Are the recent allegations enough to remove Dan Snyder as owner of Washington’s NFL team?
Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson and Terez Paylor discuss the recent allegations surrounding Washington's NFL team and if they're enough to remove Dan Snyder as owner of the team. Subscribe to the Yahoo Sports NFL Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Video Transcript
[SPORTS SOUND EFFECTS]
TEREZ PAYLOR: One thing that I've seen people point out-- because we're gonna get to this. I think this is interesting right. Is this enough to get Dan Snyder ousted? Because it's an embarrassment, yes. This is an embarrassing look for an NFL organization. The shield, we talk so much about that right?
But it also doesn't make any specific allegations against Snyder in regards of sexual harassment. However, I think we probably agree that at the very least, considering how involved he is with that club, it's an indictment on the culture that he's responsible for. And considering most of these women had non-disclosure agreements, almost impossible for him not to have known. Right?
CHARLES ROBINSON: It pisses me off that had this just come out the way reports are normally supposed to come out--
TEREZ PAYLOR: It should've come out. It would have been huge.
CHARLES ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.
TEREZ PAYLOR: I'm sorry to cut you off, but I just agree with you so forcefully there. I really don't like the fact that this didn't come out organically the way it should have. Right?
CHARLES ROBINSON: Right, absolutely.
TEREZ PAYLOR: It really bothers me.
CHARLES ROBINSON: It does. And it should. If this had come out as you said, organically, people would have been like-- "whoa, wow this is," but instead--
TEREZ PAYLOR: "This is gross."
CHARLES ROBINSON: --we had all this BS. Which again, I refuse-- deep in my heart I will always question whether that was manufactured on purpose--
TEREZ PAYLOR: We'll never know, man.
CHARLES ROBINSON: --so that this didn't resonate in the same way. It didn't have the explosive quality that it would have, had we not spent the last week-- and I heard-- here's the crazy thing about this. I had someone on Saturday-- Saturday-- hit me up and go-- he texted me. And he said, hey, man. Have you heard about this "Washington Post" story that's coming?
I'm, like, what are you talking about? He said, it's supposed to be coming late in the week. And I'm, like, why the hell-- and he recounted some of the stuff. And I'm, like, why would you be-- first off, how is this out on a Saturday? And this is coming on a Thursday?
And I said, first off, why is it planned on a Thursday? That's not really how this works. What is going on here? And so the whole thing just absolutely stinks and it's ridiculous.
And I'm gonna tell you right now. What I think I'm gonna end up writing about this is-- if the Jerry Richardson situation has taught us anything, and frankly if this situation has taught us anything-- and I truly believe this. A mandate for NFL ownership is that you are not allowed to own a team if from the moment you own that team you sign an NDA that deals with sexual harassment.
If you sign an NDA that deals with racism, if you sign an NDA that deals with sexual assault, guess what? If it's proven that NDA exists, you no longer have the right to own an NFL franchise. And you should have to sign that heading in.
Because there are 32 of these teams. And guess what? It is a massive honor to be gifted the right to own an NFL franchise, which is essentially a license to print money. If you're signing NDAs to cover your ass in situations where people are getting abused inside your building, and you're protecting yourself, you should not have a right to own that team.
TEREZ PAYLOR: You know what that makes me wonder now? These are old men who came up in a different time. And I'm not-- it's obviously not OK. But that leads to my next statement, which is I wonder how many of these guys have those already.
CHARLES ROBINSON: Yeah.
TEREZ PAYLOR: You know what I mean?
CHARLES ROBINSON: Yeah.
TEREZ PAYLOR: I wonder how much support that would get, 'cause I wonder how many of them have 'em.
CHARLES ROBINSON: You want to know how many support it would get? I bet you it would get-- it would either get zero. Or I can tell you right now, it would be like, "how many votes do we need for this not to pass?"
TEREZ PAYLOR: Right. And you'd get it.
CHARLES ROBINSON: So if it's like-- "hey, if it gets 17 votes to pass, then it's, like, well we had 16 who wanted it but it just never quite got to the-- these NDAs, man--
TEREZ PAYLOR: 'Cause the league would not want it to be 32-0.
CHARLES ROBINSON: No.
TEREZ PAYLOR: They wouldn't want that.
CHARLES ROBINSON: Look, the NDAs are a tool used to cover up abuse, often. OK? Whenever it comes out in the corporations that NDAs were signed, and you ask the corporation-- release. Release these people from NDAs. The corporations say, no, because they use it as a tool. And they use finances as a carrot, the payoff, to cover abuse.
And here's my thing, it doesn't just cover for these teams. Guess who else it covers for? It covers for the shield. It covers for the league office. It covers for Roger Goodell. So stand the [BLEEP] up and say, guess what? We're not gonna let people sign NDAs anymore if you want to own an NFL team. Let's do this right now. No more NDAs. We're done with that.