Point being, you wanna really donate to the cause, just donate directly to a research fund. Don't understand why anybody would donate through the NFL when they'll pocket a certain percentage for themselves.
Is this true?
Of course. The league benefits indirectly by increasing their market share among their most sought after demographic - women. More viewers, more advertising dollars, and more money. However the league also benefits directly - from merchandise sales of all those pink products you see on TV, which of course are available on NFL.com. Not all of the profit from that merchandise goes to "awareness" -- which itself is a somewhat dubious goal when it comes to combatting cancer.
The NFL donates a certain percentage of profits for the pink gear they sell on their website, but I've never heard it stated what percent. So I tried to do some research to find out. Here's what I found:
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62332742/
While all proceeds from auctioned game-worn items go to breast cancer causes, the league declines to say what portion of the apparel sales do. Inquiring minds can estimate, however. Ticketmaster limited its 2012 A Crucial Catch contribution to 10 cents for every ticket sold last October (up to $40,000 total), and The New York Times reported that Old Navy donated only five percent of revenues to a foundation via a similar 2011 campaign featuring the Dallas Cowboys. Charlotte Jones Anderson, the daughter of Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, supervised this campaign, and Anderson in December was appointed chairwoman of a new NFL foundation that will direct league community efforts.
The bottom line: The league hardly donates much to "fight" breast cancer. You'd need to use scientific notation with negative exponents to express what percentage of the NFL's annual revenues it contributes via A Crucial Catch. The campaign raised a combined $4.5 million during its first four years (2009-2012), including $1.5 million last year. League-wide revenues approached $8 billion in 2009, when NFL
teams earned a median profit of $28.6 million, according to
The Economics of the National Football League, a 2012 book edited by Kevin G. Quinn. (The NFL says it plans to donate $23 million to all community causes this year -- less than one percent of its likely revenues.)
Aside from the fact that the NFL and the Pink foundation (actually called the Susan G Komen Breast Cancer foundation) are getting rich(er) off of the pink campaign, the whole goal of "awareness" is questionable, for two reasons:
(1) As mentioned above, 'who hasn't heard of breast cancer?' But really, the goal is not to tell people/women, "Newsflash: there is breast cancer" -- it's to encourage them to engage in early exams and detect it earlier so it can more easily be treated. I think most people have some vague idea in their head that when they give money "to combat cancer," some scientist somewhere is getting funding to conduct trials and come up with a cure, a medicine, a vaccine, etc. "Awareness" itself as a goal can be a good thing - but it isn't going to change the status quo and vault us into the medical future.
(2) Related to the "awareness" issue -- think about who benefits from this sort of campaign/system, aside from the NFL. As a cancer foundation, Susan Komen et. al. simply have to try to educate people and encourage them to get exams annually. They don't have to give large chunks of money to scientists to conduct expensive trials and develop an actual cure. This allows the foundation itself to retain a larger percentage of profits/revenue/donations whatever you want to call it.
There are also indirect beneficiaries. Think about all the physicians with more business walking in their door, the drug companies with more prospective customers, and most of all -- the insurance companies that save money by treating patients in a more cost effective way by catching the cancer earlier. Of course those are all admirable goals - we want those with cancer to be treated, and to be treated more effectively. But I think what people really want when they decide to give money "to fight cancer" is to advance the status quo and develop a future world
without cancer.
That is explicitly not the goal of this foundation. Physicians, Drug and Insurance companies can be thought of sort of like lobbyist in the political arena - they contribute as well to the coffers of the Kommen foundation, the NFL's campaign, and the whole corporate complex, because they benefit from it.
In any case, "Awareness" is actually fairly appropriate for breast cancer in particular because it's one of the more treatable forms of cancer, especially if detected early. But as someone pointed out above, there are other more deadly forms of cancer that are harder to detect. Breast cancer is a fairly convenient cause if you decided to start a charity foundation and weren't interested in giving away all of your money. More lives could certainly be saved per dollar donated if the $$$ that goes to PINK went instead to say, heart disease.
Every year this topic comes up in this forum, and I wage my own "awareness campaign" to educate people about what all this Pink is really about. And it's really about making many people very rich -- and, without a doubt, saving some lives by detecting breast cancer at an earlier stage in the process. Admirable, but clearly tainted.
Further reading:
http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=13
/rant