Government & Sports

[Zimbow]

Should government partner along with Professional sports leagues/teams to promote ideas that have to do with them (government).

For example, when I watch the Capitals at the Verizon Center in DC, I don't feel like looking at left/right propaganda that's plastered along the walls or billboards within the stadium. Or even listen to the announcer promote something government related while trying to watch a sporting event. Keep politics & sports separate.

Please feel free to participate in the poll. Thanks.

I'm bored at work & thought a poll would be a good change of pace. I tried to word it as best as possible.

[Wickabee]

Well, in the context of the question, I would have to say yes. The reason being that sports of most kinds is always a good thing for the economy. As such a professional sports team, especially in a high profile league, becomes an ambassador of sorts for the city (or state in a case like the Arizona Cardinals) and the city should have some say in things like host facitilities, events, etc. Not the team itself.

If you're asking if politicians should have an opinion on something like the Redskins business, I would say yes. Should they make it public? If they're asked. And should it matter? Not really, beyond passing interest.

[87sluggo]

Is this about the Ravens pushing the Affordable Care Act in particular maybe? I don't feel one way or another about it.......... governments spend money on advertising, and if they're gonna spend it they'd be wise to try to reach the largest audience possible.

Here at home we have BC Ferries, still partially a Crown Corporation, advertising at Vancouver Canucks games. Even though they're the only ferry service available................


Note: I saw your thread about the Ravens AFTER I saw this thread, soooo I guess I didn't need to point that out at the top, sorry

[Zimbow]

Is this about the Ravens pushing the Affordable Care Act in particular maybe? I don't feel one way or another about it.......... governments spend money on advertising, and if they're gonna spend it they'd be wise to try to reach the largest audience possible.

Here at home we have BC Ferries, still partially a Crown Corporation, advertising at Vancouver Canucks games. Even though they're the only ferry service available................


Note: I saw your thread about the Ravens AFTER I saw this thread, soooo I guess I didn't need to point that out at the top, sorry

No problem. I just wanted to change things up a bit rather than posting regular threads most of the time. I guess basically I was trying to say, Should government partner along with Professional sports leagues/teams to promote ideas that have to do with them (government).

For example, when I watch the Capitals at the Verizon Center in DC, I don't feel like looking at left/right propaganda that's plastered along the walls or billboards within the stadium. Or even listen to the announcer promote something government related while trying to watch a sporting event. Keep politics & sports separate.

[Zimbow]

Well, in the context of the question, I would have to say yes. The reason being that sports of most kinds is always a good thing for the economy. As such a professional sports team, especially in a high profile league, becomes an ambassador of sorts for the city (or state in a case like the Arizona Cardinals) and the city should have some say in things like host facitilities, events, etc. Not the team itself.

If you're asking if politicians should have an opinion on something like the Redskins business, I would say yes. Should they make it public? If they're asked. And should it matter? Not really, beyond passing interest.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. I tried to clear it up somewhat when I replied to Sluggo's post. I'll edit my 1st post with my response to his.

[87sluggo]

No problem. I just wanted to change things up a bit rather than posting regular threads most of the time. I guess basically I was trying to say, Should government partner along with Professional sports leagues/teams to promote ideas that have to do with them (government).

Well, it does take two to tango......like you pointed out, the NFL didn't want to have anything to do with it. But the Ravens are pushing the state version of the ACA, maybe there was some greasing from the governor? I doubt the $130,000 means all that much to the team. I haven't seen or heard any of the advertising so I couldn't judge, if it's PSA type of stuff ( IE this is a program that exists) then what's the harm?

[Zimbow]

Well, it does take two to tango......like you pointed out, the NFL didn't want to have anything to do with it. But the Ravens are pushing the state version of the ACA, maybe there was some greasing from the governor? I doubt the $130,000 means all that much to the team. I haven't seen or heard any of the advertising so I couldn't judge, if it's PSA type of stuff ( IE this is a program that exists) then what's the harm?

I don't know about Maryland's programs. I haven't really researched anything up there, I'm in Va. by the way.

[Wickabee]

I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. I tried to clear it up somewhat when I replied to Sluggo's post. I'll edit my 1st post with my response to his.

Ok,
I don't like looking at McDonald's and Budget Rentals ads either, but we have to live with them, so I guess I see government advertising and promotion as any other.