Garhett Jurgens
Jurgens 1
Nancy Henke
CO150 Sec 44
13 Apr. 2011
Environment or Economy: The National Football League’s Environmental Program
America in this day and age is a country that is ran almost completely by
corporations. The latest trend (or fad if you will) for corporations was the push for taking
up greener and environmentally friendly methods of carrying out their normal corporate
functions. From buying renewable energy, to recycling used paper and materials
businesses around the nation were jumping on the green band wagon. The route that
many corporations have been taking is spending money to create an environmental
program inside their corporation; whose job is specifically greening the company. Why
would companies want to spend extra money on worrying about the environment?
Actually, there are quite a few answers to that question. First of all, it looks great for the
company’s image. Another reason is because their competition is probably taking green
action. Lastly, green image attracts customers. The National Football League is one of
these corporations. People sometimes forget that underneath all of the drama and hype,
professional sports organizations are simply businesses out to make money. The NFL
recently joined the green movement by creating an environmental program of its own. On
the contrary, despite all of the talk and concern for the environment, corporations and
organizations around the nation are starting to make cuts in environmental spending’s. As
you know, the economy is not doing so well and many businesses don’t think they need
Jurgens 2
to be “wasting” money on matters such as the environment. The NFL (being a business)
is also not only hurting from the economy but is on the verge of a potential lockout which
could lose the organization millions if not billions of dollars. It’s a safe assumption to
make in saying the NFL’s environmental program could be in jeopardy of taking cuts if
not getting cut all together. On that note, the NFL should not cut its environmental
program because it is a national business superpower and role-model to smaller
organizations, cutting its environmental program could greatly damage the league’s
image, and it has the money to sustain the program despite a lock out. It is morally wrong
not to take responsibility when your organization produces a carbon footprint as large as
the National Football League’s.
The NFL is one of the most successful businesses in not only the United States,
but the world. Forbes Magazine quotes “The NFL is the richest sports league in the
world, with the average team worth some $957 million” (Badenhausen). In case that
number doesn’t open your eyes there are in fact 32 teams in the NFL so multiply $957
million by 32 to get the total value of NFL teams. Yes, going green can be expensive for
some businesses, but according to Forbes Magazine, the NFL brings in a total revenue of
$9 billion a year, nearly doubling the main competition’s (Major League Baseball) $5
billion a year (Badenhausen). This income of staggering quantity makes it somewhat
convincing that the NFL not only can support an environmental program, but do so
somewhat comfortably (remember that $9 billion is straight revenue). The NFL’s
success over other businesses and other professional sports organizations puts it in a
Jurgens 3
position where the decisions it makes can arguably effect the decisions of these other
sports leagues and businesses as well. For example, the NFL made efforts to use greener
practices in the hosting of the Super Bowl likewise, the MLB began making efforts to
green the World Series. With success comes responsibility. According to the
Commissioner of Major League Baseball Bud Selig, professional sports are social
institutions which come with “social responsibilities”. Selig explains how caring for the
environment is linked to aspects of the games which the athletes play (Platt). In other
words it is the responsibility of these professional sports businesses to take care of the
environment in which they host their events. Kathryn Siranosian, a corporate content
specialist who works for Forbes, quotes “the Super Bowl, and all human activities related
to the Super Bowl, including hotel stays, public and private transit, broadcast
transmissions, etc., are estimated to have a 15,000 megawatt carbon
footprint”(Siranosian). The NFL needs to be responsible for this massive carbon emission
and set the example for organizations and businesses world-wide. With the role-model
position that the NFL is in, the corporate “superpower” has the “power” to lead by
example and embrace the green movement, potentially influencing corporations all over
the country to make the decision to keep their environmental programs. Having
environmental programs does cost money and can be expensive. However, the NFL
makes plenty of money to support and keep its environmental program. Being a role
model to other businesses, if the NFL chose to cut its environmental program, countless
of other businesses may make the same decision thinking it is okay because the “big
brother” National Football League is doing it. The repercussions of this could be severe.
Jurgens 4
In100 B.C. a Spanish writer by the name of Publilius Syrus said “A good
reputation is more valuable than money.” (Griskevicius 392). If the NFL made a decision
to cut its environmental program just to save some money in the short term, it could
potentially reflect poorly on its image viewed by the public. The NFL may save some of
its money at first, due to not spending on expensive green alternatives. However, this
decision could potentially upset fans that care about the climate. In turn, the NFL could
lose customers and in the long run, lose more money than gained. According to a survey
report done by New York Times in 2007, the number one reason that vehicle buyers
bought the hybrid Toyota Prius, was not because of environmental concerns, but rather
the idea that owning a Prius makes a positive statement about the owner (Griskevicius
392). This adds to the argument that image sells. Yes, hybrids do in fact run on less
expensive gasoline which could be a valid motive for purchasing the vehicle, but does
buying gas 50 cents cheaper to the gallon off-set the thousands of extra dollars spent in
purchasing the vehicle itself? By going green the purchaser hasn’t bought just a hybrid
car, but rather a social status reputation credit. Is it not safe to assume that this principle
could possibly apply to the NFL? Fans may choose to support a team because that
particular team takes eco-friendly precautions in its practices. Or on the other end of the
argument, if the NFL chose to cut its environmental program, fans may choose to
support a different sport all together, one which does support the environment. For
example taking up soccer; according to ecoseed.org, the 2010 FIFA World Cup (an event
much larger than the NFL’s Super Bowl and a main competitor to the NFL) was ran on
solar power derived energy. The NFL’s image could potentially be hurt if it canceled its
Jurgens 5
environmental program, while one of its main competitors in the sports business
supported environment awareness and practice. The NFL losing reputation and image
could in turn a cause a loss in revenue.
An arguable complication of the NFL sustaining its environmental program is the
fact that the NFL is currently in a lockout between the owners and the players. Basically
the NFL makes billions of dollars each year in revenue ($9 billion to be accurate). Right
now the players refuse to play in the 2011 season because the revenue apparently wasn’t
divided up fairly between owners and players. The Huffington Post Newspaper says “The
league estimates its cumulative gross revenue losses could reach $1.7 billion by 2015 if
there is no agreement with the players' union before the next regular season is scheduled
to start”. It is clear that the NFL is going to lose some money from this lockout, but is
this a valid argument to cut an environmental program which is giving the NFL
something more valuable than money? Tom Korun of ABC News thinks not. Korun
explains how the initial loss in revenue is going to be pocket change compared to the
revenue that the NFL makes. He explains how the TV stations like ABC, NBC, ESPN,
etc. still have to pay the NFL due to contractual obligations even if the NFL doesn’t have
a season. According to Korun, this money alone could almost make up for the loss in
revenue (Korun). If that isn’t enough to convince one that the NFL can still afford to
uphold its environmental program, perhaps the fact that USA Today shows that the NFL
pays players like Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Richard Seymour over $20, million
dollars a year. The average NFL salary is a little over a million per year (USA Today). If
Jurgens 6
the NFL were to maybe pay over-paid players like Richard Seymour say $23 million a
year instead of $24 million a year, the business could potentially save almost a billion
dollars without any one having to lift a finger! The lockout is going to do some damage,
but in the overall scheme of things, that damage is little more than a mosquito bite to the
NFL.
There are some people out there who believe that spending money on greener
practices is not a sound economic choice. These are the same kinds of people who cancel
their corporate environmental programs or choose to never have one in the first place. In
some situations they may be correct. There are definitely possible scenarios in which
spending money in order to green functions of a corporation is just not practical.
However, the National Football League’s environmental program is not within the
domain of these scenarios. The ethics of the decision to end the NFL’s environmental
program could harm the business. The NFL’s success as a business automatically puts the
sports league in a position of leadership, serving as a role model for other businesses.
There are subliminal consequences of a corporation like the NFL picking the economy
over the environment. The NFL makes more than enough revenue (regardless of a player
lockout) to support an environmental program with flying colors. If the NFL wishes to
maintain the good reputation it has built over the years and continue, if not increase its
success, it will continue to support its environmental program.
Jurgens 7
1). Badenhausen, Kurt. “The Business of Football.” Forbes.com. Forbes.com, 13 Sep.
2007 Web. 19 Apr.2011
2). Fendrich, Howard. “NFL: Players to Lose Millions If No Deal by March.”
Huffingtonpost.com. The HuffingtonPost.com Inc., 27 Jan. 2011 Web. 19 Apr. 2011.
3). “FIFA goes green with solar-powered sponsor.” Ecoseed.com. Ecoseed, 4 Feb. 2010
Web. 19 Apr. 2011.
4). Griskevicius, Vladas, Tyber, Joshua. “Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and
conspicuous conservation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 9(3), 392404. Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2011.
5). Korun, Tom. “NFL to lose millions, maybe a billion if there's a lockout. Oh, really?.”
Abcactionnews.com. ABC, 27 Jan. 2011 Web. 19 Apr. 2011
6). Platt, Ben. “Baseball makes pitch to go green.” MLB.com. MLB Advanced Media, 11
Mar. 2008 Web. 19 Apr. 2011.
7). Siranosian, Kathryn. “Super Bowl XLV Will Be Greenest NFL Championship on
Record.” Triplepundit.com. Triple Pundit, 31 Jan. 2011 Web. 19 Apr. 2011.
8). Weisman, Larry. “Who makes the most in NFL? Signing bonuses tell the story.”
USAToday.com. USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc., 2 Jul. 2011 Web. 19 Apr.
2011.