Another reason why the NFL's breast cancer awareness is BS

AndyJohnson said:

How has anyone been misled to believe that?
You cannot blame the entity donating money to charity for the ignorant people assuming they give more.

Click to expand...

Did I say anyone was mislead? I said IF...

BrickPat said:

As I mentioned in the other thread NFL viewing audience is likely 90- 95% male...we're talking millions and millions of men. The NFL should focus real "awareness' about prostate cancer.

The pink campaign had noble and highly worthwhile goal but now it seems more of a yearly NFL gimmick.

Click to expand...

It's done as a demonstration of fealty to the radical feminist agenda.

I'm thinking that if one's goal was to reduce suffering it would make sense to look at what causes the most suffering and then look at what you have the best chance of affecting and go fron there, breast cancer almost exclusively harms women, which is why it's the push to combat breast cancer has become a minor religion.

robbomango said:

Did I say anyone was mislead? I said IF...

Click to expand...

Doesn't asking the question imply you don't know the answer?
My response basically, is the answer is obvious so the question is moot.

AndyJohnson said:

The league is a non-profit because it does not exist for the sake of making a profit. It passes 100% of its revenue after expense to the teams, who bear the tax burden.

To give an example. If you and I started a 'company' to invest our money, and it covered ts expenses and passed all of the remaining profits to us, we would be taxed on it, and the company could legitimately be a non-profit (providing it meets the tax law definition of purpose,but thats not relevant to the analogy) but the profits would be taxable, as you and I would be taxed.
The tax exempt status of the NFL is simply because it keeps no profits, it passes them to the teams who are taxed on them.

There really isn't anything to investigate, you just need to understand the dynamics.

Click to expand...

The league is non-profit because in the early sixties a clever lobbyist, working on behalf of the NFL, got Congress to approve the insertion of the phrase "and football leagues" into legislation that reaffirmed the non-profit status of organizations like the Chamber of Commerce. The NFL may take no direct profits, but its "operating expenses" such as Goodell's huge salary (29.5 million in 2011) are taken out before any revenues are passed on to the teams, which, by the way, keep their balance sheets and taxes paid, if any, concealed from the public.

I wonder if the NFL is considering a sponsoring a "brain injury awareness month?"

NormZauchin said:

The league is non-profit because in the early sixties a clever lobbyist, working on behalf of the NFL, got Congress to approve the insertion of the phrase "and football leagues" into legislation that reaffirmed the non-profit status of organizations like the Chamber of Commerce. The NFL may take no direct profits, but its "operating expenses" such as Goodell's huge salary (29.5 million in 2011) are taken out before any revenues are passed on to the teams, which, by the way, keep their balance sheets and taxes paid, if any, concealed from the public.

Click to expand...

Every nonprofit has expenses and payroll.
The point here is that to say the proceeds from sales are tax exempt is disingenuous.
Goddells salary would not be taxable to the league or the teams whether they were for profit or not, as well as all of their other expenses, as PROFITS are taxable, not revenue.
If the NFL became a for profit organization tomorrow it would still pay zero tax, as it has zero profit. The profit lies with the teams.

NormZauchin said:

I wonder if the NFL is considering a sponsoring a "brain injury awareness month?"

Click to expand...

Probably a really good idea.
They already are sponsoring a program that teaches youth football players proper technique to use to limit head injuries.

AndyJohnson said:

How has anyone been misled to believe that?
You cannot blame the entity donating money to charity for the ignorant people assuming they give more.

Click to expand...

People aren't ignorant, stupid or unwashed.

No way in Hell would I donate money to a 5% organization which has an ulterior motive. 95% goes where and why?

Yes, people have been misled, who would assume such a level of actual donation. Who has the time to look into such matters? We need a watchdog for this, that requires examination and then disclosure by that watchdog. So 'say it ain't so' ...... and I'll shut up. Until then I'll have nothing to do with the charity except be annoyed.

Aßßynormal said:

The percentage donated versus what could be donated in search of whether the operation is more gimmick than actual charity.

Charity should not equate to profiting in an non-monetary way either. Ulterior motives, like acquiring female viewers/payers, should be disclosed. These are my opinions and don't relate to the way the world works though. Cynical motives demean the concept of "saving another persons soul/life". I understand the world doesn't work that way but I don't have to like it or tolerate it's use for a month when I consider it essentially a scam. I'm just pissed off and I want to know what is happening. Am I being manipulated? Answering that is what I'm looking for.

EDIT - This would be a start:

Click to expand...

They're selling NFL merchandise and donating some part of the proceeds to benefit breast cancer. I have no freaking clue where you are generating outrage from. Apparently you want the public to decide what level of charity is suitable for private organizations to donate?

Since the NFL is using the pink color and ribbon (which is a trademark of the American Cancer Society) they have an agreed upon donation rate for their use of the logo.

If the American Cancer Society is fine with it, why aren't you?

Aßßynormal said:

People aren't ignorant, stupid or unwashed.

No way in Hell would I donate money to a 5% organization which has an ulterior motive. 95% goes where and why?

Click to expand...

WTF? The NFL isn't asking for a donation, you are BUYING A PRODUCT of which they are donating part of the proceeds.

JJDChE said:

They're selling NFL merchandise and donating some part of the proceeds to benefit breast cancer. I have no freaking clue where you are generating outrage from. Apparently you want the public to decide what level of charity is suitable for private organizations to donate?

Since the NFL is using the pink color and ribbon (which is a trademark of the American Cancer Society) they have an agreed upon donation rate for their use of the logo.

If the American Cancer Society is fine with it, why aren't you?

Click to expand...

The second part of this is a good question for which I have only a limited response. OTOH, why would the ACS refuse money and exposure even if the donator has an ulterior motive. 5% though, I do believe that should be disclosed, well, at least I want to know.

Edit: On second, additional, thought, my concern is the NFL not the ACS in the first place.

Aßßynormal said:

People aren't ignorant, stupid or unwashed.

Click to expand...

If the NFL gives 5% of proceeds to charity, and people don't research that and instead assume it is something different, they certainly are ignorant.

No way in Hell would I donate money to a 5% organization which has an ulterior motive. 95% goes where and why?

Click to expand...

You aren't donating money, you are purchasing merchandise.
This is not the NFL saying donate money to cancer and keeping some of it. This is the NFL saying we will sell special merchandise and donate 5% of the proceeds to charity.

Yes, people have been misled, who would assume such a level of actual donation.

Click to expand...

Misled by who or what?
Anyone who asked would know that the league donates 5% of the proceeds.
It appears you thought the league and ACS decided to start a joint venture to generate donations and split them. Your lack of knowing the dynamics of the issue does not make it misleading.

Who has the time to look into such matters? We need a watchdog for this, that requires examination and then disclosure by that watchdog. So 'say it ain't so' ...... and I'll shut up. Until then I'll have nothing to do with the charity except be annoyed.

Click to expand...

What charity are you talking about?
You have time to look into the matter, because you posted here, and could have simply read the article.
The program is not the NFL establishing a charity for cancer funding.
The 'program' is the NFL advertises and does things such as using pink flags to bring attention to the issue. It also sells merchandise in pink colors.
As part of the program, it CHOOSES to take 5% of the money they make selling those items and donate it to the American Cancer Society to help with breast cancer research.

You really should read the information. I think your frustration is based upon not understanding what this is.

Aßßynormal said:

The second part of this is a good question for which I have only a limited response. OTOH, why would the ACS refuse money and exposure even if the donator has an ulterior motive. 5% though, I do believe that should be disclosed, well, at least I want to know.

Click to expand...

It has been disclosed, its right in the linked article.

AndyJohnson said:

It has been disclosed, its right in the linked article.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. The article isn't definitive and has caused this discussion. In any case, we disagree. On a final note, from me, purchasing the towel IMO, is the same as donating. Unless I plan to use the towel to wash my car, it's otherwise useless.

Edit: To be clearer, this is the conclusion of the article:

That 3.54 percentage ratio is a tough number to ignore, no matter how you approach the issue. While Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a noble idea in concept, the jury is out on how much actual good is being done, and whether the NFL is benefiting a lot more than cancer victims. I suppose any amount of money the NFL raises for this cause is a good thing. But I was hoping that in this case the NFL would break the mold, and, you know, be a giant corporation that actually possesses a soul.

Aßßynormal said:

I don't agree. The article isn't definitive and has caused this discussion. In any case, we disagree. On a final note, from me, purchasing the towel IMO, is the same as donating. Unless I plan to use the towel to wash my car, it's otherwise useless.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the article clearly states that the NFL donates 5% of the proceeds to charity. This was disclosed to them.
The fact that you don't know the parameters does not mean they weren't disclosed.

As far as your last sentence, I don't know how to help you there. You purchased merchandise. You did not make a donation you made a purchase.
Every single case where an organization sells a product associated with a charitable cause, they donate a portion of the proceeds to charity.
It seems the issue is that you misunderstand how these things work.
When you buy a candy bar from a Little Leaguer for $1.00 do you really think the league keeps the whole dollar?

Aßßynormal said:

I don't agree. The article isn't definitive and has caused this discussion. In any case, we disagree. On a final note, from me, purchasing the towel IMO, is the same as donating. Unless I plan to use the towel to wash my car, it's otherwise useless.

Click to expand...

By the way, from the article:

When we contacted the NFL’s online shop for clarification, we were told 5% of the sales are being donated to the American Cancer Society

Click to expand...

That is the definition of disclosure.
The article is horrendous and a real chop job, but this part is a fact, disclosed by the NFL.
Note that you could call the NFL online shop and ask them what portion of the proceeds of your purchase go to the ACS and they would tell you 5%.
If you really were buying a towel and thought it was a donation and the towel was being manufactured for free, you should have asked.

AndyJohnson said:

I'm sorry, but the article clearly states that the NFL donates 5% of the proceeds to charity. This was disclosed to them.
The fact that you don't know the parameters does not mean they weren't disclosed.

As far as your last sentence, I don't know how to help you there. You purchased merchandise. You did not make a donation you made a purchase.
Every single case where an organization sells a product associated with a charitable cause, they donate a portion of the proceeds to charity.
It seems the issue is that you misunderstand how these things work.
When you buy a candy bar from a Little Leaguer for $1.00 do you really think the league keeps the whole dollar?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I edited post #34.

Aßßynormal said:

I don't agree. The article isn't definitive and has caused this discussion. In any case, we disagree. On a final note, from me, purchasing the towel IMO, is the same as donating. Unless I plan to use the towel to wash my car, it's otherwise useless.

Edit: To be clearer, this is the conclusion of the article:

That 3.54 percentage ratio is a tough number to ignore, no matter how you approach the issue. While Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a noble idea in concept, the jury is out on how much actual good is being done, and whether the NFL is benefiting a lot more than cancer victims. I suppose any amount of money the NFL raises for this cause is a good thing. But I was hoping that in this case the NFL would break the mold, and, you know, be a giant corporation that actually possesses a soul.

Click to expand...

Saw your edit and the conclusion sucks.
The NFL is donating 5%, and the ACS uses 70.8% of all money donated to it on research.

Aßßynormal said:

Sorry, I edited post #34.

Click to expand...

Your edit isn't pertinent to that response though, and I added one to address it.

Aßßynormal said:

I don't agree. The article isn't definitive and has caused this discussion. In any case, we disagree. On a final note, from me, purchasing the towel IMO, is the same as donating. Unless I plan to use the towel to wash my car, it's otherwise useless.

Edit: To be clearer, this is the conclusion of the article:

That 3.54 percentage ratio is a tough number to ignore, no matter how you approach the issue. While Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a noble idea in concept, the jury is out on how much actual good is being done, and whether the NFL is benefiting a lot more than cancer victims. I suppose any amount of money the NFL raises for this cause is a good thing. But I was hoping that in this case the NFL would break the mold, and, you know, be a giant corporation that actually possesses a soul.

Click to expand...

People use selling products to raise money for charities all the time. Look at all the Boston Strong shirts being sold. I wouldn't have purchased one if I didn't know how much was going to the charity (100%). I would've assumed that more than 5% of my money would go to ACS by purchasing any of the NFL's pink items but I'm not interested in buying that stuff and would rather donate straight to a cancer research charity.