The NFL's owners have long been associated with conservative politics.
A report published by Forbes.com stated that NFL owners donated more than $1.4 Million to political candidates and causes over a two-year span, with republican donations outnumbering democratic donations almost 2-to-1.
Because of this, it's no wonder that the NFL has leaned so conservative in its media approach, and the causes it chooses to support publicly.
This is what made the league's decision to consider moving Super Bowl XLIX based on the passage of controversial of Arizona Senate Bill 1062, and the potential that it could be signed into law so interesting.
The bill, which was been passed by the state legislature would have allowed state businesses to refuse service to anyone based on religious beliefs, and was backed by republican lawmakers in the state. It was vetoed by republican governor Jan Brewer.
She said: "To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before.
"However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve."
It's those 'problems' the governor mentioned that the State of Arizona and the NFL were both trying to avoid.
Only once in the 48-year history of the Super Bowl has a city been awarded a game, only to have the league take it away for a reason not having to do with the stadium.
Super Bowl XXVII was originally scheduled to be played in Arizona, but was moved to Los Angeles after the Arizona refused to schedule Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday as a holiday.
After the last time the Super Bowl was held in Arizona, the governor made a wise economic choice.
Super Bowl Host Committee CEO Jay Parry told ESPN.com that the Super Bowl held in Arizona in 2008 generated over $500 Million for the local economy, and this past February, the Super Bowl generated around $600 Million dollars for the local New York economy, something the Phoenix-metroplex wouldn't want to miss out on.
The NFL did release a statement prior to the bill being vetoed saying the league did not support the legislation, and did leave the door open for potentially moving the game if Governor Brewer signed the bill into law.
Now with the bill dead, it's unlikely the league will want to move the game from one of its premier stadiums, but the question of just how much the NFL would be willing to move away from where the owner's political base might be in order to save face publicly, comes up.
The league was willing to, on less than 12 months notice, potentially move one of the single biggest sporting events on the planet, based on what could be called a perception issue, where the last thing the NFL would want is a situation where people would be picketing and demonstrating for a political cause at its showcase event.
This was the logic ahead of Super Bowl XXVII in January of 1993, and the league changed the location of the game.
There is also something to be said about how the profile of the NFL, being the dominant sporting force in the American landscape, and across American television, can potentially have the impact of pressuring a state governor to retract support for something she'd previously backed.