While the internet teemed with pieces that aimed to clarify the distinction between Memorial Day and Veterans Day, Jacob Weindling, a staff writer with Paste, and Nick Francona, a former Marine and son of Major League Baseball manager Terry Francona, sought to address the distinction between saying one is going to do something for military figures and, well, actually doing so. The duo (and others) believe MLB’s Memorial Day apparel is a problem, specifically the way the league and its affiliates market it while failing to make clear exactly where the proceeds, ostensibly for charities that benefit military causes, actually go.
In an article published yesterday, Weindling opines quite elaborately on MLB’s failure to make plain the destination of dollars obtained through Memorial Day tribute items. He also, in analyzing the abundance of goods, decries the commercialization of sacrificed lives, noting that families of the fallen “don’t care about camouflage.” While he understands that Americans are “hyper-capitalistic,” he feels that we should not be “relying on the supposed goodness” of those who run a sports league and profess to want to build up their charitable identity. He builds his case by including tweets from the younger Francona, who believes MLB’s business practices are somewhat shady—namely, the league’s decision to hawk camouflage items as Memorial Day apparel after having vowed not to do so, and its supposed lack of a defined breakdown of which charity or charities would be receiving contributions and in what amounts.
Really grateful to @UniWatch and @PhilHecken for shining light on an important issue.
I spent a few minutes digging into the supposed improvements @MLB has made for Memorial Day this year and what I found was disturbing. It’s clear they are now deliberately lying.
A thread… https://t.co/ZcP8PtoAZh
— Nick Francona (@NickFrancona) May 26, 2019
After the interview, a reader sent info to @UniWatch who posted an update.
“MLB’s lack of transparency isn’t just frustrating — it also directly contradicts the standards set out by the Better Business Bureau.”
“…obvious that they’re not operating in good faith…” pic.twitter.com/LhFnjQm2nV
— Nick Francona (@NickFrancona) May 26, 2019
Interestingly, MLB states that they are donating the licensed royalties from the Armed Forced day hats, but there is no such indication of any donations for the “Memorial Day” apparel. To be clear, MLB is still profiting when they are donating the licensed royalties. pic.twitter.com/3WAARhjl8h
— Nick Francona (@NickFrancona) May 26, 2019
This isn’t an accident. MLB has over a thousand items specifically in a Memorial Day category on their official online store. It appears anything remotely related to camouflage or “America” goes in that category. pic.twitter.com/1ZkHkfGePs
— Nick Francona (@NickFrancona) May 26, 2019
MLB had this problem before, back in 2017, when its Memorial Day camo hats caused a minor uproar. It also got itself in trouble with the U.S. Marine Corps, which asked MLB and Lids, the hat retailer, to stop using USMC trademarks to sell Memorial Day themed items. MLB said it would investigate the matter, but Francona discovered the league still had USMC-related products up on its web store:
It’s pretty apparent that MLB is deliberately deceptive when it comes to selling camouflage apparel and exploiting Memorial Day for marketing. And the lack of transparency masks some serious improprieties. You don’t act this way unless you’re hiding something.
— Nick Francona (@NickFrancona) May 26, 2019
The whole matter brings up many interesting points, and we are sure that those who comprehensively read and analyze Weindling’s article will uncover more than what we will offer here, especially if they have lost loved ones to military conflict. People, frankly, often have a hard time drawing a line with respect to what they can profit from, with our Beatles-related antennae having gone up today to offer proof of this. Regarding fallen protectors of our collective freedom, should there be an alarm that goes off in sellers’ heads that says, “Maybe this isn’t the best idea”?
Should more people adopt the stance that Weindling nurtures—that consumers should be more diligent in determining exactly what their cash is going to support? With that in mind, should MLB, which has found a somewhat reliable revenue stream through Players’ Weekend, for example, leave Memorial Day alone and let it be solely an occasion to celebrate the preservation of our union and not also a means to score cash?
Speaking of money, since attaining it and shelling it out to players through “stupid money” contracts seem two primary quests, what if MLB, through Memorial Day sales and any other promotions that it professes will assist charities, gave every penny and not some unspecified or miniscule amount to deserving organizations? Would that generosity make critics less likely to bark? Does that idea even have any legitimacy in these cash-conscious times? As many people would undoubtedly say “No way” to that previous inquiry, what would be a happy medium?
It does not appear as if MLB is ever going to secure universal approval of its Memorial Day commercialization, so does it need to make obvious its charitable intentions? Should people go against Weindling’s assertion and just have faith that the league is practicing its promised display of altruism? As MLB looks to make itself more marketable, one can just predict that though we are only two days removed from Memorial Day, the holiday is going to be a frequent conversation element as the league plots how to compete for the attention—and disposable income—of its fan base.
