Four years ago, the Washington franchise — after former owner Daniel Snyder said he would NEVER change the team’s name and logo — changed the team’s name and logo. As the first anniversary of the post-Snyder era approaches, it’s still not entirely clear that the organization has ditched the old name and logo.
The issue is not whether the team should use the old name and logo. There is a debate that may never end over whether the team should bring back the name and logo. (The logo e.g. became a problem this week in the effort to build a new stadium for the team at the RFK Stadium site in DC) This is about whether the franchise is sending mixed messages about its stance on the old name and logo.
For example, last year new owner Josh Harris used the abandoned name several times in conversations with fans. Limited partner Magic Johnson also used the old name on Twitter.
Last weekend Dan coached Quinn was wearing an unlicensed T-shirt in which part of the old logo is incorporated. The team had no official comment. However, the off-the-record comment was that Quinn acted alone and without knowledge of ownership.
This weekend the team has… birthday wishes posted to former linebacker London Fletcher. Striking in the image is a helmet with the old logo.
(It wouldn’t have been hard to post an image of Fletcher without the logo visible. The Commanders did it on his birthday in 2023. And in 2022. And in 2021. The image used for Fletcher’s birthday in 2018 And in 2017before the name change was also photographed from an angle omitting the old logo.)
If there is a clear organizational commitment under Josh Harris to ditch the old name and logo, all employees would (or should) be aware of it, from coaches to social media staff to PR reps to everyone. Memos and emails were sent out telling everyone never to use the abandoned name or logo.
As it stands, the team under Harris is (intentionally or not) floating in a nebulous space of plausible deniability. On the one hand, they say they will never bring back the name and logo. On the other hand, the old name and logo have not been completely and completely erased.
Again, the issue is not whether the team should use its old name and logo. What matters is whether the team has made a convincing enough case that the old name and logo are gone for good, or whether the scent lingers just enough to re-embrace the name and logo if/when the team ever decides that its positives would outweigh the recoil.
So what is it? Have the old name and logo disappeared for good? Or will they appear periodically, followed by an organizational declaration of “oops,” until the team decides the time is right to bring them back?
