The Cleveland Indians think getting rid of one racist image means their work is done, and that they can pack up their “How to Handle Having a Racist Brand” guide and clock out for the day, fully satisfied.

With the overdue jettisoning of Chief Wahoo, Cleveland took a major step toward the organization’s logos, mascots, and overall branding eliminating offensive images and references to Native Americans. The decision was applauded by many, including this site, and despite a noticeable amount of fan backlash, this step should not to be the last one in the team’s transition to a more completely politically correct branding.

One of the team’s logos being a stereotypical caricature of a Native American was the most obviously offensive part of the branding, which means that it was also the easiest piece to remove in an attempt to appease those protesting the logo while not significantly affecting the team’s bottom line or causing a backlash that will last more than a few months. As one branding expert I spoke to said, it solved “100 percent of the problem for 80 percent of the people,” and now the team expects to be in the clear.

The Indians are patting themselves on the back, but one piece isn’t enough. Despite it being less obviously racist when compared to the logo, the team’s name is still insensitive.

Activists calling for a name change include Phillip Yenyo of the American Indian Movement of Ohio, who told the New York Times, “The name has to go, too. The nickname absolutely has to go. It’s not just the logo.”

Another prominent leader and activist, Sundance, was adamant that the name should be changed while speaking to NPR about the Chief Wahoo decision. Sundance, executive director of the Cleveland American Indian Movement and a member of the Muskogee Creek Nation, called the change “a step in the right direction” before clearly explaining why keeping the name remains an affront to those it supposedly honors.

“The team is still going to be able to license Wahoo and make money off of that racist image. The environment down at the stadium is not going to change for the better. ... People are still going to wear Wahoo to the stadium, they are still going to dress in red face, they are still going to give war whoops, all under the rubric of being Indian.”

The Change the Mascot group, a grassroots movement that released a statement applauding the team’s decision to stop using Chief Wahoo on the field and encouraged Washington’s NFL team to do the same, declined to use Cleveland’s team name in the release and instead referred to it only as the “Cleveland Franchise” or “Cleveland baseball team.”

In a statement to SB Nation, Change the Mascot explained,

Professional sports leagues need to understand that they operate within a diverse, multi-cultural society and decide how much longer they want to be on the wrong side of history by using outdated, offensive names and mascots ... ... the removal of the Chief Wahoo logo is an important first step that requires a longer conversation about whether or not such mascots and names truly honor and respect the people they depict. Ultimately, what we have learned through our campaign is that once people understand that there are real people offended by specific names and mascots, most people naturally come to the right conclusion: sports should be unifying not divisive.”

In a sport that boasts mostly white fans and has a long history of racial issues, a name is not just a name. It is something that offers tacit permission to think of indigenous people as nothing more than the stereotypes they’ve been represented by across all sports for decades.

When the logo-change announcement was made, commissioner Rob Manfred said that Indians owner Paul Dolan “made clear that there are fans who have a long-standing attachment to the logo and its place in the history of the team,” an explanation that makes it clear why the league had to pressure the team to make this change in the first place, rather than Dolan deciding it was the right thing to do in a show of respect to a marginalized population.

Whether MLB pressuring the change is related to Cleveland hosting the 2019 All-Star Game as rumored, the bottom line is that the league had to step in and force the removal rather than the team doing it of its own volition. The Indians’ name is not protested at the same level as the more offensive moniker attached to Washington’s NFL team, allowing people to avoid the controversy as it suits them rather than be confronted with it at all turns. It is able to, frankly, fly under the radar when it comes to racist names and logos in sports simply because the controversy is not as flagrant as other examples.

So changing the name, which is a less blatant expression of racism than the logo and which fans are far more attached to, is a move the team is less likely to initiate on its own. And it’s easier to use the “fan attachment” excuse to get off the hook.

To change the name, to overhaul the franchise’s branding in such a significant way, would take some effort. There would be pitfalls. But it’s not as difficult or expensive as some may assume.

Allen Adamson, co-founder of the consulting firm Metaforce, explains that “changing a brand is far more complicated and expensive and potentially interrupting to a business than getting them to change their logo or in this case the mascot, which is part of their logo” and that in this particular case, “changing the name Indians would require a much more substantial change to their business. Much more difficult.”

For the Indians to do something that would, in Adamson’s terms, “lose much of the equity” that the team possesses — both with its own fans as well as in the larger scope of brand recognition throughout sports — it would take a significant push to get things rolling.

Based on the rumored reasons the Indians changed the logo at all, it seems fair to say Dolan’s moral compass is not where that push will come from. He told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that getting rid of Chief Wahoo was “the hardest decision we’ve had to make during our entire ownership,” which is not just a signal that Dolan didn’t understand the pain caused by that mascot, but that if he considered this change such a hardship, he won’t jump at the chance to change the name. The league, similarly, seems fine with just the logo change as it didn’t even broach the subject of a name change in the current discussions.

So if it’s not an ethical urge to change things, then it comes down to grassroots movements keeping the importance of change at the top of minds. And money. Always money. If fans eventually became dissatisfied enough to speak with their wallets thanks to awareness efforts by advocacy groups, that could really spur action.

But it’s a slim chance that happens. The team losing a noticeable amount of money because of fan disappointment due to the name’s connotations would certainly catch the front office’s attention. Yet even in Washington, fans are “breaking up” with the NFL team based on terrible on-field performance rather than the name. As long as the team is good, most fans will stick around. Since Indians is “less” insensitive, they might not even feel conflicted about doing so.

I spoke with the president and chief creative officer of SME Branding, Edward O’Hara, who has helped multiple baseball teams make a range of rebranding changes to their clubs, about whether change could happen. O’Hara doesn’t personally believe that the name should go the way of Chief Wahoo at this time, and he advises that any change of that scale would “alienate a fanbase” to some degree and that “fans would be much more forgiving of Chief Wahoo disappearing over time than of changing an actual name.”

Not every fan is standing in front of Progressive Field in red face defending Chief Wahoo’s honor, but the most noticeable fan reactions have been from the set of people outraged over the change. The team will consider more than fan backlash in any decision about the name, but the squeakiest wheel gets the grease, and the level of vitriol coming from some corners of the fanbase at this point isn’t going to make the front office and the league more excited about entering into discussions about a full switch.

As O’Hara pointed out in our conversation, though, hiding behind anticipated fan outrage may not be as convenient a choice in a few years as generations transition.

“As the world sophisticates and gets smaller and we see Gen Z and millennials embracing diversity — and Gen Z’s are even more likely than millennials to have ethnic groups in their friend groups — they’re not going to tolerate it and they’re your future fans. So if you’re racially insensitive to a group they’re not going to support you.”

When you take into account that the Indians are the only major league team in the area, it becomes more likely that Cleveland could recover from any fan protest over a name change. Eventually, the monopoly would win out if people want to go watch baseball, especially if Cleveland remains a contender as it has been the last few seasons.

In Adamson’s opinion on the fan attachment to the name, “If you erase all that and start with that there’s no heritage, like with new teams ... it takes time to embed [new heritage] in people’s heads and hurts.”

“People will be upset, the older and more serious [about the team] the more upset they’ll be. So they might vote with their pocket books in the short term, but if they’re baseball fans they’ll come back to the stadium to see the Cleveland ‘Blanks.’”

So if the league does eventually force things, as it seems is the only path to a name change, a recovery from whatever money and equity is lost in the change would happen before too long. Those losses would be a worry, but not a excuse.

Thankfully there is a precedent for teams undergoing a full — and forced — rebranding due to insensitive names or motifs, one that could serve as a roadmap for MLB as it hopefully reconsiders its position down the line.

In 2005, the NCAA Executive Committee debuted a new policy “to prohibit NCAA colleges and universities from displaying hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery” at any championships. The policy made clear that while schools could use whatever mascot they wished, the governing body could control which names and mascots could appear at tournaments, and which teams could host those tournaments.

The NCAA asked 33 schools to self evaluate their names and mascots for “cultural diversity and gender equity, the principle[s] of sportsmanship and ethical conduct, and the principle of nondiscrimination.” Six teams changed their name from “Indians” in order to remain in line with the policy.

Multiple teams were allowed to reach out to the Native American nations they were named after to request permission to retain the use of their tribe’s name. Some, including the Florida State Seminoles, were granted that permission, and others were not, and thus had to change their names and mascots. The North Dakota Fighting Sioux, who originally challenged the NCAA’s directive in court, are now the Fighting Hawks.

While the NCAA forced their hands on this point, starting a dialogue between college teams and the tribes in question was a major step that gave the tribes the respect they deserve when it comes to their names being used without their consent.

Right now, a situation similar to the NCAA’s actions seems like the most likely path to a name change for the Indians. An overarching league policy that mandates teams remove any and all disrespectful references in any part of their team branding would affect at least the Indians and the Braves, who also stopped frequently using a similarly racist logo in the late 80s but still use a tomahawk as part of their brand.

If this ends up being the case, the process would be long and time consuming. It would take multiple experts, months of research and testing, and again, it would piss people off. But it would also cost less than you might assume.

The money required may be a legitimate consideration from a business perspective, but it’s also another easy shorthand teams have to excuse themselves from an arduous process that could take years. There are expenses that have to be paid out, but the financial commitment is not as debilitating as teams might make it seem in order to avoid such an undertaking.

In a 2010 New York Times article about the Charlotte Bobcats becoming the Hornets again, owner Michael Jordan estimated that the process could cost up to $10 million. Founder and chief creative officer of Gameplan Creative Tom O’Grady says that an overall process from start to finish would ring in at significantly less than that.

I spoke with O’Grady about the steps and cost of a team changing its name. He previously served as the vice president of creative services for the NBA and was closely involved with the Washington Wizards’ transition from the Bullets two decades ago.

The Indians’ situation somewhat resembles that of the Wizards’ name change, in that there would be no expansion-team style “fan vote” or fun to be had with a new name, but a change that was deemed necessary by ownership due to the insensitive nature of the name. In the same way Washington did, Cleveland would likely approach MLB about the need for a change directly, or submit names to the league if it was told to, rather than riling fans up before it’s necessary.

In Cleveland’s case, O’Grady thinks,

“The teams would want to just push through that and not get too much [fan] feedback ... The Wizards didn’t ask for anybody’s opinion on it, they just felt like it was time to make a change. So they sought out what they thought would be a good name and then just went forward with that. Because you’d have a lot of split hairs on things like the Indians, there’s two camps there. So whatever they would do they’d have to make a decision based on whatever would be best from their perspective.”

There are still myriad costs that add up. Outside agencies are hired to consult on new names, organize focus groups, research other trademarks and brands worldwide to make sure there are no legal pitfalls, and graphics firms charged with crafting a new style guide and shepherding the team’s rebranding. Once the name is chosen, there is TV testing, print testing, merchandise testing, and more. Those intangible services may happen before the decision is even made public but still costs a few hundred thousand dollars all together.

The more obvious changes — to the field, locker room signage, and graphics — could also involve fees that ring in at $150,000 or more based on how much of a refresh the team is doing beyond just swapping out the logos and name.

It all still falls short how much many would expect it costs though, as O’Grady pointed out much of the process involves things that are already changed from year to year.

Examples include much of the merchandise (which is usually tweaked season after season), in-game video and graphics, online assets, and team marketing assets like slogans or promotions. Since those costs are built in to the budget year after year, it doesn’t really count as an extra output for a team, as much as teams might want to present it that way.

The most outlandish costs would involve the league outfitter having to change over its fabrics, color schemes, and merchandising strategy, but O’Grady says that even for something that could cost half a million dollars or more, the company in question — in baseball’s case, Majestic at present and Under Armour starting in 2020 — might eat part or all of that cost because of the extra influx of money it will receive on the backend thanks to new sales.

So if Cleveland is ever forced into a name change, it won’t be because it can profit off it in the same way as with a logo change, but it’s also not fair to let it off the hook because it would lose a chunk of money in the process. In O’Grady’s experience, money usually isn’t something that outweighs the rest of the situation.

“I’ve never seen a name change based on just dollars and cents. I’ve seen logo changes based on just dollars and cents, but rarely a name change. Because a name change usually something is permeating below the surface that is bigger than that.”

The process would take effort and care, but at some point, it won’t be avoidable. Indians is insensitive and disrespectful, and it will continue to be protested against even if it’s not to the same extent as other teams or the logo.

The NCAA has already set a precedent for teams named the Indians changing their name, and there is not a significant enough financial roadblock for the owners or MLB to balk at a change for those reasons. The brand equity it loses would eventually be built back with success on the field and a commitment to their fans.

There will eventually be no excuse for a baseball team still being called the Indians. “Eventually” is too far away, though, when there is a clear path to changing it now. Instead, the league and team ownership are hiding behind axing the logo as “doing the right thing” and getting a pass on the rest.

We shouldn’t be patting them on the back for falling short, and they shouldn’t feel like they are in the clear because they did the bare minimum.