Ethics CasesSport

Cases · National Football League · 1933–2025

From Redskins to Commanders: Washington's Team Name

From 1933 to 2020, Washington's NFL team used a name that many Native Americans and dictionaries regard as a slur. Native American advocates challenged it for decades, including through trademark cases, and many tribes and organizations opposed it. Owner Daniel Snyder vowed in 2013 that the team would "never" change the name, and the team cited polls in which most Native American respondents said they were not bothered. In July 2020, amid national protests over racial injustice, investors pressed sponsors, and FedEx, which held the stadium naming rights, asked the team to change its name. The team retired the name, played as the Washington Football Team and became the Commanders in 2022. In 2025, President Donald Trump urged a return to the old name, which the team's owners declined. The case raises questions about identity, offense, commercial pressure and who gets to decide.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The team adopts the name it would use until 2020.
  2. Native American leaders led by Suzan Shown Harjo file a trademark challenge.
  3. Owner Daniel Snyder says the team will "never" change the name.
  4. A Washington Post poll finds 90% of self-identified Native Americans are not bothered by the name.
  5. The Supreme Court's Matal v. Tam decision strikes down the trademark law's disparagement clause.
  6. FedEx asks the team to change its name; Nike removes team merchandise from its website.
  7. The team announces it will retire its name and logo.
  8. The team becomes the Washington Commanders.
  9. President Trump calls for the old name to return; Native American groups object.

The ethical issues

  • Offense and identity: who decides whether a name is a slur.
  • Polling: how to measure the views of a small, diverse population.
  • Commercial pressure: the role of sponsors and investors.
  • Tradition: fans' attachment to team identity.
  • Political pressure: government involvement in team names.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Native American communitiesDignity and representation.
Team ownersBrand, revenue and identity.
FansTradition and attachment.
Sponsors and investorsReputation and values.
NFLLeague image.
Political leadersPublic opinion and stadium decisions.

The case

Washington’s NFL team used its former name and logo from 1933 to 2020. From the 1960s, Native American groups and individuals criticized the name as a slur.[1]

Background

The name dates from 1933, when the team, which had shared both its name and its field with the Boston Braves baseball team, moved to Fenway Park. Co-owner George Preston Marshall then changed the name, according to Wikipedia’s account, more likely to avoid confusion while keeping the Native American imagery than to honor coach William Henry “Lone Star” Dietz, whose Native identity was debated.[1] Snyder later said the name was chosen to honor Native Americans in general, along with the coach and four Native players of that era.[1] A redesigned logo introduced in 1972 was proposed by Walter Wetzel, a former Blackfoot tribal chairman and past president of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), and was modeled on the Buffalo nickel.[1]

Organized protest predates the lawsuits. National protests began in 1988 after the team’s Super Bowl XXII victory, when many Native Americans wrote to owner Jack Kent Cooke, who rejected any change.[1] About 2,000 people protested at the 1992 Super Bowl.[1] Other institutions moved first. The University of Utah (1972), Miami University in Ohio (1997) and Southern Nazarene University (1998) dropped the name. Between 1988 and April 2013, 28 high schools in 18 states did the same.[1] Professional bodies, including the American Psychological Association in 2005, issued statements opposing Native mascots.[1]

The rules and governance

The trademark challenges relied on a provision of the federal Lanham Act that barred registering any mark that “may disparage persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”[1] The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) put weight on the NCAI’s opposition. It estimated that the organization represented about 30% of Native Americans when the marks were granted, enough to meet its “substantial composite” test.[1] In 2005, a federal district court reversed the first cancellation for insufficient evidence of disparagement. The second case, filed by younger plaintiffs not barred by delay (laches), again produced a finding that the name was disparaging.[1] The Supreme Court’s later ruling that the disparagement clause violated the First Amendment ended this route. The NCAI responded that the name remained a slur, and that First Amendment protection did not change the arguments against using it.[1]

Pressure also came through politics and the market. In 2013, ten members of Congress asked the owner and the commissioner to change the name.[1] In May 2014, fifty U.S. senators wrote to Commissioner Roger Goodell urging the league to “send the same clear message as the NBA did” in the Donald Sterling case.[1] The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights resolved that, although a business has a First Amendment right to choose its name, governments should end preferential treatment of the franchise while it kept the name.[1] Public opinion pulled the other way. National polls from 2013 to 2014 found majorities, between 60% and 79%, opposed to a change.[1] In 2018, Goodell said the name would stay, primarily citing the 2016 Washington Post poll.[1]

In 1992, Suzan Shown Harjo and six other Native American leaders challenged the team’s trademarks as disparaging. A federal trademark board cancelled the registrations in 1999, but a court reversed the decision. A later case led by Amanda Blackhorse again resulted in cancellation.[1] In 2017, in an unrelated case, Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law’s ban on disparaging trademarks as a violation of free speech, ending the legal route.[1] The case involved an Asian American rock band, The Slants, whose members had chosen the name to “reclaim” a slur. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the disparagement provision “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”[7] He acknowledged that “speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful.” But he said “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”[7] The Court rejected arguments from Native American organizations, filed as friends of the court, that the government could refuse to register offensive marks.[7] Its holding meant the trademark fight could no longer decide the name question.

Owner resistance and polls

In 2013, owner Daniel Snyder told USA Today: “We’ll never change the name… NEVER—you can use caps.”[1] The team and the league cited polls. A 2004 survey and a 2016 Washington Post poll each found that 90% of self-identified Native Americans said the name did not bother them.[1][3] Native American scholars criticized such polls, for example for relying on self-identification.[1] A 2019 University of California, Berkeley study of 1,021 Native Americans found 49% considered the name offensive.[1] Many tribes and Native organizations, including the Navajo Nation Council, formally opposed the name.[1]

2020

In the summer of 2020, amid national protests over racial injustice, investor groups worth $620 billion wrote to sponsors Nike, FedEx and PepsiCo urging them to press the team. On July 2, FedEx, which held the naming rights to the team’s stadium, called for a change, and Nike removed team apparel from its website. The team announced a “thorough review” the next day.[1] On July 13, it announced it would retire the name and logo, playing as the Washington Football Team.[6] On February 2, 2022, it became the Washington Commanders.[1][2]

Blackhorse called the change an empty gesture, saying the team had done little to repair decades of harm.[1]

Aftermath

A 2024 Washington Post poll found most local fans disliked the new name but did not favor returning to the old one.[5] In 2024, owner Josh Harris, who bought the team from Snyder, said it would not return to the old name for “obvious reasons.”[1] In 2025, President Donald Trump threatened to block a new stadium unless the team restored the old name, drawing criticism from Native American groups.[1][4]

In 2024, Republican Senator Steve Daines said he would block a bill to redevelop the RFK Stadium site unless the team honored the old logo and the Wetzel family.[1]

The stadium deal moved ahead locally. On September 17, 2025, the D.C. Council gave final approval to the RFK Stadium project. Managing partner Josh Harris thanked Mayor Muriel Bowser and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and said he looked forward to “officially bringing the team back to its spiritual home in 2030.” His statement did not mention the name dispute.[8]

The core dilemma

For decades, the team argued the name honored Native Americans and pointed to polls showing many were not bothered. Critics said the word was a slur and that dignity was not a matter for majority vote. The name changed only when sponsors applied pressure. Who should decide, and on what basis?

Competing values

  • Tradition vs. respect: fan attachment against harm to a community.
  • Majority opinion vs. minority dignity: polls against principled objection.
  • Commerce vs. conscience: sponsor pressure as a driver of moral change.
  • Free expression vs. offense: trademark rights against disparagement.

Strongest arguments

For the change: the word is defined as a slur and many Native organizations opposed it. Research suggests that such mascots harm Native youth. A team should not profit from a term that demeans a group.

For keeping the name (as argued at the time): many fans and some Native Americans saw the name as a tribute, polls suggested most were not offended, and changing it erased history.

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights lens asks whether a group has a claim not to be represented by a name many of its members and organizations call a slur. It weighs that claim against an owner’s free-speech right to choose a name, which the courts ultimately upheld.

Utilitarian

A utilitarian lens weighs the attachment of fans and the value of tradition against documented harm and offense to Native Americans. It also asks how to treat conflicting polls when measuring harm to a small, diverse population.

Virtue

Virtue ethics asks what a responsible franchise would do. Is changing a name only under sponsor pressure a sign of conviction or of convenience, and what does genuine repair look like after decades of resistance?

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are the team’s owner in July 2020. Your stadium’s naming-rights sponsor and major apparel partner are demanding a change. The stakeholders include Native American nations and organizations, fans, sponsors, the league, players and local governments. The codes in play are trademark law, league rules and sponsor contracts.
  2. Gather facts. What do Native organizations and tribal governments say? How reliable are the competing polls? What are the commercial and legal implications of keeping the name or changing it?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) keep the name; (b) retire the name and logo with a temporary name while consulting on a new one; (c) also commit to concrete repair, such as community investment and consultation. Weigh tradition and fan attachment against harm and pressure from partners.
  4. Check codes and law. Would your decision hold up if the people most affected scrutinized it? Is it consistent with how the league handled other cases of racism?
  5. Decide and document. Record the consultation, the reasons for the decision and the timeline.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate the decision with an honest account of why it is happening now, engage Native communities on next steps, and be prepared for continued political pressure.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the 2020 retirement and 2022 rebrand; the end of trademark litigation.
  • Contested: how representative the polls were; whether the change addressed underlying concerns.

Why this case matters

Washington’s name change was the most prominent in a wave of decisions about Native American names in sport. It shows how activism, commerce and politics interact in changing an institution.

Key terms

Brand as ethical promise
A brand is more than a logo: it is a promise to stakeholders about values and conduct, and it is broken when actions contradict it.
Authenticity vs. PR spin
The tension between communicating truthfully and managing perception. Spin may protect a brand short term while eroding trust.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Framing
How the choice of angle, language and emphasis shapes the way a story is understood.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Polls in 2004 and 2016 found most self-identified Native Americans were not bothered by the name, while a 2019 study found many were offended. How should such evidence be weighed?
  2. Should a team change its name because of sponsor pressure? What does that say about the role of money in moral change?
  3. Some activists said the name change was an empty gesture without further action. What else, if anything, did the team owe Native Americans?
  4. Should governments involve themselves in team names, for example through stadium approvals?
  5. Are there Native American team names that are acceptable? What would make them so?

Sources

  1. Washington Redskins name controversy — Wikipedia
  2. The Washington Football Team is now the Washington Commanders — Commanders.com
  3. New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren't offended by Redskins name — The Washington Post
  4. Native American groups slam Trump call to bring back Redskins name — Reuters
  5. Most D.C.-area sports fans dislike or hate Commanders' name, poll finds — The Washington Post
  6. Washington NFL team says it will retire Redskins name, logo — ESPN
  7. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017), slip opinion No. 15-1293 — Supreme Court of the United States
  8. D.C. Council gives final approval for RFK Stadium project (Sept. 17, 2025) — Washington Commanders