agree that the military should pay for their commercials to recruit. Like someone else said I've been under the impression that the NFL and teams have been honoring the military out of respect. Not getting paid to do so. I was pretty much born and raised in the military so it hits close to home.

[Narcosys]

Bottom line is, this stuff costs money. And everyone can agree that it's good to honor the military in this way. The idea is to agree on how to share in that costs, because it costs everyone something. If these agreements didn't happen, then the military wouldn't be honored in the same way. It would essentially stall out in these "I want to help you, but why do you expect me to take all the monetary risks?" It's only fair to share in the costs, one would think. But then articles like this come out and it comes across completely one sided, when in reality, both sides share in equally or close to.

It costs nothing. Soldiers are the ones waving the flag, so instead of seeing players nonsense around we see the flag and then at one little corner of an endzone they recognize someone. Does that really cost $5.4M?

[wig]

I guess I understand feeling disappointed. I don't understand what's wrong with it, though.

This is more than just an announcement at the game about someone in the military. They get four tickets to the game, paid advertisement at the game, including video messages, and soldiers participating in charity events in the city.

The US military spends hundreds of millions on advertising each year: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/war-and-peace-in-30-seconds-how-much-does-the-military-spend-on-ads/252222/

To me, it's community engagement on behalf of the military, carried out by one of the more popular businesses in the community. I'm sure the military views it as money well spent, as it helps with recruiting and public engagement.

Edit: I think the increased amount of TV advertising the military does is eyebrow raising. But I never assumed that the TV stations were giving that time away for free.

Yeah, I don't see it as wrong, really. My thoughts were more based on college, specifically Oregon, too. Obviously they weren't on the report and I don't believe it's the same situation. Basically what they do is wear military inspired jerseys and then each player gives it to a serviceman. No advertisement or anything.

[OffensivelyPC]

It costs nothing. Soldiers are the ones waving the flag, so instead of seeing players nonsense around we see the flag and then at one little corner of an endzone they recognize someone. Does that really cost $5.4M?

Look I can't give you a breakdown.  But all of this?

 

Aside from the Hometown Heroes segment, the agreements also included advertising and marketing services, including a kickoff video message from  the Guard, digital advertising on stadium screens, online advertising and meeting space for a meeting or events.

 

Also, soldiers attended the annual kickoff lunch in New York City to meet and take pictures with the players for promotional use, and the Jets allowed soldiers to participate in a charity event in which coaches and players build or rebuild a playground or park.

 

14 teams, depending on how often they do it, which they do it almost every home game I attend...$5.4 million easy.

[Superman]

Them paying to salute has nothing to do with the soldiers performing charity. They do that for free and there is an award specifically for that after so much of a contribution. None of it is passed off as a sponsorship, just honoring troops.

 

You're right, I misunderstood. They're saying that's separate.

 

Still, I think this entire thing is a direct effort to promote the military. Honoring specific troops is a secondary benefit, one that most people think is cool. But overall, it's a "hey, patriotism / the military is great, isn't it?" kind of thing. Not to go off the rails, but this kind of stuff was HUGE in the US during both World Wars. Think about the Uncle Sam posters...

 

So the military is asking NFL teams to stop their games and promote the military, and a lot of these events are broadcast on TV. That's incredibly valuable. Plus the screen messages at games, announcements, printed ads, etc. Do you really think the NFL and the TV networks ought to just give that away, because it's the military? Honest question... if you do, I disagree, but I understand it. To me, it's business.

 

And again, not to go off the rails, but this is what the entire military industrial complex is built on. Companies make money off of military contracts all the time.

[Flash7]

Is this not how the business world is supposed to work? The NFL produces a product that attracts millions of viewers. If other organizations want to advertise to those viewers then they have to pay for it.

 

Why is this any different? The NFL is a FOR PROFIT business.

 

If you complain that the league is already comprised of millionaires, then I would argue that they are extremely good at their business. Obviously, the military sees value in this and agrees to pay for the advertisement. I see no problem with this whatsoever.

[Superman]

Is this not how the business world is supposed to work? The NFL produces a product that attracts millions of viewers. If other organizations want to advertise to those viewers then they have to pay for it.

Why is this any different? The NFL is a FOR PROFIT business.

If you complain that the league is already comprised of millionaires, then I would argue that they are extremely good at their business. Obviously, the military sees value in this and agrees to pay for the advertisement. I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Yeah, to me, the headline is "Military pays 14 NFL teams for in-game advertising and on-field promotions." It's not as scandalous as people are making it seem, IMO.

Also I'd like to know if there's any revenue sharing between the teams on stuff like this.

[nburgmei]

From a practical perspective, I don't see a problem with this. However, I am personally disappointed to find out that it isn't so much honoring the troops as it is providing a service. 

[ricker182]

It's propaganda.

Pushing the ever growing military complex through bribes.

I find it disturbing.

[Nadine]

I was surprised because I did have the impression that it was not a paid thing.  But, makes sense that the military would want visibility here so I understand paying for it.

[Freenyfan102]

I am so sure the NFL is taking a big hit in the pocket if theyear honor some troops and the nfl have to pay for it.

[NFLfan]

Bottom line is, this stuff costs money. And everyone can agree that it's good to honor the military in this way. The idea is to agree on how to share in that costs, because it costs everyone something. If these agreements didn't happen, then the military wouldn't be honored in the same way. It would essentially stall out in these "I want to help you, but why do you expect me to take all the monetary risks?" It's only fair to share in the costs, one would think. But then articles like this come out and it comes across completely one sided, when in reality, both sides share in equally or close to.

I hear what you are saying. However, most teams were not paid. Were the teams that got paid the only ones that honored the troops? I don't know the answer to that. The Giants and the Jets share the same market, but while the Jets were paid, the Giants were not.

[NagelHausForge]

Personally I'd rather the military use the money for training, equipment, or benefits as opposed to giving it to a multi-billion dollar organization that up until recently enjoyed a tax free status as a non-profit organization.

 

Millions of dollars that could have been used to allow Soldiers that need equipment (Many Army Reservists don't have anything), range qualification time (the Army Reserves can't even afford bullets for their Soldiers to qualify on their weapons), or maintenance on vehicles that haven't been serviced in over 10 years...

 

Instead of all that the DoD in all it's wisdom decides to use that money for "advertising" by paying teams to "Salute" the military.  I am sorry, but to this old Soldier, it doesn't count as a salute if you are paid to do it.  That's just advertising to drum up recruitment numbers. 

 

I am rather disappointed that the Colts would partake in this and now I understand why they put in the POW/MIA seat and where the money for that came from.  It cheapens the event and makes the Colts organization, and the others who accepted money, seem like prostitutes for the DoD.  "Oh sure, we will "salute the troops".... for 1.7 million dollars that is"

 

Sorry for the rant.  This really struck a nerve with me for some reason.  I can't stand manufactured patriotism and that's what this reeks of to me.
 

[OffensivelyPC]

I hear what you are saying. However, most teams were not paid. Were the teams that got paid the only ones that honored the troops? I don't know the answer to that. The Giants and the Jets share the same market, but while the Jets were paid, the Giants were not.

I have no idea, it's hard to say without having all the data out there, but I know that charity agreements like this are not at all uncommon. Perhaps other teams did it for free, but my next question is, we're they just show at the game and that's it? Did they get all the advertisement and benefits that teams like the Colts did?

[pacolts56]

Personally I'd rather the military use the money for training, equipment, or benefits as opposed to giving it to a multi-billion dollar organization that up until recently enjoyed a tax free status as a non-profit organization.

 

Millions of dollars that could have been used to allow Soldiers that need equipment (Many Army Reservists don't have anything), range qualification time (the Army Reserves can't even afford bullets for their Soldiers to qualify on their weapons), or maintenance on vehicles that haven't been serviced in over 10 years...

 

Instead of all that the DoD in all it's wisdom decides to use that money for "advertising" by paying teams to "Salute" the military.  I am sorry, but to this old Soldier, it doesn't count as a salute if you are paid to do it.  That's just advertising to drum up recruitment numbers. 

 

I am rather disappointed that the Colts would partake in this and now I understand why they put in the POW/MIA seat and where the money for that came from.  It cheapens the event and makes the Colts organization, and the others who accepted money, seem like prostitutes for the DoD.  "Oh sure, we will "salute the troops".... for 1.7 million dollars that is"

 

Sorry for the rant.  This really struck a nerve with me for some reason.  I can't stand manufactured patriotism and that's what this reeks of to me.

Amen to this! I agree 100% that funds could be far better spent than on this "pay to play" salute business.

There's a distinction to be made here in that commercial recruiting ads and efforts are one thing....but paying to salute service and sacrifice is another.

IMO....the Pentagon should eliminate this practice and NFL owners should do so as well.

I'm fine with ceremonies honoring individual members or perhaps local units for combat service, and certainly in the case of those who were wounded or lost in battle as a genuine gesture of gratitude.

Pentagon leadership and NFL teams should see that these ceremonies are reserved for the most special and sacrificial of circumstances....and it shouldn't cost a dime.

[-JJ-]

I don't understand why this is looked down on. The military spends a lot of money on advertisement and publicity. Why is this different?

 

Honest question. I hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities...

I would agree there's nothing wrong with it per se as in advertisement for the military, however it makes the NFL (knowing it's paid for now) appear fake.

[Superman]

It's propaganda.

Pushing the ever growing military complex through bribes.

I find it disturbing.

 

It's not a bribe. It's advertisement. 

[ricker182]

It's not a bribe. It's advertisement.

It's not billed as an advertisement.

It's billed as a genuine act of gratitude while our tax dollars are used to push a glorified image of the military.

We're better than that.

[buccolts]

So, it sounds like 'payment' may not be as accurate as 'compensate'?

[Superman]

It's not billed as an advertisement.

It's billed as a genuine act of gratitude while our tax dollars are used to push a glorified image of the military.

We're better than that.

 

That doesn't make it a bribe.

 

Also, your tax dollars have always been used to push a glorified image of the military. Patriotic / nationalistic propaganda is nothing new.

[BrentMc11]

I looked at the teams, and I wondered why the money????  Why?

 

Then I thought about Dale Jr's National Guard car from last year, Graham Rahal's Indy Car....The Navy pays big bucks for their commercials as does the Marines.

 

In the NFL, maybe the military looked at their recruiting efforts and said "We need to recruit better in these areas."  Atlanta has lots of unemployment, Indy is doing better, but struggles big time in certain communities and the farmers as well.

 

If the military feels they need to pay the Falcons 1.05 million, there is a very good reason IMO.

 

PS:  Remember how much the military got charge for nails and screws?  OK the last part is sarcasm....

[Jay Kirk]

I looked at the teams, and I wondered why the money????  Why?

 

Then I thought about Dale Jr's National Guard car from last year, Graham Rahal's Indy Car....The Navy pays big bucks for their commercials as does the Marines.

 

In the NFL, maybe the military looked at their recruiting efforts and said "We need to recruit better in these areas."  Atlanta has lots of unemployment, Indy is doing better, but struggles big time in certain communities and the farmers as well.

 

If the military feels they need to pay the Falcons 1.05 million, there is a very good reason IMO.

 

PS:  Remember how much the military got charge for nails and screws?  OK the last part is sarcasm....

Ive got no problem with military paying for this as a recruiting tool. I think NFL or any major sports should tribute the troops just because they can , and its the right thing to do.   

[BrentMc11]

Ive got no problem with military paying for this as a recruiting tool. I think NFL or any major sports should tribute the troops just because they can , and its the right thing to do.   

Just because they can and WANT to.