Major Metaphorical Operations in NFL Have Ended

Remember back in 2003, when former President George W. Bush infamously declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended," while standing beneath a "Mission Accomplished" sign? That didn't turn out so well, did it?

Years later, the NFL, long a source for war metaphors, has announced that it will no longer feature military language to describe the on-field action. In light of diminished support for the "war on terror," Commissioner Roger Goodell says that this metaphorical cease-fire is "a matter of common sense."

Les Carpenter of the Washington Post reported this on Super Bowl Sunday, noting that the shift in language applies to NFL Films, as well. Carpenter notes:

"No one in the NFL is quite certain when the notion changed. Perhaps it came in 2003, when University of Miami tight end Kellen Winslow angered many people by proclaiming "I'm a [expletive] soldier" to explain why he stood tauntingly over an injured opponent. Or maybe it was the following spring, when former Cardinals safety Pat Tillman, who left a lucrative NFL career after Sept. 11, 2001, to join the U.S. Army Rangers, was killed in Afghanistan by friendly fire."

Or, maybe it was after the NFL did a focus group and found out that people didn't like war as much as they used to...

Let's say for a moment that we can actually re-enculturate an entire sports community that is accustomed to "aerial attacks," "blitzes," and "trenches." This doesn't necessarily mean that the military itself will now be absent from the NFL. Hell, Gen. David Petraeus did the coin toss for Super Bowl XLIII, after all. What this allows the NFL to do, of course, is appear cognizant of changing public sentiments regarding the war, while still exploiting the military and its personnel for public relations reasons. Featuring the Armed Forces is just good flag-waving patriotism, right?

The presence of the military at sporting events is rather transparent: let's honor our heroes and allow them to foster identification between fans and the league. Rhetorically, this assumes that fans will first "support the troops," and second, view the NFL (or whichever league) positively. But it works conversely, as well. Fans who already view the NFL positively, are invited to identify with the military, thus making them more sympathetic to the troops and more willing to accept warfare as a normal state of affairs. It is for this reason that I object to the ubiquity of military and war references in American sports.

All of this is to say that "words" are only part of the rhetorical landscape. Sure, reducing the linguistic call to arms may induce listeners to moderate their attitudes about football and war. However, any such change is minimized if the other symbols of war remain central to the production of sports. If the NFL really wants to declare an end to military metaphors, then it should do away with all of the trappings of war that it so commonly deploys.