Page is loading

Close

Contact Us

Please fill in the form below and a sales representative will reply as soon as possible.

NFT Heat Podcast Episode #34 : Leonard Armato, Founder of Management Plus Enterprises.

Featured guest speaker Leonard Armato joins John Kraski and Justin Shenkarow on the NFT Heat podcast to talk all about the future of NFT's, and how brands can transition from web2 to web3.

Featured guest speaker Leonard Armato joins John Kraski and Justin Shenkarow on the NFT Heat podcast to talk all about the future of NFT’s, and how brands can transition from web2 to web3.

Leonard is a strategic adviser to high profile CEOs and is a Master at Enabling Greatness. He is considered a visionary leader in the convergence of sports, entertainment, marketing and technology and is now quickly taking these same principles that made him a powerhouse in Web 2.0 to becoming one of the top NFT and Web3 Thought Leaders in the world.

WHAT HAPPENED TO ENDORSEMENTS FOR ACTUAL FEMALE ATHLETES.

Under Armour has been named Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year primarily for its novel approach marketing to women. The success Under Armour has enjoyed with its “I Will” campaign underscores why Title IX — while generating lots of positive results — has not succeeded in reshaping opportunities for women in sports marketing and redefining the way our society treats and values women’s sports.

Under Armour has been named Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year primarily for its novel approach marketing to women. The success Under Armour has enjoyed with its “I Will” campaign underscores why Title IX — while generating lots of positive results — has not succeeded in reshaping opportunities for women in sports marketing and redefining the way our society treats and values women’s sports.

Now, Puma has followed suit by signing Rihanna as the face of its women’s fitness line and giving her the title of “creative director,” and Nike has joined the ranks by inking a deal with top model Karlie Kloss.

When Under Armour debuted its “I Will” campaign with a TV commercial featuring Gisele Bundchen, I offered the opinion that, while the effort is effective, a double standard has been created by the media that has shaped viewing habits, public opinion and marketing. This trend does not bode well for the growth of women’s sports nor does it help top-tier female athletes who hope to build a brand for themselves or, at the very least, secure valuable endorsements.

The starting point of all this is that women’s sports get a fraction of the respect and audience that men’s sports do. The media has not historically promoted or distributed women’s sports. And most women athletes grew up looking up to male athletes as their role models.

Title IX was supposed to provide equality for women in athletics by ensuring that women could participate in organized competitive sports, and clearly there have been benefits. Reportedly, 2.8 million girls around the country play varsity sports leading to more than $1 million in college scholarships per year. Moreover, such participation clearly benefited women off the field of play in that sports teaches important virtues necessary to succeed in business: hard work, team work, and perseverance. In fact, 52 percent of women executives today, according to espnW, participated in competitive sports at the university level or above.

However, Title IX did nothing to improve equal opportunity for women interested in professional sports as a career — it just did not go far enough.

Girls got to play instead of cheerlead, but our sports viewing habits did not change. Why? The reason is that, while schools had to change and let girls play sports, the media was allowed to continue its old ways of ignoring women’s sports. A primary reason why we do not perceive male and female athletes equally is that the media treat women’s sports like second-class citizens, and advertisers only follow suit.

Bottom line, our attitude toward women’s athletes is shaped by sports media and Madison Avenue. And Madison Avenue sets the standard for our double standard of social currency among men (rich/winner/athletic) and women (attractive/youthful).

When it comes to male athletes, all that matters is whether you win at one of the major sports. The general rule is that if you are a winner — the best in the business — then you will be rewarded handsomely with endorsements or marketing deals like Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James or Kevin Durant, to name a few. In marked contrast, the sports brands realized over the years that you don’t have to pay top women athletes the big bucks no matter what.

For example, when we represented Lisa Leslie, the best player in the WNBA, Nike kept reducing its offers to her even as she got better and more dominant as a player. The reasoning was that Nike discovered that male athletes were still driving the sales of the shoes anyway (girls looked up to the male athletes more because of the additional exposure and promotion that they received).

More recently, as women have been wearing workout gear or athletic apparel throughout the day (as men have done for years), the sports brands have started to experiment with different approaches seeing this as a growth market. Now, there is much more emphasis on whether a female athlete is attractive and youthful, rather than the best in the world. In fact, it is arguably better to be an athletic youthful model rather than an athlete who happens to be attractive (at least from Under Armour’s perspective). All of this is completely in line with Madison Avenue’s view of how to market women.

There was quite a bit of chatter around Under Armour’s signing of Bundchen to a reportedly whopping deal to be the face of its women’s athletic footwear and apparel line. Obviously, she is super-attractive, athletic and perhaps even a remarkable lady, but she certainly is not considered a world-class athlete nor is she the best in the world at a sport that large numbers of girls play (i.e. soccer, basketball or volleyball).

But who can argue with Under Armour’s results in light of the growth for its women’s business as a result of the “I Will” campaign?

I appreciate attractive female athletes, but I don’t think that being physically attractive should be the initial criterion when a sports brand is deciding whether to sign a woman endorser. But it seems the women who are buying the product don’t really care about this.

If we really want to see change, the sports media, starting with the major distributors like ESPN, Fox and NBC, should be required to promote and distribute a certain amount of women’s sports on TV. This would require legislative action much like Title IX or the Children’s Television Act. The Federal Communications Commission and perhaps the courts would likely follow to support and give teeth to that legislation.

Girls and women need to be conditioned to watch women’s sports. They make up more than half the viewing audience for goodness sake. Not only should sports companies apply the same standard to female athletes as they do to men, they should make women’s sports just as relevant to women as men’s sports are to men.

If the government were courageous enough to take affirmative action, this would likely happen.

WHY NBA IS BEST-RUN SPORTS LEAGUE.

NBA All-Star weekend marked the anniversary of Adam Silver’s remarkably successful first year on the job as NBA Commissioner and was symbolic in many ways. It was held in NYC, between Brookly
n and Madison Square Garden (the mecca of basketball) where the NBA showcased the best of the sport and NYC (from the Rockettes to hit Broadway shows). On display was what is great about the NBA and makes it the most well managed and “high growth” sports property in the world.

NBA All-Star weekend marked the anniversary of Adam Silver’s remarkably successful first year on the job as NBA Commissioner and was symbolic in many ways. It was held in NYC, between Brookly
n and Madison Square Garden (the mecca of basketball) where the NBA showcased the best of the sport and NYC (from the Rockettes to hit Broadway shows). On display was what is great about the NBA and makes it the most well managed and “high growth” sports property in the world.

There are numerous reasons for this. The NBA features the best athletes in the world with their athletic skills, image, and faces on full display. At the heart of the NBA culture is giving back to the community (as they did on Friday’s “day of service”). The NBA celebrates its history and treats their stars of the past with great reverence (Legends Brunch). The NBA is always out front on most the important social issues, including racial equality (Newsmaker Breakfast). It is also a leader in every development in media and technology as was plainly evident at the groundbreaking NBA Tech Summit where Commissioner Adam Silver put on a pair of Oculus Rift goggles during his opening remarks and led the audience through a virtual reality tour of All-Star Weekend activities.

NBA Breakfast_pic2

But in the end, it is all about the game and players that just seem to be getting better, more well-behaved, and socially conscious all the time. And, this game is becoming more global by the minute as evidenced by the record number of international media in attendance covering over 100 NBA players that currently hail from countries other than the USA.

All this did not happen by accident. What distinguishes the NBA’s extraordinary management is its carefully crafted succession plan which resulted in a seamless transition from former Commissioner David Stern to current Commissioner Adam Silver. David Stern was a true sports “icon”—larger than life; George Washington on the horse leading the troops— knowing how to do everyone in the organization’s job, better than they did. Lecturing to his owners like they were school children—but always commanding enormous respect. He was Plato’s consummate benevolent despot, although he could be a bit tough on employees at times because of his searing intellect, unparalleled work ethic and almost prescient knowledge of everything that went on at the league office.

NBASTORY2


During Commissioner Stern’s tenure, I was the “agent” and marketer for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; Hakeem Olajuwon; Kevin Johnson and Shaquille O’Neal, among others. I had the opportunity to work closely with Commissioner Stern in a slightly adversarial capacity (because of the inherent conflict between the league and its players) but that grew into a relationship of mutual respect that left me with deep admiration for him. I have never encountered anyone smarter, with greater command of all the facts, and one who knew how to exercise nearly perfect judgment in the face of crises. He also possessed a true sense of humanity and made “giving back” a foundational principle of the league.

Stern groomed Adam Silver (for nearly 20 years) as his successors and their styles couldn’t be more different. Ironically, Silver’s style, while polar opposite, is no less effective. The NBA he has inherited (which he also contributed largely to building in his own quiet way) a globally burgeoning business where “media” has changed from a relatively simple TV deal to a highly sophisticated and fragmented array of digital rights. In Silver’s first year he was faced with three big jobs. First, restructuring the NBA organization for Global Growth; second, dealing with the unanticipated Donald Sterling fiasco; and third, negotiating a new TV/media deal. It is a matter of public record that he passed all these tests with flying colors and catapulted himself from a relatively unknown to a guy on the cover of Sports Illustrated, ESPN Magazine, appearing on David Letterman, and getting stopped constantly for photos and autographs. He’s almost become a cult hero.

Silver also gets high marks for the loyalty he engenders among employees, partners and friends. He is very inclusive, considerate, generous and sensitive to others. He doesn’t lead on a horse as much as through consensus but always makes the final important decision after conferring with his trusted advisors, such outstanding, hand-picked Deputy Commissioner, Mark Tatum. In a way, Silver’s style may be even better suited for today’s more sprawling NBA than was his micro managing predecessor, but his predecessor must be given full credit for orchestrating the scenario where the owners put exactly the right man in charge at the right time.

INDUSTRY EXPERT SHOWS ROADMAP TO SUCCESS FOR SUPER BOWL COMMERCIAL CAMPAIGN.


Super Bowl ads are going for around $4.5 million per 30-second spot so just like in years past everyone’s asking: “Is it worth the money?” Before answering that question, here’s a formula for squeezing the most out of that Super Bowl platform, based on my experience running two campaigns for Skechers, one starring Kim Kardashian and one starring a little French bulldog named Mr. Quigley, with a cameo from Mark Cuban.

kim_kardashian


Super Bowl ads are going for around $4.5 million per 30-second spot so just like in years past everyone’s asking: “Is it worth the money?” Before answering that question, here’s a formula for squeezing the most out of that Super Bowl platform, based on my experience running two campaigns for Skechers, one starring Kim Kardashian and one starring a little French bulldog named Mr. Quigley, with a cameo from Mark Cuban.

Many advertisers make their first priority winning the USA Today ad poll (having a “liked” spot) and/or making their spot “go viral” and getting the most impressions. However, this strategy fails to incorporate the most important business goal, namely, that advertisers are selling products and/or services. Entertaining or winning creative awards, while nice, should be not the primary objective of any advertising campaign.

As Brand Keys points out in a recent survey, engagement is key (which ultimately leads to purchase) and the entertainment value, while nice, does not move the needle for the brand in a meaningful way. A great example of this was the Volkswagen Darth Vader/Star Wars Super Bowl campaigns. These ads were quite entertaining and had the most “social media” appeal. Yet they didn’t do a thing for the sale of VWs. In fact, VW sales declined during the period in which these ads ran. Why? Because the ads didn’t position consumer engagement as the most important criterion.

Generally speaking, four themes work well for Super Bowl ads: Humor, animals, family and celebrities. This year stacks up to be the year of the “Dad” where many ads focus on how Dad plays an important role in family and in particular, raising their children.

dad

Regarding general circumstances unique to the Super Bowl and this year, in particular, nothing “goes viral” anymore without significant ad buys that serve as a “booster rocket.” Gone are the days of homemade videos on the viral hit charts where people were sharing saying: Isn’t this “cute” or “cool” (like “Charlie bit my finger” or Justin Bieber singing)? The proliferation of homemade (and now professionally made) video content in “social media” is staggering. Thus, the expectation and criteria used for sharing has changed. Before being shared, videos must (quite frankly) be “remarkable” in context.

As a result, all the videos on the viral chart now have been produced and supported (meaning ad buys) by big brands. This holds true for videos and TV spots posted in connection with the Super Bowl as well. As a corollary to this, we are seeing brands “tease” or release their pre-Super Bowl campaigns on a mass media platform (i.e. big TV talk shows) first instead of just releasing them on the Internet and running the risk of them getting lost in the shuffle.

However, before creating the campaign, the objectives should be clearly defined and everything measured according to whether they meet those objectives:

  1. Engage the Consumer with the Brand Value Proposition:This is defined as creating more
    perceived value in the mind of consumers for the advertiser and more consumer demand for the product or services marketing
  2. Maximize Exposure:Drive impressions for the campaign across all forms of media and communications: paid, earned, owned and shared.
  3. Entertain:Create something “cool” and compelling that reflects favorably upon the brand and enhances the brand image with consumers.

Below is how I approached our Super Bowl campaigns at Skechers. This was at a time when we were moving the company from a lifestyle-only brand to a brand that could also be trusted to build a functional or performance division for the company.

Super Bowl Campaign “Checklist”

  • Create a powerful value proposition that will be incorporated into the campaign
  • Develop remarkable and entertaining creative incorporating this value proposition
  • Explore using Super Bowl tried and true “themes” like family, animals, humor or celebrities — if you can include two or more, even better
  • Develop a plan six months or more in advance to maximize earned media: Using mass and traditional media to spark conversation and be a fire starter for social conversation

Case Study: Skechers Launches Running Division With Mr. Quigley Campaign

Here’s how we did this at Skechers working with our new ad agency at the time, Siltanen and Partners.

Rob Siltanen, agency chief and a veteran who spearheaded many of Chiat Day’s Apple ad campaigns, understands well these priorities.

First, we knew that the most important thing we needed to do was convince consumers to trust Skechers to produce a running shoe and that our “mid-foot” strike technology was an innovation that could benefit runners. We made sure this “value proposition” was incorporated into the creative.

Second, we developed remarkable creative using a lovable French Bull wearing Skecher’s new “Go Run” shoes as he wins a race against a pack of greyhounds. The ad included Mark Cuban, which allowed us to incorporate three out of four tried and true Super Bowl themes (animals, humor and celebrity).

Third, we maximized “earned” media by first activating mass media with a captivating angle that the USA Today picked up on since our Super Bowl ad the year before featured Kim Kardashian. The headline read: “Kim Kardashian Replaced by a Dog in Skechers Super Bowl Ad.” That went viral in that nearly every TV news network led with that headline and the Internet lit up with blogs and commentary on the subject. We then “teased” the spot in the weekly TV magazine shows and played the cute dog angle, which fortuitously caused a flap with a certain interest group opposed to greyhound racing. So we had an opportunity to respond that no greyhounds were mistreated in our commercial shoot and that, in fact, Skechers is a big supporter of animal rights.

Fourth, our Skechers Mr. Quigley spot was extremely entertaining and won third place out of 60 TV spots in the USA Today Super Bowl ad meter. It was also one of the most memorable TV spots that ran on the Super Bowl — and to make things even better the ad ran during the fourth quarter of a tight game in the pod with the highest rating of the night (114 million people saw it).

Finally, the spot was successful in creating high perceived value for the Skechers GoRun line. Proof that the whole campaign worked well is that Skechers’ Performance division was successfully launched and by many accounts is a three-quarters of a billion-dollar division and growing.

In short, Super Bowl campaigns require a real strategic plan fueled by clear business objectives. If executed properly the money can be worth it and more. Absent of flawless execution, it’s simply a huge bet that has little chance of paying off.

GISELE, RIHANNA DEALS SIGNAL END OF ENDORSEMENTS FOR ACTUAL FEMALE ATHLETES.

Under Armour has been named Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year primarily for its novel approach marketing to women. The success Under Armour has enjoyed with its I Will campaign underscores why Title IX — while generating lots of positive results — has been an abject failure in reshaping opportunities for women in sports marketing and redefining the way our society treats and values women’s sports. Now Puma has followed suit by signing Rhianna as the face of its women’s fitness line and giving her the title of “creative director.” When Under Armour debuted its Gisele TV commercial, while acknowledging its effectiveness, I offered the opinion that a double standard has been created by the media, and that double standard has shaped viewing habits, public opinion and marketing. I concluded that this trend does not bode well for the growth of women’s sports nor does it help top-tier female athletes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-V7cOestUs The starting point of all this is that women’s sports get a fraction of the respect and audience that men’s sports do. The media have not historically promoted or distributed women’s sports. And most women athletes grew up looking up to male athletes as their “role model.” Title IX was supposed to change all that. But while girls got to “play” instead of “cheerlead,” our sports viewing habits did not change. Why? The reason is that, while schools had to change and let girls play sports, the media were allowed to continue their old ways of ignoring women’s sports. A primary reason why we do not perceive men and female athletes equally is that the media treat them like second-class citizens — and advertisers only follow suit. Bottom line, our attitude toward women’s athletes is shaped by sport media and Madison Avenue. And Madison Avenue sets the standard for our double standard of social currency among men (rich/winner/athletic) and women (attractive/youthful). When it comes to male athletes, all that matters is whether you win at one of the major sports. The general rule is that if you are a winner — the best in the business — then you will be rewarded handsomely with endorsements or marketing deals (Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durant). In marked contrast, the sports brands realized over the years that you don’t have to pay top women athletes the big bucks no matter what. For example, when we represented Lisa Leslie, the best player in the WNBA, Nike kept reducing its offers to Lisa even as she got better and more dominant as a player. The reasoning was that Nike discovered that male athletes were “still” driving the sales of the shoes anyway (girls looked up to the male athletes more because of the additional exposure and promotion that they received). More recently, as women have been wearing workout gear or athletic apparel throughout the day (as men have done for years), the sports brands have started to experiment with different approaches seeing this as a growth market. Now there is much more emphasis on whether a female athlete is attractive and youthful, rather than the best in the world. In fact, it is arguably better to be an athletic youthful model rather than athlete who happens to be attractive (at least from Under Armour’s perspective). All of this is completely in line with Madison Avenue’s view of how to market women. There was quite a bit of chatter around Under Armour’s signing Gisele to a reportedly whopping deal to be the face of its women’s athletic footwear and apparel line. Obviously, Gisele is super attractive and even athletic and perhaps even a remarkable lady — but she certainly is not considered a world-class athlete or more importantly she is not best in the world at a sport that large numbers of girls play (i.e. soccer, basketball or volleyball). But who can argue with Under Armour’s results in light of the growth for its women’s business as a result of the I Will campaign. I appreciate attractive female athletes, but I don’t think that being physically attractive (usually models or actresses win this battle) should be the initial criterion when a sports brand is deciding whether to sign a woman endorser. But it seems the women that are buying the product don’t really care about this. If we really want to see change, the sports media, starting with the major distributors like ESPN, Fox and NBC, should be required to promote and distribute a certain amount of women’s sports on TV. Girls and women need to be conditioned to watch women’s sports. They make up more than half the viewing audience for goodness sake. Not only should sports companies should apply the same standard to female athletes as they do to men, they should make women’s sports just as relevant to women as men’s sports are to men. I’m interested in your thoughts, please comment below.

Under Armour has been named Ad Age’s Marketer of the Year primarily for its novel approach marketing to women. The success Under Armour has enjoyed with its I Will campaign underscores why Title IX — while generating lots of positive results — has been an abject failure in reshaping opportunities for women in sports marketing and redefining the way our society treats and values women’s sports. Now Puma has followed suit by signing Rhianna as the face of its women’s fitness line and giving her the title of “creative director.” When Under Armour debuted its Gisele TV commercial, while acknowledging its effectiveness, I offered the opinion that a double standard has been created by the media, and that double standard has shaped viewing habits, public opinion and marketing. I concluded that this trend does not bode well for the growth of women’s sports nor does it help top-tier female athletes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-V7cOestUs The starting point of all this is that women’s sports get a fraction of the respect and audience that men’s sports do. The media have not historically promoted or distributed women’s sports. And most women athletes grew up looking up to male athletes as their “role model.” Title IX was supposed to change all that. But while girls got to “play” instead of “cheerlead,” our sports viewing habits did not change. Why? The reason is that, while schools had to change and let girls play sports, the media were allowed to continue their old ways of ignoring women’s sports. A primary reason why we do not perceive men and female athletes equally is that the media treat them like second-class citizens — and advertisers only follow suit. Bottom line, our attitude toward women’s athletes is shaped by sport media and Madison Avenue. And Madison Avenue sets the standard for our double standard of social currency among men (rich/winner/athletic) and women (attractive/youthful). When it comes to male athletes, all that matters is whether you win at one of the major sports. The general rule is that if you are a winner — the best in the business — then you will be rewarded handsomely with endorsements or marketing deals (Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Durant). In marked contrast, the sports brands realized over the years that you don’t have to pay top women athletes the big bucks no matter what. For example, when we represented Lisa Leslie, the best player in the WNBA, Nike kept reducing its offers to Lisa even as she got better and more dominant as a player. The reasoning was that Nike discovered that male athletes were “still” driving the sales of the shoes anyway (girls looked up to the male athletes more because of the additional exposure and promotion that they received). More recently, as women have been wearing workout gear or athletic apparel throughout the day (as men have done for years), the sports brands have started to experiment with different approaches seeing this as a growth market. Now there is much more emphasis on whether a female athlete is attractive and youthful, rather than the best in the world. In fact, it is arguably better to be an athletic youthful model rather than athlete who happens to be attractive (at least from Under Armour’s perspective). All of this is completely in line with Madison Avenue’s view of how to market women. There was quite a bit of chatter around Under Armour’s signing Gisele to a reportedly whopping deal to be the face of its women’s athletic footwear and apparel line. Obviously, Gisele is super attractive and even athletic and perhaps even a remarkable lady — but she certainly is not considered a world-class athlete or more importantly she is not best in the world at a sport that large numbers of girls play (i.e. soccer, basketball or volleyball). But who can argue with Under Armour’s results in light of the growth for its women’s business as a result of the I Will campaign. I appreciate attractive female athletes, but I don’t think that being physically attractive (usually models or actresses win this battle) should be the initial criterion when a sports brand is deciding whether to sign a woman endorser. But it seems the women that are buying the product don’t really care about this. If we really want to see change, the sports media, starting with the major distributors like ESPN, Fox and NBC, should be required to promote and distribute a certain amount of women’s sports on TV. Girls and women need to be conditioned to watch women’s sports. They make up more than half the viewing audience for goodness sake. Not only should sports companies should apply the same standard to female athletes as they do to men, they should make women’s sports just as relevant to women as men’s sports are to men. I’m interested in your thoughts, please comment below.

HOW WILL THE NFL SAY “NO MORE” TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?.

The Ray Rice domestic violence matter has shined a giant spotlight on an issue that has surfaced time and time again in the lives of professional athletes; namely, domestic and other forms of violence outside the field of play. This seems even more prevalent in sports that are particularly violent in nature. In other words, when you make violence and/or physical contact the essence of your profession (like in the NFL), how do you learn to turn it off in other parts of your life? Apparently, it is not so easy.

The Ray Rice domestic violence matter has shined a giant spotlight on an issue that has surfaced time and time again in the lives of professional athletes; namely, domestic and other forms of violence outside the field of play. This seems even more prevalent in sports that are particularly violent in nature. In other words, when you make violence and/or physical contact the essence of your profession (like in the NFL), how do you learn to turn it off in other parts of your life? Apparently, it is not so easy.

The NFL’s policy on domestic violence is archaic and reactionary rather than proactive and progressive. The NFL would have loved to sweep the Ray Rice incident under the rug. When it blew up in their face—the NFL (and Ray Rice’s team, the Baltimore Ravens) over-reacted in an effort to calm the outrage by unceremoniously cutting Rice from his team and issuing a draconian suspension. The suspension was recently overturned by an independent arbitrator in that the length unjustly punished Rice far beyond the scope of the justice system.

In truth, the NFL is much like Gladiators of ancient Rome and the “voluntary” and “permissive” violence it promotes on the field is the same violence that our culture is infatuated with as evidenced by the enormous TV ratings for NFL games. But the NFL has a duty to take effective measures to ensure that the athletes that are so violent on the field get the counseling and training they need to ensure this violence does not carry over to domestic life. This counseling should start even before an incident like Ray Rice’s breaks out (domestic abuse; fighting; bullying;, etc.). The NFL has a further duty to ensure that its athlete employees are good corporate citizens, promoting the type of values that the NFL should be promoting off the field of play that can be an example to its fans and society as a whole.

Simply stated, the NFL could have avoided all this by using an approach of clarity and transparency clearly outlined in a five step process that should ultimately be incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement:

Education—every sports league (through its teams) should institute a mandatory education policy about the dangers and consequences of domestic and other forms of violence. This more “violent” the sport, the more intensive the program should be.  The process should be audited to ensure compliance.

Suspension/fine—in proportion to the offense committed (after an internal investigation takes place with at least some minimum “due process” standards in place)

Counseling—must be administered by reputable and independent agencies (not by organizations on the NFL payroll, no matter how good their credentials).

Community Service— must be administered by reputable and independent agencies (not by organizations on the NFL payroll, no matter how good their credentials).

Zero tolerance— for repeat offenders

This openly stated policy by the NFL (education/fine/suspension/rehab/service/0 tolerance) would go a long way to send a message that the NFL demands its athletes absolutely refrain from domestic violence/ bullying etc. off the football field, and that such violence has absolutely no place in our society.