The NFL wants a retraction from New York Times
The NFL is in a weird spot nowadays. The league is as popular as it's ever been, while also being something that everyone fears. Financially, the sport is on a whole different level than every other league. In 2015 Anheuser-Busch and the NFL agreed to extend Bud Light's sponsorship for six additional years for $1.4 billion. That works out to roughly $7 million per team. That doesn't even include all of the money they pay for commercials about Bud Light or those Clydesdale horse commercials that Budweiser has. All that $1.4 billion does is allow them to proclaim someone the "Bud Light Player of the Game" and slap a logo on random gadgets saying that they're the official beer sponsor of the NFL. Yeah, they're financially mega rich.
Then, on the other side of happiness is the fact that the NFL keeps getting in trouble, especially when it comes to public perception. Ray Rice, Tom Brady and CTE are all things that have swarmed around the league over the last few years. Now, the New York Times is the latest hornets' nest circling the league.
Earlier this month the Times published a story that wasn't very flattering to the NFL. They claimed that from 1996-2001 there was 887 examples of diagnosed concussions. However, over 100 instances weren't recorded, skewing the numbers in their favor. The link is here if you'd like to read it. It's not something that paints the NFL in a positive light.
So, with the league fully aware of this they decide to send a letter asking the Times to retract the story and even hinting at a possible lawsuit for defamation and slander. The full letter is here if you want to read it. Down below is a sample of what was inside.
On behalf of the National Football League ("NFL" or "League"), and following up on our letter to you dated March 20, 2016, we write concerning the Times''s March 24 lead digital story, "N.F.L.'s Flawed Concussion Research and Ties to the Tobacco Industry" (published as the lead story on page Al of the Times'?, March 25 print edition). The extensive evidence we provided to your reporters pre-publication conclusively demonstrated the falsity of both the thesis and every material aspect of this story.
Its sensational headline notwithstanding, the story did not show any meaningful "ties to the tobacco industry." Nor did it present a shred of evidence to support its thesis that the NFL intentionally concealed concussion research data. By publishing the story, fully aware of the falsity of the underlying facts, the Times recklessly disregarded the truth and defamed the NFL, even under the public-figure Sullivan test.
Accordingly, we demand that the story immediately be retracted, and we reserve our rights more broadly. We also request that the Times's reporters and editors who worked on this story preserve their notes, correspondence, emails, recordings and work papers and all other electronic and hard copy documents generated or received in connection with their work.
So, the NFL doesn't want to be compared to big tobacco companies. That makes sense, but, let's say that the NFL gets what it wants. Let's say that the New York Times caves and takes down the story. Even better, let's say that they fully apologizes and cowers in the corner. All scenarios are highly unlikely and even if they do, what does that do to help the NFL?
Maybe they look good for winning a battle but they also look like a bully for fighting a cause that they're already losing in the court of public opinion. Not only that but it assumes that the NFL would actually sue the Times. Have you seen the record of the NFL when it goes to court? It's not pretty.
Whatever the Times does don't expect this to be the last time that a newspaper or a blog site or a former player make accusatory statements that paint the league in a bad light.