I actually think the key word in Daines' comments on the video above, is the term " revenue ", which implies at the very least they will be selling something.
OK, I finally watched it.
You are right, revenue is an interesting word there. It sounds like at a minimum they must be talking merch. Maybe historical stuff, maybe introducing the potential for its usage in throwbacks. That would be the best guess - not going back to it fully. They probably foresee too much risk in that, given their position on things that have any potential negative consequence to the financial side (talking NFL here, primarily).
The other interesting thing was how the reporter at the end just casually throws out "good to see it on helmets again" at the end, but there's no real time for a response, so hard to gauge the meaning. Could have just been a reference to the file footage that was playing.
Seems very likely that the logo will be "open" for usage, but probably not set up as the official current logo. So, as many of you stated - throwbacks, merch. That's pretty cool. I don't like the idea of any stigma associated with it. That has always seemed pretty stupid to me, and it was definitely happening. This should stop that insanity in its tracks; for that, I am definitely grateful that someone said something, even though sure, of course, in the grand scheme of things there are bigger fish to fry for the Senate. However, it's not like they spent too much time on it, and it's a nice little sign that sometimes sanity can break through. Hopefully more sanity to come.
 }})
