PDA

View Full Version : Less than 10 percent of NFL pink merchandise sales go toward cancer research


CloakNNNdagger
10-16-2013, 02:29 PM
Pretty sick............

Posted October 16, 2013

Approximately 8 percent of sales from pink NFL merchandise go toward cancer research, according to a report this week from Business Insider.

The league uses the color on its jerseys and other apparel in an effort to raise money for breast cancer research, but according to the report, the breakdown of how the money from sales of the apparel gets distributed is as follows: 50 percent to the retailer; 37.5 percent to the manufacturer; 8.1 percent to the American Cancer Society for research; 3.24 percent to the administration at the Society; and 1.25 percent to the NFL.

According to ESPN’s Darren Rovell, the league “takes a 25% royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90% of royalty to American Cancer Society.” According to the Business Insider report, citing information from the NFL, any money the league makes that is not donated to the American Cancer Society goes directly toward covering the costs of the actual Breast Cancer Awareness program.

It should also be noted that the most common place for pink NFL merchandise to be sold is through the league’s online store, individual teams and at the stadiums. Therefore, the NFL or the individual teams act as the retailer in this case and therefore receive a portion of the 50 percent that goes toward the “retailer.”link (http://tracking.si.com/2013/10/16/pink-nfl-merchandise-breast-cancer-research/)

gwallaia
10-16-2013, 02:43 PM
I'm all for defeating breast cancer, but pink looks ugly on football uniforms.

Fred
10-16-2013, 02:51 PM
You can buy actual "game worn" items!!! And exactly why would I (or anyone) want a pair of semi-used pink size 15 football cleats?

Playoffs
10-16-2013, 02:54 PM
Appears the NFL is raising more awareness about breast cancer than money.

paycheck71
10-16-2013, 03:48 PM
I remember seeing a similar article last season. This is pretty ridiculous, but there doesn't seem to be enough outcry over the hypocrisy, so I doubt anything will change.

gwallaia
10-16-2013, 04:01 PM
I am reminded of a funny story from a few years back. I was involved in a charity event which among other things, had a "Tuff Enough to Wear Pink" night with proceeds benefiting Breast Cancer research.

The spokesman for our event had a live TV spot to promote it. At one point during the promo he was supposed to say "Breast Cancer Awareness" but he flubbed his lines and said "Breast Awareness". This was all on live local TV. We kid him about it to this day.

Double Barrel
10-16-2013, 04:07 PM
I think it is a great cause, without a doubt.

They are risking over-saturation of the message, though. Pink is now becoming normal every year, to the point that the message is being lost in the marketing.

The NFL should start a breast exam program that offers free screenings if they really want to provide a valuable service to women. Maybe they do and I just haven't heard of it. Help people directly by impacting their daily lives sort of thing instead of getting gimmicky and preaching a message. Action over words.

Vinny
10-16-2013, 04:14 PM
That's a ton of money folks. After you pay the vendor and all the expenses you give a huge chunk of money to a good charity. I think people like to beat up on the big bad NFL but what's so bad about giving a huge chunk of money and free publicity that would cost MILLIONS to a good cause?

Double Barrel
10-16-2013, 04:20 PM
That's a ton of money folks. After you pay the vendor and all the expenses you give a huge chunk of money to a good charity. I think people like to beat up on the big bad NFL but what's so bad about giving a huge chunk of money and free publicity that would cost MILLIONS to a good cause?

I agree, but on the flip side, the NFL is still turning a profit on cancer.

I'd be more impressed if they gave ALL proceeds to the charity and absorbed the administrative costs.

JMO, though. Not trying to dismiss a good cause.

I just have my reservations about NFL, Inc., as a business entity and their motivations. But I'm cynical like that. Big corporations always have ulterior motives.

Vance87
10-16-2013, 04:52 PM
If the NFL actually gave half a crap about cancer awareness, they would do different types of cancer awareness every month, including ones that affect men, you know, the gender that actually plays the game.

Instead they put all of their effort into breast cancer awareness which is highly profitable and by far the most popular of all the different types of cancer awareness. Is anyone surprised?

Dutchrudder
10-16-2013, 05:07 PM
If the NFL actually gave half a crap about cancer awareness, they would do different types of cancer awareness every month, including ones that affect men, you know, the gender that actually plays the game.

Instead they put all of their effort into breast cancer awareness which is highly profitable and by far the most popular of all the different types of cancer awareness. Is anyone surprised?

I think they did it primarily to attract more women to the sport.

2012Champs
10-16-2013, 05:08 PM
I agree, but on the flip side, the NFL is still turning a profit on cancer.

I'd be more impressed if they gave ALL proceeds to the charity and absorbed the administrative costs.

JMO, though. Not trying to dismiss a good cause.

I just have my reservations about NFL, Inc., as a business entity and their motivations. But I'm cynical like that. Big corporations always have ulterior motives.

I'd like to see better numbers that would show actual profit vs how sales are split. It cost everyone in the chain who is getting money something to get sai money. Not saying the ideal that more should go to charity is wrong


On another somewhat related side note my wife got disgusted when she heard how much some of her former coworkers were making working for Susan g komen raising money for the foundation

infantrycak
10-16-2013, 05:09 PM
I'm failing to see a wrongdoer here.

paycheck71
10-16-2013, 05:34 PM
I'm failing to see a wrongdoer here.

I think it's wrong for anyone affiliated with the NFL to turn a profit on this supposedly charitable cause. That's what I think is wrong with it.

texanhead08
10-16-2013, 06:16 PM
They should donate all the money from the pink merchandise to cancer research. The league makes 2 billion in profits annually they can afford it.

chicagotexan2
10-16-2013, 10:49 PM
Who's running this program? Live strong?

eriadoc
10-16-2013, 11:08 PM
The most sensible way to solve this would be to set up a program with approved NFL manufacturers and retailers where the NFL waives its licensing fee for the pink gear and the manufacturing and retailing fees are cut back as well. 87.5% of the money from this is going to the retailers and manufacturers. That's where it can be streamlined. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, which is very likely.

Vance87
10-17-2013, 01:29 AM
I think they did it primarily to attract more women to the sport.

Why, so more women would tune in which would add to their TV ratings and boost income? So more women would buy tickets to games, increasing profit margins for NFL teams around the country? Ah, well at least they didn't do it for the money...:kitten:

2012Champs
10-17-2013, 07:29 AM
1. I think this program's primary goal is to raise awareness not money

2. What would y'all think a appropriate % of sales? It cost money to gets these products to market and that bears risk to the business involved

Rey
10-17-2013, 07:44 AM
The costs to manufacture and distribute aside, they also spend money advertising...that's part of getting the message out.

I just don't see people in the nfl actually getting rich off of this. And the merchandise is pretty good quality. So it's not like they are selling flimsy tshirts.

I'm all for being suspicious. Suspicion is good. But without having a true numbers breakdown I can't condemn the nfl for raising awareness and money for cancer research.

kingtexan
10-17-2013, 10:08 AM
I'm all for defeating breast cancer, but pink looks ugly on football uniforms.

However, it looked pretty damn good on the cheerleaders ...

kingtexan
10-17-2013, 10:16 AM
The costs to manufacture and distribute aside, they also spend money advertising...that's part of getting the message out.

I just don't see people in the nfl actually getting rich off of this. And the merchandise is pretty good quality. So it's not like they are selling flimsy tshirts.

I'm all for being suspicious. Suspicion is good. But without having a true numbers breakdown I can't condemn the nfl for raising awareness and money for cancer research.

I think the NFL could cover all costs, then give whatever profit is left to the cause they are representing. The NFL doesn't "need" to make money off of cancer, but greed drives them to "want" to. It would say more about the organization if they didn't take any profits, but just enough of the proceeds to cover all of their costs.

Dutchrudder
10-17-2013, 10:31 AM
Why, so more women would tune in which would add to their TV ratings and boost income? So more women would buy tickets to games, increasing profit margins for NFL teams around the country? Ah, well at least they didn't do it for the money...:kitten:

Ask any woman who's an NFL fan of any degree, they will tell you something like "I think it's cool that the NFL does that for breast cancer." It's all about image. Here's the chart and article from Business Insider that breaks it down: http://www.businessinsider.com/small-amount-of-money-from-pink-nfl-merchandise-goes-to-breast-cancer-research-2013-10

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/525d9724eab8ea1c1a890ba9-450-408/untitled-1-3.png

11.25% from the NFL sales, and then 8.01% (there's 30% overhead) ends up going to actual research. Also, the NFL is a non-profit organization (not the teams). So you can probably figure that the costs of doing this pink campaign are written off for much more money than what they are sending to charity. Chances are the NFL doesn't truly spend a penny on this, and could easily be donating much more money to the program, if that really meant anything to them.

And just an FYI, here's the ACS on Charity Navigator. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.UmABqfke2VE
Their CEO makes $628,374 a year, which is 0.06% of total revenue.

I think people would be better off just donating directly to the ACS if they don't need a pink shirt. https://www.networkforgood.org/donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=131788491

2012Champs
10-17-2013, 11:07 AM
Ask any woman who's an NFL fan of any degree, they will tell you something like "I think it's cool that the NFL does that for breast cancer." It's all about image. Here's the chart and article from Business Insider that breaks it down: http://www.businessinsider.com/small-amount-of-money-from-pink-nfl-merchandise-goes-to-breast-cancer-research-2013-10

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/525d9724eab8ea1c1a890ba9-450-408/untitled-1-3.png

11.25% from the NFL sales, and then 8.01% (there's 30% overhead) ends up going to actual research. Also, the NFL is a non-profit organization (not the teams). So you can probably figure that the costs of doing this pink campaign are written off for much more money than what they are sending to charity. Chances are the NFL doesn't truly spend a penny on this, and could easily be donating much more money to the program, if that really meant anything to them.

And just an FYI, here's the ACS on Charity Navigator. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6495#.UmABqfke2VE
Their CEO makes $628,374 a year, which is 0.06% of total revenue.

I think people would be better off just donating directly to the ACS if they don't need a pink shirt. https://www.networkforgood.org/donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=131788491




628k is heavy change for a nonprofit ceo on par with sgk though , Komen ranks much higher overall on the charity nav ranking

Double Barrel
10-17-2013, 11:39 AM
Here's some simple numbers on it to help understand it for simple people like me:

[A]ccording to data obtained from the NFL by Darren Rovell of ESPN, the NFL “takes a 25% royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90% of royalty to American Cancer Society.”

So for every $100 in pink merchandise sold, “25% royalty from the wholesale price,” or $12.50, goes to the NFL. Ninety percent of that ($11.25) goes to the American Cancer Society, and the NFL keeps the remaining.

“Then consider that only 71.2% of money the ACS receives goes towards research and cancer programs,” Business Insider reported. “In the end, after everybody has taken their cut, only 8.01% of money spent on pink NFL merchandise is actually going towards cancer research.”

Source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/only-81-nfl-pink-merchandise-sales-go-toward-cance/)

It is obviously a good cause and I'm not trying to undermine the ultimate goal.

And while I'm not advocating any "wrongdoing", I think it's purely a PR thing if you are completely honest about it. The NFL is taking a beating right now on the concussion issue, especially after the Frontline story that showed the league acting like big tobacco. So I'm not saying the NFL is wrong to try to boost their image, but I find nothing particularly noble about it.

CloakNNNdagger
10-17-2013, 12:18 PM
Here's some simple numbers on it to help understand it for simple people like me:



It is obviously a good cause and I'm not trying to undermine the ultimate goal.

And while I'm not advocating any "wrongdoing", I think it's purely a PR thing if you are completely honest about it. The NFL is taking a beating right now on the concussion issue, especially after the Frontline story that showed the league acting like big tobacco. So I'm not saying the NFL is wrong to try to boost their image, but I find nothing particularly noble about it.

And one would think that the NFL could "lean" on the manufacturers and retailers to participate in the "charity" aspect of this whole thing.

2012Champs
10-17-2013, 01:07 PM
So the NFL doesnt really get any money out of this, gives money to charity and promotes the hell out of the cause and the response is they should do more? hows that for looking the gift horse in the mouth? Im sure the ACS is just fine with the setup and would beg the NFL to continue to carry the program as is

paycheck71
10-17-2013, 01:17 PM
So the NFL doesnt really get any money out of this, gives money to charity and promotes the hell out of the cause and the response is they should do more? hows that for looking the gift horse in the mouth? Im sure the ACS is just fine with the setup and would beg the NFL to continue to carry the program as is

How so? The retailers get 50%!!! of all the merchandise sales! How many of these retailers are NFL teams themselves?

2012Champs
10-17-2013, 02:33 PM
How so? The retailers get 50%!!! of all the merchandise sales! How many of these retailers are NFL teams themselves?



The NFL teams arent the same thing as the NFL so if you want to shift your hate go for it.


Now the NFL teams get the merch for X and then have to turn around and sell it I am sure at a profit but it is certainly not the gross figures that are being thrown around.

paycheck71
10-17-2013, 03:08 PM
The NFL teams arent the same thing as the NFL so if you want to shift your hate go for it.


Now the NFL teams get the merch for X and then have to turn around and sell it I am sure at a profit but it is certainly not the gross figures that are being thrown around.

The NFL itself is a non-profit organization, so obviously they make no profit off anything. Clearly I was talking about the NFL as the collection of the teams sharing in all the profits.

As to the other points, I'm not sure if I'm clear on whether the article talks about the net proceeds from the merch sales, or the gross revenue. I concede that it would make a difference on how I see this.

2012Champs
10-17-2013, 03:22 PM
The NFL itself is a non-profit organization, so obviously they make no profit off anything. Clearly I was talking about the NFL as the collection of the teams sharing in all the profits.

As to the other points, I'm not sure if I'm clear on whether the article talks about the net proceeds from the merch sales, or the gross revenue. I concede that it would make a difference on how I see this.


Its gross figures not profit and they cut it down even further by the fact that the ACS doesnt not spend 100% of donations on the cause as they have expenses too. The ACS is getting 11.25% of sales of that they put 8% of that to research and 3.25% towards their own expenses