Sponsors edging away from NFL

Major dollars are on the line, but companies are so unhappy with a rash of domestic violence cases involving National Football League players that they are likely to drop sponsorships, said Robert Tuchman, president of sports and entertainment marketing firm Goviva.

"They are really holding on until the last minute until public outcry is so much that they can't be associated with this," said Tuchman. "That's when you're going to find them pulling out."

Football is the nation's most popular sport and has always been an advertising vehicle of choice for major consumer brands. Companies have committed millions of dollars to NFL sponsorships and millions more in related programs to leverage those sponsorships, said Tuchman. He added, "No one wants to pull away from the NFL."

But companies are now distancing themselves from the league following a series of shocking incidents involving pro football players and what's seen as a weak response from the NFL.

In the latest fallout from the domestic violence case involving former Baltimore Raven Ray Rice and other arrests of NFL players, Procter & Gamble (PG) has withdrawn from a promotional initiative with the NFL for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, according to CBS Sports, citing sources with knowledge of the matter.

The consumer products giant had worked with the NFL on a project in which players from every NFL franchise would have worn pink mouthguards and participated in social media to raise money and draw attention to the fight against breast cancer.

But P&G canceled the campaign on Thursday amid the furor over the league's response to Rice and other incidents involving the Minnesota Vikings' Adrian Peterson and the Arizona Cardinals' Jonathan Dwyer. P&G will still donate any money raised in the campaign to cancer charities, CBS Sports reported.

Spokespersons for P&G and the NFL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A growing number of sponsors have expressed concern about the recent domestic violence issues involving NFL players. Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD) this week criticized the league's handling of what the beer seller were behaviors that "go against our own company culture and moral code." PepsiCo (PEP) also has questioned the NFL's handling of domestic violence and child abuse, while Radisson Hotels has suspended its sponsorship of the Vikings.
Companies have also cut ties with Rice, who was captured on video striking his then-fiancee Janay Palmer in a casino elevator. Sponsors who dropped Rice include Nike (NKE) and exercise equipment maker Vertimax.

Tuchman said he hopes the NFL will not only adopt a zero-tolerance policy, but also use its power to change attitudes about domestic violence -- not just in football, but across the country. "Because they are at the top of the top in terms of marketing and brand, they really have an opportunity here" to change both perceptions and behavior, he said.

So far the NFL seems to be squandering that opportunity with missteps. Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized Friday for mishandling the Rice affair. He also admitted the league needs clearer policies and announced new initiatives with the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

Tuchman thought such efforts wouldn't be enough to fully address sponsors' concerns. He thinks the NFL needs to take a tougher stance on players shown to have abused women or children.

The NFL makes money, a lot of money, regulating a very violent sport that a whole ell of a lot of American people love to watch. It will continue to make a ell of a lot money as long as a ell of a lot of people love to watch the sport.

I agree, not very many passive men that can make it in pro football.

it breeds aggression, or at the very least, amplifies natural fight or flight aggressive reflexes,

and I personally don't believe in the 'never touch a woman' doctrine, grown ups that lay their hands on another grown up(or spit on) should expect to have hands laid back,, damn the sex

but thats just me, sponsors and athletes have options, as they should.

They get millions and think they can do whatever. Glad sponsors are pulling out

define violent...

Love the BOYZ though! When they don't stand...then I will boycott.

Hi people, it's the I'll informed brit again
I saw this on the news this morning, they were at Wembley, couldn't quite understand what is was about or achieving?

what it achieves is it brings attention to an issue, quite obviously very well too.

when people have wealth, and the privilege of a world stage, they sometimes use it to bring attention to important social or political issues. I applaud them for speaking up and using that stage.

Not everyone will agree.

A bunch of spoiled brats using fame for their own agenda...nothing more

Have you ever watched a football game?

Football is all about hitting people and knocking them down. And people do get injured playing it, some very badly. There even have been some deaths caused by playing the game.

Don't get me wrong. I like football. I played a bit of it in my younger years, though not very well. It is by all definition violent. It's certainly not badminton, or cricket is it?

I wonder who bought it to there attention?
People of there stature and on that sort of money rarely give a hoot what goes on in the real world!
Also, if they were that passionate about the problems then why don't they go all the way and refuse to play until it's sorted, bit like complaining about Mc donolds treatment of workers and animal welfare but still eating there!

I disagree with that. People of their stature were not always of their stature, they came from someplace, they have loved ones and friends who came from someplace. They dont stop being connected to the real world if they have history there, just because their status is promoted.

They are human first, so why wouldn't they care or have a voice?

I am passionate about things, but none that would cause me to choose having no career at all and not being able to provide until its 'all sorted'

that can be a goal which takes years, decades or centuries and putting oneself and family at the risk of losing everything just to go 'all in' is not helpful at all except to make yourself seem like a 'passionate person' at the risk of your families livelihood.


Maybe some will go 'all the way' in that manner. I applaud them if they do. But I don't find the voice of those who don't any less of value if they do not. And in many ways, just taking the least of a stand, can actually put people at a RISK for that same outcome. so ... yeah, I Respect people who stand for something and use their privilege to try to spread knowledge and affect change.

Oh, you mean like Jenny from the block! Yeah, if that's what you want to believe!

Colin Kaepernick is unemployed... I'm good with that


Perhaps the sponsors should pay more attention to whom they sponsor?

Me too.

The way I see it, the players are paid to play football not to protest.
People pay to see them play football not protest. Sponsors pay to show their products not to sponsor protest.
If players want to protest, take it some where else or the fans and eventually the sponsor will too.

I have had relatives and gone to school with people in that 'status'. I don't need to believe it, I have seen it and consider it just common sense. Few are born into that status. Few love or care about only others in that 'status'/

IT all comes back to that ideal where we are never associated with anyone or purchasing anything or working alongside of ANYONE or ANYTHING that has anyone or anything that can be associated with something negative or controversial.


noone reaches the upper status of society and lives up to such unrealistic criteria.


but, I agree sponsors have to be concerned with their 'customer base' and what appeals to or doesnt appeal to their priorities and sensitivities.


and those in the public eye need to be aware of the risks of 'offending' those consumers in that 'snowflake' base,,,lol

in that regard then, why have them stand for the BANNER? Is that something they are PAID FOR in their contracts, is that part of what 'playing football' is?

I dont think so. But again, others will see it differently.

They are , in actuality, paid to make their bosses money. Thats all its about and that's the REAL motivation behind decisions. The bosses have not shyed away from continuing to sell and make profits of his jersey which was the number one selling jersey after his protest. THey just shyed away from keeping him on for fear of the lost money from those snowflakes associating and being offended by his being allowed to continue in his career after something that offended them so much.

Why have them stand for the BANNER? Because they are paid to.
If they didn't want to, don't sign the contract.
Fans pay a lot to go see a football game, not someones protest.

I came up with suitable sponsors for a couple of players and ex-player


Aaron Hernandez >>>> Smith & Wesson

Colin Kaepernick >>>> BLM, NAACP

Ray Rice >>>> UFC, Everlast