None of the NFL’s national corporate sponsors have pulled their deals so far, although some have voiced their disappointment. Nike has suspended its endorsements of players in question, and other local team sponsors have pulled out, such as Radisson, which suspended its sponsorship of the Minnesota Vikings over Adrian Peterson’s indictment for child abuse. It’s interesting that child abuse, irrefutably a health issue, prompted a hotel chain to pull its contract while some of Minnesota’s children’s hospitals with sponsorship and promotional deals have been relatively silent on the issue.
Some of the biggest names in healthcare are corporate sponsors or partners with NFL teams. The way in which these relationships are worded (“the official hospital of the team”) might leave the public thinking the health system provides medical care for the athletes — but sponsorship contracts are separate from medical care provision. A team can have one health system provide medical care while still accepting corporate sponsorships from other hospitals, for instance.
Tampa-based Florida Hospital recently launched a “Bucs Fever” campaign with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers after debuting its Bucs Babies program during the NFL draft this spring. All babies born at Florida Hospital during the football season receive Bucs Babies t-shirts. Earlier this year, Cleveland-based University Hospitals signed onto a deal to provide medical care for players on the Cleveland Browns in addition to a sponsorship deal through 2024. That sponsorship will leave the health system with “extensive signage at the stadium and other advertising opportunities.” (Cleveland Clinic was the former healthcare provider for the Browns.) Virginia Mason sponsored the Seattle Seahawks’ 200,000-square-foot athletic center, but that deal was back in 2008. Judging by the Seahawk’s homepage, though, Virginia Mason is still a corporate sponsor, listed at the bottom alongside Nike, Bud Light and Verizon.
The social issues raised by the current NFL crisis only compound the known health effects of the game. There is something inconsistent about hospitals and healthcare providers — so often self-described as the anchors of health in their communities — continuing to feed the NFL money machine. Does it not seem strange that hospital executives continually push messages about lowering healthcare spending and improving population health while writing checks for a game where men intentionally deliver the most severe physical blows they can?
Population health is leaving many organizations, not only hospitals, adjusting their policies for consistency even if it hurts their bottom lines. (CVS isn’t making more money by halting cigarette sales, for example.) Maybe it’s time healthcare providers re-examine the messages they’re sending, and do the same.
Speaking of cigarettes. The NFL’s handling of brain injuries is often compared to the decades-long debate over the health hazards of tobacco. If we extend that analogy, we see nearly 4,000 hospitals have adopted 100 percent smoke-free campuses today. Will there be a day when health systems take that much of a pronounced stance against the dangers of football? And if so, what will that look like?
