Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s, and Loyal Homer’s arguments about whether or not the NFL should allow players to sell their end zone celebrations as opportunities for commercial marketing.
Just because an idea is clever, that does not mean it is good.
I give credit to Captain Morgan for a very clever and innovative approach to the marketing of their product. The idea of having a player strike the Captain Morgan pose after scoring a touchdown was unique, it DEFINITELY generated buzz for their product, AND it drew some attention to the Gridiron Greats organization. By those accounts, the strategy was a complete success… for Captain Morgan.
Since when did the marketing goals of Captain Morgan help to define the policies of the NFL, though? The NFL must first protect ITS OWN product before concerning itself with whether or not something is good for OTHER products. The allowance of players within the NFL to sell their end zone celebrations would detract from the on-field product of football. It would diminish the game by making the post touchdown celebration a greater spectacle than the touchdown itself.
Sports Geek’s argument provided ample reasoning for why “touchdownvertising” might be good for sponsors, good for players, and good for ‘Sports Geeks’ who appreciate clever advertising. Where the argument failed, though, is that it did not convince me of any benefits for the NFL. The simple fact that it may be ‘fun’ does not add enough value to the league to warrant that change. It would also be fun to watch the players try to compete blindfolded… that does not mean it is good for the game. On the other hand, as pointed out by Loyal Homer, the NFL does risk losing in several different aspects of their business. As a result, I am awarding the debate to Loyal Homer.
Impossible to Regulate
Despite the protestations of Sports Geek, this DOES become a slippery slope. Any time interests outside an organization influences a player’s behavior DURING the game, it is ALWAYS on a slippery slope.
Imagine that a player, on their way into the end zone, pulls a Cadillac hood ornament from their pocket, places it on the football, and pretends to drive the football into the end zone, all because they would get paid $25,000 from Cadillac for the stunt. Now imagine, as the player is driving his ‘Caddy’ into the end zone a player comes from behind, knocks the ‘steering wheel’ out of his hand, picks up the fumble, and runs it back the other way for a touchdown. Can you imagine the backlash from this? The sale of a touchdown celebration has just directly influenced the outcome of the game.
Likewise, what is to stop a player from miming the “Five-Dollar Foot-Long” song after a first down, or sacking the quarterback? Like a touchdown celebration, this action is coming AFTER a play, not during a play. Would it cause a problem then? What if that celebration (regardless of when it happened) resulted in an excessive celebration penalty? The celebration, which may have profited the individual player, has negatively impacted the team. What if the excessive celebration penalty, which put the opposition in better field position, resulted in losing the game? There are just too many opportunities for sponsorship such as this to have a direct (and usually negative) impact on the game.
Conflicts of Interest
Loyal Homer brings up the fact that Coors Light, an official sponsor for the NFL, may take issue with a player promoting another alcoholic beverage like Captain Morgan. That is just one example of the many possible conflicts of interest that could result from this type of advertising technique.
Consider the Baltimore Ravens running back corps of Ray Rice, LeRon McClain, and Willis McGahee, all of whom have a strong likelihood of finding the end zone during a game. What if Rice was sponsored by Budweiser, McClain was sponsored by Coors Light, and McGahee was sponsored by Miller Lite? Do you think that Miller Lite or Budweiser would be happy if McClain scored the touchdown and did his Coors Light dance?
Just imagine if Rice accounted for 55 yards of a 60 yard drive, but on first and goal from the two-yard line Rice is pulled for a breather and replaced by McGahee. Now, when McGahee scores the touchdown (rather than Rice), Miller Lite gets all the sponsorship glory even though it was Budweiser’s Rice who did all the work. Likewise, McGahee gets the sponsorship bonus when it was Rice who got the ball into scoring range. Once again, a very ugly conflict could arise.
Within the locker room, players would begin resenting each other. Instead of being happy because the TEAM just scored a touchdown, individual players would get upset because THEY did not get the bonus check. That kind of dissent among players is never healthy for a team-oriented sport.
Equally as dangerous is the possibility of external entities trying to influence the game for their private marketing purposes. Obviously, competing organizations would want THEIR brand to be advertised, not the competitors. In the interest of ensuring it is their ad that gets seen, what would stop Schooner Tuna from offering money to a coach every time one of his players strikes their touchdown pose? Now, the coach, like the player, is being motivated by something OTHER than winning the game. Instead of calling the play that may work best for a situation, or calling upon the player with the best opportunity to score, he could instead call the play that would win him the biggest paycheck. The impact here is no different than if a player were shaving points because of gambling wagers they made. Both are instances where a player is allowing personal financial gain to influence the outcome of the game.
The NFL was absolutely right to ban this practice. As mentioned in the debate introduction, football is a game. While the NFL may be a business, it is vital that the GAME be left untainted by business driven motivation. To keep the game honest, and entertaining, it must be free of external influence. While on the field, players should be motivated by one thing only – winning the game!
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
