Extra Points
News and commentary from around the Web

Meet the Washington Football Team

Washington's NFL franchise, formerly known as the Redskins, has announced that they will simply be known as the Washington Football Team for the 2020 season.

"For updated brand clarity and consistency purposes, we will call ourselves the 'Washington Football Team' pending adoption of our new name," the team announced in a press release. "The Redskins name and logo will officially be retired by the start of the 2020 season. We encourage fans, media and all other parties to use 'Washington Football Team' immediately."

The team will be wearing slightly different uniforms this year. All usage of the "Redskins" wordmark will be replaced by "Washington," and the helmet logo will be replaced by each player's number in gold. You can of course by merchandise for the Washington Football Team for their one year in existence before they adopt a new nickname in 2021.

Mockup photos of the new uniforms are available at the link.

View Full Article


59 comments, Last at 27 Jul 2020, 2:22pm

2 What in the actual f***

… There just not going to choose a name/logo/brand...

This is a whole new level of just not having a plan. I thought it was bad when the Bills hired Rex Ryan for... some reason; this is something else.

4 Legacy

Well if your going to pick up on an old legacy - I guess you could do worse than a team that went 8-0-3 with two 0-0 ties...

5 Hmm

Seems like the Cons would be a better choice for a team based in Washington.

13 Or in our current culture…

Or in our current culture where everyone is offended by everything, the only way to not offend anyone is to not have a name.


(That and with how lawsuit-happy pro sports teams and universities are with nicknames now due to branding, it's not just a snap of the fingers and write something down.)

16 If that's the justification,…

If that's the justification, they are letting the cancel culture win.

I am firm believer that while our founders had a do as I say not as I do attitude, the value of liberty, free speech, and individualism are the bedrock for our country. I admit I have to carefully walk on eggshells these days, but going too far in that direction is the road to censorship. In the extreme case, to Maoist and Stalinist hell.

19 It's clearly not the…

It's clearly not the justification. What's probably happening is that someone is squatting on the name Snyder wants to use and he's too cheap to pay them off. Also, he might see a marketing opportunity. Down the road this year's gear might become valued collector's items.

26 Nah, you are fundamentally…

Nah, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what "cancel culture" is. Or at least what it can be. Here's a fantastic article where Billy Bragg explains it better than I could. In short, cancel culture is accountability, and usually the people who are against it are the ones afraid of being held accountable.


27 So doxxing people and trying…

So doxxing people and trying to get them fired and ruin their careers for holding right-of-center viewpoints is "holding them accountable"? You people have truly lost your minds.

And really, citing Billy Bragg? He's the epitome of a vapid, pseudo-intellectual activist celebrity, a Useful Idiot par excellence.

30 The no-politics rule

I'm torn between the no-politics rule and simply wanting to unload on "cancel culture doesn't exist" in a world where am employee of this very website was canned within the last two years for old tweets (and now many non-public figures are being removed from positions); so I'm splitting the baby - but can we reel it back in?

51 Argue against Bragg's…

Argue against Bragg's position if you will--there's certainly plenty to argue with, first and foremost the sentiment in the first sentence of your post--but l wish you'd refrained from the ad hominem attack in your second paragraph, since those are the stock in trade of the Cancel Culture set. As in, "you have no right to make that argument because you are [fill in the blank with whatever demographic description applies]" which really means, "I don't have a good reply for your argument".

In fact, they are--to a person, it seems--completely ok with dismissing the idea that an argument should stand on its own merits regardless of who makes it, which as far as I'm concerned is the bedrock of public discourse.

53 Fair point calling me out…

Fair point calling me out for the ad hominem, which was lazy- though if anyone deserves such dismissal, it's multimillionaires who go around singing Communist hymns. If his "dream" system were ever implemented, the only singing he'd be doing would be in the fields of a collective farm/gulag... for free!

What I'm saying is that the Left has developed a nasty habit of demanding that people who publicly express opposing views be fired and/or forced to make a public apology, along with the absurd Orwellian renaming of anything that could conceivably be offensive to any group (Lady A! The Chicks! David Roth!), tearing down of statues, etc. This isn't about holding people accountable for racist remarks; it's about creating a climate where even thoughtful, good-faith commentary is silenced, and its speakers punished. Part of the problem, admittedly, is the failure of the other side to stand up for themselves and refuse to capitulate... but to call this childish, bullying behavior as "demaning accountability" is disingenuous BS.

And yes, I know I'm crapping all over the erstwhile Prime Directive, but FO seems to have implicitly suspended said rule as of late. I won't comment any further, so you can have the last words, if you wish.

55 Oh, don't misunderstand--I…

Oh, don't misunderstand--I completely agree with you. In fact, in more injudicious moments I am tempted go further, comparing the current climate to McCarthyism...or worse. I'm just sensitive to ad hominem attacks since any argument I or other like-minded folks care to make--regardless of the content of the argument--is generally met with some version of, "Oh, well, clearly you're a racist/sexist/whatever or you wouldn't even be advancing any view that isn't in lock step with orthodox progressive thought", allowing the respondent to avoid any actual discussion of the issues.

57 "What I'm saying is that the…

"What I'm saying is that the Left has developed a nasty habit of demanding that people who publicly express opposing views be fired and/or forced to make a public apology"

So it's not people who are asking for apologies, but "the Left" is it?  Does that make it easier to dismiss why they feel an apology is appropriate?   

And the reason they ask for an apology isn't because the speaker said something hateful, but rather expressed "opposing views"?   That's a heck of a euphemism.

It sounds to me like you're saying that people should be able to say cruel things about other people without consequences, not even the consequence of other people thinking poorly of them.  


"creating a climate where even thoughtful, good-faith commentary is silenced"

Silenced, or are people just no longer interested in listening to it anymore, because they've heard it a 100 times before and you're not saying anything new?  Because for a lot of people, they've heard the arguments around monuments, sports nicknames, etc., they've been hearing them for decades, now, and they're moving on. 

I'm going to use an extreme example, and I'm not saying the commentary you think you can't express anymore is anything like this.  But in case it resonates with you about how people may be truly reacting when you're being "silenced", here it is.  When my uncles try to have yet another heart-felt talk about why black people are mentally different than white people - and they do, way too often - I tune them out if I can and if I can't I tell them I don't want to hear it anymore.  They think their comments are thoughtful, and from their perspective they're definitely good-faith, because they truly believe it.  But I had to listen to them at nearly every family get together growing up, and I don't need to hear it anymore.  Their comments have had one effect, though:  I don't take my son to any event that they're going to be at, because I don't need them filling his head with the poison they tried to pour into mine.  I guess I'm censoring, but he's 8.  Maybe when he's older I'll change my mind.

But if when he's older, he happens to date a black woman, and they say some of the hurtful things to her I've heard them express to me, you can be darn sure I'll demand an apology from them.  I'm just like "the Left" that way, I guess. 


58 "And the reason they ask for…

"And the reason they ask for an apology isn't because the speaker said something hateful, but rather expressed "opposing views"?   That's a heck of a euphemism."

This is total nonsense. According to recent polling 50% of people who describe their political views as extremely liberal support firing people for the act of donating to the Donald Trump campeign - that can rightly be described as an opposing political perspective rather than a euphemism for hateful. 

"It sounds to me like you're saying that people should be able to say cruel things about other people without consequences, not even the consequence of other people thinking poorly of them."

What he's saying is that when I hired a plumber last week I didn't look through his old tweets to figure out whether he had suitable political views. Doing so with any non-public figure should be considered displicable.


59 OK, this thread has gotten…

OK, this thread has gotten way off-topic and into irrelevant political discussion. This is a gray-area subject matter so I've been lenient, but we're way past talking about football now. Please return to the subject at hand -- the Washington Football Team -- or I'll close comments. Thank you.

32 And the Holocaust was simply…

And the Holocaust was simply ridding the body politic of infection.

You can't rely upon activists to define the context of their own creation. They have neither the perspective nor the disinterest required.

25 our current culture where…

our current culture where everyone is offended by everything

No, our current culture is NOT offended by everything, or even a lot of things. Our current culture is offended by RACIST THINGS. That is fair and normal. If you're not offended by racism, you should not be living in society in the first place, let alone sharing opinions about a football team.

As long as the new team name is LITERALLY ANYTHING EXCEPT A SLUR, not very many people will be offended.

36 "As long as the new team…

"As long as the new team name is LITERALLY ANYTHING EXCEPT A SLUR, not very many people will be offended."

It's really not about the word. The word's a word. People can find any way for a word to be offensive, or a slur. "Yankee" can be offensive, "patriot" can be offensive. Things named after historical figures are always going to be offensive to someone. What makes the word so seriously offensive is that it's continued to be used after a representative group has called for it to be stopped, and the main users of the word have basically flipped them off. Which, if you think about it, is the exact same thing that caused the *other* major racial slur to become such a slur.

It's about the people who are calling for it to change, and responding to their concerns with respect. That's it. And the call for it to change here comes from a representative assembly for Native American tribes in the US. Was there a way for Washington to engage with them and not change the name? Almost certainly not, because they consider it an irredeemable racial slur and they've made the decision that they can't move forward with positive relations with that in place. But that's *their* decision and call. What *non-Native Americans* think of the word is almost unimportant.

This is the whole problem with the discussion. Asking non-Native Americans to understand the word's impact to Native Americans isn't really possible. They don't have the context. I certainly don't have the context.

But you don't need to have the context. A representative group has asked for understanding and respect, and you just need to give it to them, and Washington never did. Even quoting the whole "public opinion polls show.." just shows how little respect some people are willing to give. The entire idea of responding to a representative body's statement with a *public opinion poll* is ludicrous.

The problem isn't the word, it's the complete lack of respect, and to be honest, to me, even the whole name change still reeks of Snyder not giving a crap about the people calling for it. But at least he's realized fighting a battle against an entire people is entirely stupid.

12 Ha. They did half of what I…

Ha. They did half of what I said they should do. I said they should've renamed to Landover Football, that way they could say FU to the City of Washington and NFL marketing gurus at the same time.

31 Part of me thinks that this…

Part of me thinks that this is less about buying out the guy that hogged all the trademarks and more about delaying the inevitable creation of our first sponsor-named team. It would be a very Dan Snyder thing to do.

33 The Packers were a sponsor…

The Packers were a sponsor-named team way back in 1919. They were named after their uniform sponsor, the Indian Packing Company.

Arguably, so was Washington, back in 1932 -- the Boston Braves were the name of their landlord. Combining the names of their two landlords (Red Sox and Braves) is how they ended up in this mess in the first place!

39 Washington Amazons,…

Washington Amazons, sponsored by Amazon....but that name could be construed as misogynist.

Washington Apples, sponsored by Apple....but Washington State's Apple Commission may sue them for copyright infringement.

Wow, this harder than I though.

23 Sauieels

Ntohign wrong with trying Squirrels  fof 2020

29 So when it the name "Patriots" going to get called out?

The "Patriots" is far more offensive than Redskins. They fought in a war where one of the aims was to retain slavery and the right to extend into Native American territories. The loyalists had promised to free all slaves and to honour all treaties with native tribes. 

45 That's an interesting take considering

The British promised to free black loyalists - those who took up arms against the Patriots.  Not all slaves.  And since slaves were not allowed to fight, this amounted to a very rare few black people who might win freedom.

Don't make the Tories, who were primarily from the southern slave states, to be better than they were.

Both sides offered freedom to black slaves and both sides reneged on their promises.

46 Tories

"Don't make the Tories, who were primarily from the southern slave states, to be better than they were." - This is right (as a decendent of loyalists who you defame ;)). The British crown did want to honor treaties with native tribes in a way that the rebels didn't, specifically a treaty called the Quebec Act of 1774 - their is little evidence to suggest the ovatures towards African Americans were anything but a cynical ploy to make trouble for the Rebels.

If your going to strip the Pats of their name it should really be for their brutality toward Loyalists, whom they frequently and brutally murdered in the endless skirmishes within towns that occurred throughout the colonies during the years during and shortly after the war.

47 Except I'm totally down with the "brutality" ie, warfare

In reply to by sbond101

committed against the Tories who were not Patriots, but traitors to their countrymen.  The Patriots did what they had to do.  I find it fascinating that their descendants, who became Confederates, once again betraying their countrymen, love to tout their patriotism nowadays, even as they bemoan the destruction of statues to racists.  I also find it fascinating that the descendants of the unpatriotic Tories complain nowadays about destruction of property during protests - just as their ancestors did during the Revolution.

48 Loyalists

I didn't want to pull this out previously, but your assessment of Loyalists as a southern phenomena is just wrong. The largest concentration of Loyalists was in NYC; this is not well remembered in the US because as the tide of war turned against the US the British crown resettled them in Canada (in Nova Scotia and what is now southern Ontario). I don't know much about the history of southern loyalists after the war, so I can't comment on the confederate connection. 


As for your comments on the Patriots - it was war in a different time - but as long as were making moral judgements do a little reading on Washington's march through NYC on evacuation day in 1783; allowing his troops to publicly torture those who stayed behind. In modern parlance these are war crimes, similar to the crimes committed by both sides throughout the burned over district as towns divided before it became clear that the revolutionaries were the dominant faction.

50 As Pat has mentioned in…

As Pat has mentioned in other threads, you can say that any particular thing you wish is offensive and that you wish for it to be removed, but that will never happen unless you can convince a sizeable amount of the population that you are right. It may seem as if these things are completely arbitrary and haphazard, but they're not.

44 Seems like a good decision…

Seems like a good decision for at least a few reasons.

First, choosing a new brand name isn't something that should be done hastily.  This close to the (presumed) start to the season, there wouldn't be time even to do a solid marketing campaign around the hype, build up, and roll out of a new name.  Taking a year to put this together makes a whole lot of sense.

Second, with the sexual harassment issue the franchise is dealing with, the executive presumably can't focus exclusively on the re-branding (at least, I hope it can't).

Thirdly - and I admit this may be wishful thinking on my part - but if there's any chance that Snyder may exit the franchise, I would suspect he would get a better price for it if the new owner is able to choose their own team brand name.