A couple of weeks ago, Military.com commenters were outraged by news that quite a few of those "military tributes at NFL games were actually advertisements paid for by the Pentagon with U.S. taxpayer dollars, totaling over $6 million over the last four years. The NFL overlords have now fought back with a statement that defends the deals.
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy objects to news reports like ours and opposes an amendment sponsored by Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. that would prohibit such deals in the future.
"This amendment paints a completely distorted picture of the relationship between NFL teams and our military. We agree that no one should be paid to honor our troops. Military spending on recruiting efforts should not be confused with programs that support our nation's active military and veterans."
The league's response includes a long list of military charities it's supported over the last half century but it never actually denies that it's been taking money in exchange for staging the military tributes.
Senator McCain's not buying it: "What makes these expenditures all the more troubling is that, at the same time that the Guard was spending millions on professional sports advertising, it was also running out of money for critical training for our troops."
Does the NFL's support of the military in other ways make the sponsorships less offensive? Or is this just another case of rich guys using the troops to get even richer? Sound off!