MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Lennys Tap on May 23, 2018, 11:40:34 AM
-
PR move to win fans back?
-
PR move to win fans back?
This will backfire tremendously
-
This is the right decision IMHO. Bans kneeling but specifically allows players to choose to remain in the locker room if they don't wish to participate in the national anthem.
-
finally...
-
This is the right decision IMHO. Bans kneeling but specifically allows players to choose to remain in the locker room if they don't wish to participate in the national anthem.
Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.
-
Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.
Yep.
-
Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.
I think their point is made if there are only 10 players on the sideline for the anthem.
-
Not really.
Players weren't kneeling or otherwise demonstrating because they didn't wish to participate in the national anthem. They wanted to draw attention to a cause, and you can't do that holed up in the locker room. This effectively bans their protests.
Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but this definitely isn't a compromise or splitting of the baby. It's 100 percent coming down against the protestors.
I don't believe players have the right to protest at their workplace. I don't think its an appropriate venue.
But I also don't believe that an employer has the right to make their employees participate in a political action such as the national anthem. So for me both sides are being addressed.
I also think you are making some assumptions about the players motivations. When Kap was first asked about it, he never called it a protest. He said he didn't want to honor a country that allows for this much oppression of people of color. If we take him at his word, than this is an acceptable solution.
-
I also think you are making some assumptions about the players motivations. When Kap was first asked about it, he never called it a protest. He said he didn't want to honor a country that allows for this much oppression of people of color. If we take him at his word, than this is an acceptable solution.
Two points:
1. You're only partially quoting. In his first remarks explaining his decision to sit during the anthem at two preseason games, Kaepernick said "I have to stand up for people that are oppressed." That's clear indication that he viewed his actions as a protest.
2. Dozens of players took actions (kneeling, sitting, bowing heads, raising fists) during the anthem last season. Not all were Colin Kaepernick. If anyone is assuming motivations, it's you ... for assuming that all demonstrating players were motivated by the same thing, and that thing is just a portion of Kaepernick's motivation.
-
Dozens of players took actions (kneeling, sitting, bowing heads, raising fists) during the anthem last season.
As you reference, there are many ways to protest. As far as I've seen, the only two that I've specifically seen that are prohibited are kneeling and sitting. Staying in the locker room could certainly be seen as a protest -- particularly if the athlete doing so makes it clear that he is staying in the locker room as a form of protest. The press will, no doubt, report that in order to keep the issue in the news (and drawing eyeballs, selling magazines, etc.). Bowing heads, raising fists, linking arms, etc. All can be forms of protest. How about placing their left hand over their heart. Pretty much anything can be a show of protest if you tell people that you're doing it in protest.
-
Two points:
1. You're only partially quoting. In his first remarks explaining his decision to sit during the anthem at two preseason games, Kaepernick said "I have to stand up for people that are oppressed." That's clear indication that he viewed his actions as a protest.
2. Dozens of players took actions (kneeling, sitting, bowing heads, raising fists) during the anthem last season. Not all were Colin Kaepernick. If anyone is assuming motivations, it's you ... for assuming that all demonstrating players were motivated by the same thing, and that thing is just a portion of Kaepernick's motivation.
I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what individual motivations were and it doesn't matter to me. I think private businesses should have the right to tell their employees that they can't protest in the workplace.
-
I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what individual motivations were and it doesn't matter to me. I think private businesses should have the right to tell their employees that they can't protest in the workplace.
And you're completely entitled to that opinion.
-
Jets' owner says he'll cover the fines for any player who protests.
It'll be interesting to watch which owners follow suit ( I'm guessing the two buffoons in Texas), and how/whether that affects their relationships with players.
https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/national-anthem-christopher-johnson-fines-1.18700702
-
And you're completely entitled to that opinion.
I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure its not just an opinion, but a law of the land. Private companies have the right to regulate the speech of their employees. As an example, that's how the NBA forced Donald Sterling out.
I am very pro free speech....including a private company's ability to respond to the speech of its employees with speech.
-
I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure its not just an opinion, but a law of the land. Private companies have the right to regulate the speech of their employees. As an example, that's how the NBA forced Donald Sterling out.
I am very pro free speech....including a private company's ability to respond to the speech of its employees with speech.
Sterling isn't a great example. He wasn't employed by the NBA. He owned a team in an association with other team owners. More akin to a partnership with bylaws regulating their actions.
But yes, employees may have their free speech rights limited by their employer. My guess is that it must be related to their job or the company they work for however.
But in this case, there is a CBA that doesn't mention this as a violation of a rule. So there is hardly universal agreement that the NFL's action is appropriate.
-
I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure its not just an opinion, but a law of the land. Private companies have the right to regulate the speech of their employees. As an example, that's how the NBA forced Donald Sterling out.
I am very pro free speech....including a private company's ability to respond to the speech of its employees with speech.
Ugh. Can't believe you're walking me down the semantical rabbit hole.
You said "I think private businesses should have the right ..."
That's an expression of your opinion (saying what you think someone should have).
Had you said "Private businesses have the right to ...."
That's an expression of a fact.
That said, the right of a private business to regulate employee speech is hardly all-encompassing.
I don't recall there being much debate here about what the NFL's lawful rights are here with regards to player protests. The debate has been how/whether the league should exercise its rights.
-
Not going to get them far since it doesn't address the twin issues of their product being terrible and some of their participants suffering great mental anguish prior to their premature deaths.
Nice bone for the culture warriors though and, really, that's all that matters.
-
As you reference, there are many ways to protest. As far as I've seen, the only two that I've specifically seen that are prohibited are kneeling and sitting. Staying in the locker room could certainly be seen as a protest -- particularly if the athlete doing so makes it clear that he is staying in the locker room as a form of protest. The press will, no doubt, report that in order to keep the issue in the news (and drawing eyeballs, selling magazines, etc.). Bowing heads, raising fists, linking arms, etc. All can be forms of protest. How about placing their left hand over their heart. Pretty much anything can be a show of protest if you tell people that you're doing it in protest.
I understand what you are saying and don't mean this as any argument to your main point (which I agree with).
But won't showing players coming out of the locker rooms late, rednecks booing, and hot takes on the Web letting us know which players hate America be basically the same as protesting on the sideline? Doesn't it still give the Orange sh#tgibbon a reason to attack athletes?
Any decent man would ask police to stop assaulting and murdering removing the need to protest?
-
I don't believe players have the right to protest at their workplace. I don't think its an appropriate venue.
But I also don't believe that an employer has the right to make their employees participate in a political action such as the national anthem. So for me both sides are being addressed.
Well reasoned and well said.
-
Forced patriotism is the best patriotism
-
If the anthem and flag are that important, then the NFL shouldn't allow concessions or other sales. Further, they should uphold the entire flag code.
-
Ugh. Can't believe you're walking me down the semantical rabbit hole.
You said "I think private businesses should have the right ..."
That's an expression of your opinion (saying what you think someone should have).
Had you said "Private businesses have the right to ...."
That's an expression of a fact.
That said, the right of a private business to regulate employee speech is hardly all-encompassing.
I don't recall there being much debate here about what the NFL's lawful rights are here with regards to player protests. The debate has been how/whether the league should exercise its rights.
Gotcha, didn't mean to walk you down a rabbit hole. I guess the debate was always different for me. I never had a problem with the NFL telling players they shouldn't protest. My problem was that they forced players to participate in the national anthem against their will.
If the anthem and flag are that important, then the NFL shouldn't allow concessions or other sales. Further, they should uphold the entire flag code.
The hypocrisy is rife for sure. Its honestly laughable. Unfortunately the biggest hypocrites are the fans and they don't answer to anybody.
-
how appropriate that this decree came out the same day at the video of the MPD and their egregious abuse of a fellow professional athlete was released. You know, the reason the protests were happening in the first place.
I will continue to stay in the concourse or use the restroom during the anthem and I hope others will do the same.
-
Thank goodness for this new rule. The republic is saved!
-
Jets' owner says he'll cover the fines for any player who protests.
It'll be interesting to watch which owners follow suit ( I'm guessing the two buffoons in Texas), and how/whether that affects their relationships with players.
https://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/national-anthem-christopher-johnson-fines-1.18700702
Usually Jerry Jones is the bigger buffoon...but on this subject .....Houston's own Bob McNair has easily been the biggest buffoon. He even let it affect the onfield product.As....
Here we even traded away (for almost nothing) a much needed OLT Duane Brown, who spoke out after McNairs ..."inmates running the asylum"... comments.
I suspect this area, was always trumped up, a bit , as an issue....social/broader issues will always linger....
if the players wish to unite on an issue it should be their health....watch the current Bryant Gumbel Sports segment on HBO concerning NFL denials/nonpayment of claims....ie the pattern of deny, deny, until you die...really sick stuff
-
I will continue to stay in the concourse or use the restroom during the anthem and I hope others will do the same.
See you there, Billy. The concourse, I mean.
-
I like Chris Long.
-
See you there, Billy. The concourse, I mean.
I went to three Panthers games last season and did just that. I didn't enter the stands until after the anthem.
Meanwhile, thousands of patriotic fans - no doubt, many of whom ripped on the players - were in the corridors, stuffing their faces, smoking, browsing in the fan shop, taking whizzes ... you know all the stuff patriots do during the anthem.
Thank goodness none of them had taken a knee!
-
See you there, Billy. The concourse, I mean.
Here they do 'god bless america' during the 7th inning stretch and i sit. during the anthem i'm in the concourse too.
i think Jason Kander has a great quote on this: "Patriotism isn't about making everyone stand and salute the flag. Patriotism is about making this a country where everyone wants to."
-
If the anthem and flag are that important, then the NFL shouldn't allow concessions or other sales. Further, they should uphold the entire flag code.
At Bears games I go to they stop. Concessionaire waits until the song is over.
-
NFL is stuck either way, but for them to make this ruling their data clearly showed them which way they were going. Those boys follow the money, so their research had to show them that they were losing money based on the issue. That's the one motivating factor.
-
NFL is stuck either way, but for them to make this ruling their data clearly showed them which way they were going. Those boys follow the money, so their research had to show them that they were losing money based on the issue. That's the one motivating factor.
True dat, chicos. Billionaires always follow the money. And in this situation, it's hard for me to say I blame them. I'm disappointed in them, but I don't blame them.
-
Compulsory patriotism is no longer patriotism, it's nationalism. Forced behavior is how it's done in countries like North Korea. This is a disgusting place for our country to be in. Rather than working to fix the problems that created the behavior, ban the behavior and ignore the problem. Stuff like this makes me absolutely sick to be an American. What a sad state of affairs when we would rather sweep racism behind the curtain than address it head on.
-
how appropriate that this decree came out the same day at the video of the MPD and their egregious abuse of a fellow professional athlete was released. You know, the reason the protests were happening in the first place.
I will continue to stay in the concourse or use the restroom during the anthem and I hope others will do the same.
MPD should be char-grill fileted on this one, but not so sure that....
"Bugatti drivers of the world, Unite!"...
is an endearing rallying cry.
-
I'm mostly just surprised that they did anything to placate the one driving this - it's not like he's going to stop making this an issue. If a player blinks during the anthem this year, it will be brought right back into the forefront. Or whatever needs to be an "outrage" enough to keep this an issue.
-
I'm mostly just surprised that they did anything to placate the one driving this - it's not like he's going to stop making this an issue. If a player blinks during the anthem this year, it will be brought right back into the forefront. Or whatever needs to be an "outrage" enough to keep this an issue.
https://sports.yahoo.com/altering-anthem-policy-nfl-made-bigger-pinata-president-trump-smack-023721814.html
Yep. The NFL PR is terrible. It has been for years.
-
Wasn't this crapstorm finished already?
-
"Maybe they shouldn't even be in the country."
Bang up job NFL.
-
This remains one of the dumbest controversies I've ever witnessed. I do not care if you kneel for the anthem. I do not care if the players are present for the anthem (they weren't always). I just don't get why people are outraged except because whichever relative side they're on are outraged, and thus they must be outraged too.
The only thing that bothers me about this whole kerfuffle is that it's taking up actual time and energy.
I swear I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if this doesn't feel like the men behind the curtain making all of us minstrels dance to pointless manufactured controversy while avoiding addressing anything meaningful...
-
Compulsory patriotism is no longer patriotism, it's nationalism. Forced behavior is how it's done in countries like North Korea. This is a disgusting place for our country to be in. Rather than working to fix the problems that created the behavior, ban the behavior and ignore the problem. Stuff like this makes me absolutely sick to be an American. What a sad state of affairs when we would rather sweep racism behind the curtain than address it head on.
Eloquently stated, brew.
-
I swear I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if this doesn't feel like the men behind the curtain making all of us minstrels dance to pointless manufactured controversy while avoiding addressing anything meaningful...
One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that the most powerful man in the world is an absolute expert at deflecting attention away from his own corrupt actions, at stoking fear and resentment, and at pitting Americans against their fellow Americans.
-
In regards to the National Anthem, I truly have no issue on what any one person does in regards to the Anthem. For me, I stand every time, hand on my heart and more times than not a tear in my eye. My Dad was WWII vet and I saw the look in his eye every time he stood for the Anthem. He was not a war hero by any stretch and he probably cut more corners than most when he served. I remember vividly him telling him that his time in the service was the best lifestyle he had ever lived up to that point in his life. He came from a broken family, little parental guidance and less money. His drive and love of American dream and love of country is with me to this day. To me, that is what the Anthem represents in my head and heart.
All that said, my only issue with those that do not care to participate in the Anthem is simple. I hope that every person that chose to not participate for their own reason, respects that there are people that do participate that have their own reason for doing so. I am not a patriot by any stretch, but I am a proud son that recalls an image of my Dad every time I hear the Anthem.
Lastly, I wanted to add that my family often started a large family gathering with the Anthem. This was done as fun and not purely out of radical patriotism. My Dad loved every Xmas eve my nephew playing the sax and his family of nearly 30 standing and singing the Anthem.
-
"Maybe they shouldn't even be in the country."
Bang up job NFL.
Maybe the ignorant Pig shouldn't be in the country. Who the f&@$ does he think he is?
-
In regards to the National Anthem, I truly have no issue on what any one person does in regards to the Anthem. For me, I stand every time, hand on my heart and more times than not a tear in my eye. My Dad was WWII vet and I saw the look in his eye every time he stood for the Anthem. He was not a war hero by any stretch and he probably cut more corners than most when he served. I remember vividly him telling him that his time in the service was the best lifestyle he had ever lived up to that point in his life. He came from a broken family, little parental guidance and less money. His drive and love of American dream and love of country is with me to this day. To me, that is what the Anthem represents in my head and heart.
All that said, my only issue with those that do not care to participate in the Anthem is simple. I hope that every person that chose to not participate for their own reason, respects that there are people that do participate that have their own reason for doing so. I am not a patriot by any stretch, but I am a proud son that recalls an image of my Dad every time I hear the Anthem.
Lastly, I wanted to add that my family often started a large family gathering with the Anthem. This was done as fun and not purely out of radical patriotism. My Dad loved every Xmas eve my nephew playing the sax and his family of nearly 30 standing and singing the Anthem.
That's a good story, Goose, and I wish you and your family continued health and happiness.
My dad also was a WWII veteran, and I'm 100% sure he would have supported the right of athletes (or anybody else) to quietly protest in the manner Kaepernick et al did. I remember talking to him about the "black power" fists that Tommie Smith and John Carlos displayed at the 1968 Olympics - that was an opportunity for discussion in our house, not an opportunity to condemn fellow Americans.
I happen to think it's silly to play the anthem before sporting events - why not at the movies, at Broadway plays, when the mall opens, etc. And I don't think that viewpoint makes me "less American." I'm cool with anything as long as we respect each other's rights.
-
We could write a book on the NFL owners and their PR teams overrating the loudest voices and making shortsighted decisions. This is a great example, and its largely because McNair, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson (former), Haslam, Yosemite Sam, et. al. see twitter videos of morons "protesting" by wrecking and peeing on their possessions they've already purchased and then the owners yell through a puff of smoke "WAHOO, WELL I SAY, THAT COULD BE US!!" So then they hold a rich white guys closed door meeting, call a press conference, come out on stage, and show everyone their @$$.
They think that the smart economic play is to take a PR hardline against the protests, to ensure "Everyman, USA" doesn't turn on them. But that's so short sighted - what the hell else is that guy going to watch? He loves football, and until the league/teams got themselves so wrapped up in this, those fans would turn against individual players, but it wouldn't have even occurred to them to take their feelings out on teams or the league. A simple "Colin Kaepernick's actions do not represent the the position or opinion of the 49ers or the NFL" and then ignoring it would have caused this to all blow over. But the owners can't do that, because they only thing those lunatics care more about than their bottom line is looking like tough guys in public and exerting control. So instead of this blowing over, the NFL is in a greater danger of actually having a lasting negative impact on its business model by alienating its pro-diversity constituency (including the businesses that are driving ad revenues and actually paying for all those luxury boxes in all those new $1B stadiums) and are further alienating its labor force, rather than wearing bad publicity for a few weeks (in the fall of 2016!!)
-
I went to three Panthers games last season and did just that. I didn't enter the stands until after the anthem.
If you sincerely oppose NFL policy, politics and practices, then why do you enable this as a paying customer? I haven't attended or watched an NFL game in over 5 years.
-
If you sincerely oppose NFL policy, politics and practices, then why do you enable this as a paying customer? I haven't attended or watched an NFL game in over 5 years.
Because I enjoy the game and being a fan. I am able to root for the Panthers and yet roll my eyes at the faux patriotism that goes with Panthers games.
I hate a lot of things the NCAA does, but I still love to watch Marquette basketball.
I hate smoking and everything associated with it, but I invest in tobacco stocks.
I don't like the way gambling has ruined lives, but I agree with the SCOTUS decision that every state has the right to legalize it.
-
MU82
While I think we likely are polar opposites, I always respect your viewpoint and how you present it. I never really understood the playing of the NA prior to sporting event, but it just seems normal because it has always been done. I happen to like it, but have no problem with those that do not.
It is funny, my Dad was a true conservative, but in regards to the freedom to do as you chose, he was 100% supportive. I remember the '68 Olympics and discussed with my parents over the years and had some great discussions on it. IMO, Smith and Carlos had every right to express themselves, similar to Kaepernick. IMO, we are great country because of our freedom to do as we please, within the law.
It is funny, but 4ever mentioned the Schoemperlin case in another post, and I remember that time in MKE big time. I remember my Dad stating he thought Schoemperlin was an idiot, but his anger at the cops was high. To be honest, while I respect policemen, my lack of trust in their judgement keeps me on my toes. In my life, I want to have as little interaction with a cop as possible.
-
Wasn't this crapstorm finished already?
Yeah, that's the thing here. It really wasn't an issue until someone decided it would be a great political wedge tool.
-
MU82
While I think we likely are polar opposites, I always respect your viewpoint and how you present it. I never really understood the playing of the NA prior to sporting event, but it just seems normal because it has always been done. I happen to like it, but have no problem with those that do not.
It is funny, my Dad was a true conservative, but in regards to the freedom to do as you chose, he was 100% supportive. I remember the '68 Olympics and discussed with my parents over the years and had some great discussions on it. IMO, Smith and Carlos had every right to express themselves, similar to Kaepernick. IMO, we are great country because of our freedom to do as we please, within the law.
It is funny, but 4ever mentioned the Schoemperlin case in another post, and I remember that time in MKE big time. I remember my Dad stating he thought Schoemperlin was an idiot, but his anger at the cops was high. To be honest, while I respect policemen, my lack of trust in their judgement keeps me on my toes. In my life, I want to have as little interaction with a cop as possible.
You know, I'm pretty sure this Schoemperlin thing happened while I was at Marquette but I have absolutely no recollection of it. Musta been quarter-tap night!
We're cool, Goose. We don't agree on many things ... but we don't have to. That's 'Merica! Sometimes we challenge each other, and that's cool, too.
-
(https://i.redd.it/tv51zwjbspz01.jpg)
-
Fines are a non-policy and a non-deterrent.
Fining a guy $1,000 or $10,000 when he makes $5 million or more ... it's like fining any of us a nickel.
Actually, I'd miss the nickel more than the $5 million athlete will miss the thou!
This was pure PR, as many of us already have said in this thread.
-
Now add: Freedom of speech issue that was decided without a vote.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-nfl-owners-not-formally-vote-anthem-rule-185146376.html
-
Now add: Freedom of speech issue that was decided without a vote by a handful of owners.
The NFL really knows how to trip over their own d*** like no other organization I've seen.
-
Now add: Freedom of speech issue that was decided without a vote.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/report-nfl-owners-not-formally-vote-anthem-rule-185146376.html
Goodell lied?
Nah, I don't believe it.
-
https://twitter.com/harveyjkaye/status/999780044636672006?s=19
-
The most amazing thing about this issue is that this thread hasn't been locked
-
One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that the most powerful man in the world is an absolute expert at deflecting attention away from his own corrupt actions, at stoking fear and resentment, and at pitting Americans against their fellow Americans.
"Divide and conquer" goes waaaay beyond Spanky. It's a Masonic right of passage.
-
The NFL really knows how to trip over their own d*** like no other organization I've seen.
Right. They resurrect an issue that pretty much died down, and came up with a solution that satisfied no one, then it comes out they did it haphazardly.
The NFL used to be the league that understood how to think long-term and built its brand accordingly. Under Goodell and this crop of influential owners, they seem to just care about how to monetize everything in the short-term.
-
Right. They resurrect an issue that pretty much died down, and came up with a solution that satisfied no one, then it comes out they did it haphazardly.
The NFL used to be the league that understood how to think long-term and built its brand accordingly. Under Goodell and this crop of influential owners, they seem to just care about how to monetize everything in the short-term.
Rozelle was a marketer. Goodell is a litigator. The owners, except a few, seem to like that in Goodell. Whether it is a catch rule, concussions, air pressure or the anthem, everything is approached how a lawyer, and not a fan, would.
-
Rozelle was a marketer. Goodell is a litigator. The owners, except a few, seem to like that in Goodell. Whether it is a catch rule, concussions, air pressure or the anthem, everything is approached how a lawyer, and not a fan, would.
That is a very astute observation.
-
This policy, if left unchanged before the 2018 season, is going to bite the owners in the butt (and in the wallets). It will lead to many protests ... and many orange twits.
-
This policy, if left unchanged before the 2018 season, is going to bite the owners in the butt (and in the wallets). It will lead to many protests ... and many orange twits.
They literally just resurrected the issue for no reason.
-
They literally just resurrected the issue for no reason.
They had a reason - they wanted to put any potential problems to rest months before the season starts. They just happened to make things no better. Or even worse.
-
They had a reason - they wanted to put any potential problems to rest months before the season starts. They just happened to make things no better. Or even worse.
One of my 1st criteria when looking at issues like this - even though I take the side of the players who want to protest - is how each side presents its arguments.
If you have to lie to get people to accept your decision, then the decision is wrong. The fact that the NFL publicly and knowingly lied about what they are choosing to do speaks volumes.
-
True dat, chicos. Billionaires always follow the money. And in this situation, it's hard for me to say I blame them. I'm disappointed in them, but I don't blame them.
Thanks, chicos. Probably puts to rest any notion that the protests were real and fans did flee watching their games. Money talks, and if they were not seeing economic damage, they would not react and let it die on its own.
-
Mike Royko from 1986
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-09-10/news/8603070573_1_national-anthem-singing-high-note
-
Thanks, chicos. Probably puts to rest any notion that the protests were real and fans did flee watching their games. Money talks, and if they were not seeing economic damage, they would not react and let it die on its own.
Interesting. When this issue came up last fall, that was almost word-for-word chicos' exact post ... back before WarriorDad existed here on Scoop. Interesting.
-
Interesting. When this issue came up last fall, that was almost word-for-word chicos' exact post ... back before WarriorDad existed here on Scoop. Interesting.
If you say so, though hardly surprising. For most of last year in what I saw on the internet people were in two camps. Protests weren't real, no effect. Protests were real, effecting. One or the other. So you are saying some people here were in one camp and some were in another, and those views were expressed by both sides? Yes, that is interesting.
Follow the money. Owners react to money, you and I both agreed on this a few days ago. Are you now changing that position? If money was the issue, it means protests impacted their wallets and they reacted accordingly.
-
All about the money. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/23/national-anthem-protest-players-kneeling-nfl-crackdown/
-
All about the money. https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/23/national-anthem-protest-players-kneeling-nfl-crackdown/
They will cite to money, because its easier to veil the decision in economics than the owners' megalomania, but when you break out the economic fallout, this isn't even the smart tactic from a follow the $ strategy.
-
This policy, if left unchanged before the 2018 season, is going to bite the owners in the butt (and in the wallets). It will lead to many protests ... and many orange twits.
i believe you got this one backwards 82. they would never have acted to change the policy unle$$ there wa$ a rea$on. i believe the owners and the nfl have their ears to the ground a lot closer to the issues than you and i
if you think they did this to be a rabble rouser, keep thinking
-
i believe you got this one backwards 82. they would never have acted to change the policy unle$$ there wa$ a rea$on. i believe the owners and the nfl have their ears to the ground a lot closer to the issues than you and i
if you think they did this to be a rabble rouser, keep thinking
So I think this is pretty much entirely wrong, and reflects the "they're rich, they must know business and what they're doing" mentality. These guys have shown, whether its through harassing their employees, making idiotic public statements, putting themselves in no-win PR situations, that their success in other industries shouldn't just cause us to give them the benefit of the doubt whenever they self-servingly cite to $$. By just saying "economics" their old rich guy cred doesn't take the topic out of a rational analysis of their successes and failures within the NFL business. They like Goodell because he feeds into their hunger to reinforce the cult of their own personalities, to crush anything they see as opposition rather than work with it. Then when they continue to print money off their teams, they take that as reinforcing that they are doing everything the right way.
But here's the catch - Rozelle was the one who created the system that can't help but make money. With Rozelle's tenure as a launchpad, many of these owners make money despite themselves, not because of their genius. The NFL hasn't innovative anything legitimately new since Goodell took office. Its increasing profit margins are just the product of yelling "MOAR" at the innovations Rozelle put in place. MOAR TV deals, MOAR games, MOAR 24/7 coverage including the draft. Meanwhile the product is stagnating. They've never proactively addressed the head injury issue which is only going to get worse. The relationship with the PA is probably worse than anytime since the labor stoppage. They're running out of cities willing to house their teams. The confusing rules, declining product (especially weekday games) and oversaturation of games and advertising is making fans tune out.
I'm not arguing that there was no short term economic consequence to the protests from fans burning their NFL jerseys to own the libs, but the heavy handed response and focus on that issue won't be looked at as the economically rational one ten years from now.
-
They will cite to money, because its easier to veil the decision in economics than the owners' megalomania, but when you break out the economic fallout, this isn't even the smart tactic from a follow the $ strategy.
What is the combined wealth of the owners and those running the NFL? Probably not a Trillion, but it is way up there. Those people bleed money, know more about money than 99.99% of the people out there. If they believe it is the smart tactic that's all they need to believe, whether it is or isn't, doesn't matter to them. Much more often than not, however, they are going to be right in their money conclusions based on history.
They had to weigh people leaving and not engaging vs the piss off factor of their actions. They would not have done that in a vacuum, they never do. My guess is they paid considerable sums of money to study which way to go and the best bang for their buck decision was to make this announcement, do it before the Summer, let people simmer about it for a few weeks, get back to football in September and move along. What baffles me is why they don't get with their tv partners and tell them not to broadcast the national anthem. Don't provide the imagery that fueled this on both sides. They have left themselves open to that because if 20 Packers stay in the tunnel, or 35 Jaguars, it will be noticed.
-
What is the combined wealth of the owners and those running the NFL? Probably not a Trillion, but it is way up there. Those people bleed money, know more about money than 99.99% of the people out there. If they believe it is the smart tactic that's all they need to believe, whether it is or isn't, doesn't matter to them. Much more often than not, however, they are going to be right in their money conclusions based on history.
They had to weigh people leaving and not engaging vs the piss off factor of their actions. They would not have done that in a vacuum, they never do. My guess is they paid considerable sums of money to study which way to go and the best bang for their buck decision was to make this announcement, do it before the Summer, let people simmer about it for a few weeks, get back to football in September and move along. What baffles me is why they don't get with their tv partners and tell them not to broadcast the national anthem. Don't provide the imagery that fueled this on both sides. They have left themselves open to that because if 20 Packers stay in the tunnel, or 35 Jaguars, it will be noticed.
No rich people can make no dumb decisions when money is involved?
-
If they believe it is the smart tactic that's all they need to believe, whether it is or isn't, doesn't matter to them.
Agree.
Much more often than not, however, they are going to be right in their money conclusions based on history.
Disagree.
My guess is they paid considerable sums of money to study which way to go
Disagree.
-
What is the combined wealth of the owners and those running the NFL? Probably not a Trillion, but it is way up there. Those people bleed money, know more about money than 99.99% of the people out there. If they believe it is the smart tactic that's all they need to believe, whether it is or isn't, doesn't matter to them. Much more often than not, however, they are going to be right in their money conclusions based on history.
They had to weigh people leaving and not engaging vs the piss off factor of their actions. They would not have done that in a vacuum, they never do. My guess is they paid considerable sums of money to study which way to go and the best bang for their buck decision was to make this announcement, do it before the Summer, let people simmer about it for a few weeks, get back to football in September and move along. What baffles me is why they don't get with their tv partners and tell them not to broadcast the national anthem. Don't provide the imagery that fueled this on both sides. They have left themselves open to that because if 20 Packers stay in the tunnel, or 35 Jaguars, it will be noticed.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that is all any of them care about. That is where you are taking a bit of a leap. This issue, even just from the owner's perspective, is about balancing many factors - the military's investment in the NFL, civil rights, appeasing the chief executive, money, fear of change, groupthink/diffusion of responsibility, etc. Probably plenty of other factors. Trying to limit the whole thing into one bucket certainly simplifies the talking points for the chief executive's morning show but I think there were many conflicts for the individual owners. And I think there were plenty of owners that didn't see the money as priority 1. There's a reason the rule changes shifted as the discussion went along, and some of the owners still abstained.
-
i believe you got this one backwards 82. they would never have acted to change the policy unle$$ there wa$ a rea$on. i believe the owners and the nfl have their ears to the ground a lot closer to the issues than you and i
if you think they did this to be a rabble rouser, keep thinking
The reason was Spanky Dennison. Period.
Great column by Yahoo's Dan Wetzel, who is as good a columnist as there is out there. Totally nails it as a win-win for Spanky and a lose-lose for the NFL.
https://sports.yahoo.com/altering-anthem-policy-nfl-made-bigger-pinata-president-trump-smack-023721814.html
This policy, if left as it is, will make the NFL rue the day they did it.
-
I hate smoking and everything associated with it, but I invest in tobacco stocks.
Surprising that, as a Scoop champion of morality and social justice, you would choose to profit from an industry that causes 1 in 5 deaths each year in the US, with an annual economic burden of $170B on health care.
-
Surprising that, as a Scoop champion of morality and social justice, you would choose to profit from an industry that kills 1 in 5 persons each year in the US, with an annual economic burden of $170B on health care.
Smoking kills 65 million people each year in the US?
Looking into it, I think the stat you're going for is that 1 in 5 deaths each year is related to smoking (i.e., roughly 500,000 of 2.5 million deaths). Obviously, this is what you were trying to say...I just didn't understand you.
-
Sorry, 1 in every 5 deaths annually in the US, or 480,000, attributable to cigarette smoking. According to the CDC.
-
Agree.
Disagree.
Disagree.
Do you have evidence to suggest they didn't do any research on this? Or evidence to show they have not been successful in many business endeavors in their professional lives, other than just saying you disagree?
-
Surprising that, as a Scoop champion of morality and social justice, you would choose to profit from an industry that causes 1 in 5 deaths each year in the US, with an annual economic burden of $170B on health care.
As an investor, my job is to help my family reach our financial goals by any reasonable legal means.
I do have friends who won't invest in tobacco stocks, and I respect their decision. But where does it end? Gun stocks? Defense contractors? Fatty foods? Sugar drinks? Major polluters? Companies that use cheap and/or youth labor? Drug companies? I invest in all of 'em ... and so does every S&P 500 Index fund.
If we didn't, there would be nothing left to invest in.
As for being "champion of morality and social justice," well, I certainly would never claim such a thing. I do strongly support the notion of treating others how one would like to be treated himself/herself, of compassion, of fair play and of inclusivity (among other things). Except for the fact that I'm a freakin' atheist, I think Jesus probably would think, "Hey, this dude mostly follows what I teach." And given what I know about Jesus, he probably would shrug off the atheist thing, too!
-
The reason was Spanky Dennison. Period.
Great column by Yahoo's Dan Wetzel, who is as good a columnist as there is out there. Totally nails it as a win-win for Spanky and a lose-lose for the NFL.
https://sports.yahoo.com/altering-anthem-policy-nfl-made-bigger-pinata-president-trump-smack-023721814.html
This policy, if left as it is, will make the NFL rue the day they did it.
If the NFL went the other way, the orange idiot in the WH would still make it a pinata. To suggest otherwise is crazy.
He won't be in that office for long, the stewards of the game (the commissioner and owner) have to keep this going long after he is gone, and to suggest they did this to appease him is ludicrous.
The NBA does not allow kneeling during the anthem, it is part of their CBA. A NBA player tried it back in 1996, David Stern suspended him and fined him. That was the end of it. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/14/sports/pro-basketball-abdul-rauf-vows-not-to-back-down-from-nba.html As much as I think some NBA players would like to also take a knee, they know they can't and the CBA has actually helped them, or they would get orangeman's wrath as well. It appears the NFL, without the CBA behind it is attempting to do the same and will likely codify it next time around. The NBA's inability to protest or whatever hasn't ruined that league and this won't ruin the NFL, either. Nor are they doing it to please that idiot. They are doing it for money. They lost a lot of money, that's why they are doing it.
-
Without googling it, does anyone here know how long the players have been standing at attention for the national anthem?
-
The NBA does permit protests, just not those of the kneeling variety.
The reason the NFL continues to bungle this is because they are being reactive instead of proactive. Instead of working towards a cohesive goal, they are in damage control mode.
-
If the NFL went the other way, the orange idiot in the WH would still make it a pinata. To suggest otherwise is crazy.
He won't be in that office for long, the stewards of the game (the commissioner and owner) have to keep this going long after he is gone, and to suggest they did this to appease him is ludicrous.
The NBA does not allow kneeling during the anthem, it is part of their CBA. A NBA player tried it back in 1996, David Stern suspended him and fined him. That was the end of it. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/14/sports/pro-basketball-abdul-rauf-vows-not-to-back-down-from-nba.html As much as I think some NBA players would like to also take a knee, they know they can't and the CBA has actually helped them, or they would get orangeman's wrath as well. It appears the NFL, without the CBA behind it is attempting to do the same and will likely codify it next time around. The NBA's inability to protest or whatever hasn't ruined that league and this won't ruin the NFL, either. Nor are they doing it to please that idiot. They are doing it for money. They lost a lot of money, that's why they are doing it.
We disagree. What else is new?
-
A lot of great, well-reasoned and articulate posts on this topic.
Let me throw a wrench in the discussion...
Kneeling during the anthem as a sign of protest is now a penalty.
What are you thoughts about players kneeling after scoring? What if the player announces before a game that he is going to kneel after a score not in prayer but in protest?
Is it not a penalty because it doesn’t happen during the anthem.
If the answer is “yes”, isn’t that a private employer selectively choosing when to limit an employees First Amendment rights?
Curious as to how you guys feel about this distinction.
-
The Tebow corrollary
-
The Tebow corrollary
Tebow was a hero for his praying, Husain Abdullah of KC got penalized.
-
Without googling it, does anyone here know how long the players have been standing at attention for the national anthem?
Without googling, I'd guess less than 20 years. Certainly no more than 30. I know it was a move made because of advertising dollars from the US Armed Services. Recruiting numbers were down so they tried to make the most popular sport in the country a recruiting tool.
-
Outstanding takedown of NFL (and Spanky) by Steve Kerr.
https://www.si.com/nba/2018/05/24/steve-kerr-nfl-national-anthem-policy-idiotic
-
If the NFL went the other way, the orange idiot in the WH would still make it a pinata. To suggest otherwise is crazy.
He won't be in that office for long, the stewards of the game (the commissioner and owner) have to keep this going long after he is gone, and to suggest they did this to appease him is ludicrous.
The NBA does not allow kneeling during the anthem, it is part of their CBA. A NBA player tried it back in 1996, David Stern suspended him and fined him. That was the end of it. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/14/sports/pro-basketball-abdul-rauf-vows-not-to-back-down-from-nba.html As much as I think some NBA players would like to also take a knee, they know they can't and the CBA has actually helped them, or they would get orangeman's wrath as well. It appears the NFL, without the CBA behind it is attempting to do the same and will likely codify it next time around. The NBA's inability to protest or whatever hasn't ruined that league and this won't ruin the NFL, either. Nor are they doing it to please that idiot. They are doing it for money. They lost a lot of money, that's why they are doing it.
Not true. The NBA absolutely has the ability to protest. They wear warm-ups with messages on them, among other things.
-
Not true. The NBA absolutely has the ability to protest. They wear warm-ups with messages on them, among other things.
The Clippers protested loudly, publicly and pointedly ... and they affected real change.
-
If the answer is “yes”, isn’t that a private employer selectively choosing when to limit an employees First Amendment rights?
This is a sticky issue and not nearly as simplistic as the comments that employers should be able to make rules about what players do during work hours.
Most NFL stadiums were fully or partially funded by taxpayer money. That means the government paid for them and in many cases, still owns them. That makes them part of the public forum and owners cannot decree speech rules on a public location.
Then there is the point that these rules really have nothing to do with the location (stadium) as they are only being applied to a select tiny, tiny percentage of people at the location, So this may be a discriminatory rule because owners are picking and choosing who it applies to and who it doesn't.
Nevertheless, owners will proceed and there will eventually be a lawsuit. The players will win in court..
-
Civil rights groups protesting outside NFL offices:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/civil-rights-activists-protest-outside-league-office-on-friday/
NY Congressman going full on Godwin over Jets' position on protests:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/new-york-congressman-blasts-the-jets-over-anthem-stance/
Yep, these owners sure know what they're doing.
-
NY Congressman going full on Godwin over Jets' position on protests:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/new-york-congressman-blasts-the-jets-over-anthem-stance/
But wasn't the Nazi salute a forced showing of nationalism just like forcing people to stand for the anthem is forced nationalism?
Obviously there are much different meanings to the to gestures but supporting one version by deriding another is comical - not to mention the other obvious reasons it's tone deaf.
-
Civil rights groups protesting outside NFL offices:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/civil-rights-activists-protest-outside-league-office-on-friday/
NY Congressman going full on Godwin over Jets' position on protests:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/new-york-congressman-blasts-the-jets-over-anthem-stance/
Yep, these owners sure know what they're doing.
Most people know that King is a total whack-job. Nazi salutes? Really. What a douche.
But he does keep getting elected.
The NFL really stepped deep in it this time.
-
Civil rights groups protesting outside NFL offices:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/civil-rights-activists-protest-outside-league-office-on-friday/
NY Congressman going full on Godwin over Jets' position on protests:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/26/new-york-congressman-blasts-the-jets-over-anthem-stance/
Yep, these owners sure know what they're doing.
As usual, the dip$hits have their analogy exactly reversed. This is more the case:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/german-football-club-banned-failing-give-nazi-salute/
-
This is a sticky issue and not nearly as simplistic as the comments that employers should be able to make rules about what players do during work hours.
Most NFL stadiums were fully or partially funded by taxpayer money. That means the government paid for them and in many cases, still owns them. That makes them part of the public forum and owners cannot decree speech rules on a public location.
Then there is the point that these rules really have nothing to do with the location (stadium) as they are only being applied to a select tiny, tiny percentage of people at the location, So this may be a discriminatory rule because owners are picking and choosing who it applies to and who it doesn't.
Nevertheless, owners will proceed and there will eventually be a lawsuit. The players will win in court..
I'm pretty sure all of this is incorrect. Private employers have the right to limit the speech of their employees regardless of the forum. If they couldn't then employees couldn't be fired when they post dumb bigoted sh*t on social media. Again, not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
I don't think there's any free speech issue here. Its more a question of what is right or wrong.
-
I'm pretty sure all of this is incorrect. Private employers have the right to limit the speech of their employees regardless of the forum. If they couldn't then employees couldn't be fired when they post dumb bigoted sh*t on social media. Again, not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
I don't think there's any free speech issue here. Its more a question of what is right or wrong.
Agreed.
-
I'm pretty sure all of this is incorrect. Private employers have the right to limit the speech of their employees regardless of the forum. If they couldn't then employees couldn't be fired when they post dumb bigoted sh*t on social media. Again, not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
I don't think there's any free speech issue here. Its more a question of what is right or wrong.
I think it is a gray area. I had read an article a day or two ago and couldn't remember where I read it to post. I have found it in the meantime. Interesting article and the part about public fora, relating to the NFL, is about 3/4 of the way through the article.
Would be interested in your take on this, as well as 82.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-impact-of-the-nfls-anthem-rule-on-baseball/
On Wednesday, one of the top stories across the sports world was the National Football League’s institution of a new policy banning players from kneeling in protest during the national anthem.
From ESPN’s Kevin Seifert and Dan Graziano:
NFL owners have unanimously approved a new national anthem policy that requires players to stand if they are on the field during the performance but gives them the option to remain in the locker room if they prefer, it was announced Wednesday.
The policy subjects teams to a fine if a player or any other team personnel do not show respect for the anthem. That includes any attempt to sit or kneel, as dozens of players have done during the past two seasons to protest racial inequality and police brutality. Those teams also will have the option to fine any team personnel, including players, for the infraction.
A couple of notes here: the policy was unanimous among owners who voted; the San Francisco 49ers abstained from the vote. Also, this policy was evidently something of a compromise; the league was previously throwing around ideas like a 15-yard penalty for kneeling.
The previous policy required players to be on the field for the anthem but said only that they “should” stand. When then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling in 2016, the league had no rule it could use to prevent it. The movement drew increasing criticism from President Donald Trump, as well as many fans, who believed it was a sign of disrespect toward the flag and country.
Owners, however, had been divided on how to extricate the league from that criticism. Some owners, including the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the Houston Texans’ Bob McNair, wanted all players to stand. Others, such as the New York Jets’ Christopher Johnson, wanted to avoid any appearance of muzzling players.
Even the seemingly simple option of clearing the field prior to the anthem was rejected by some owners who thought it would be interpreted as a mass protest or at least a sign of disrespect.
But it wasn’t a compromise with the union; the NFLPA said it wasn’t even consulted.
So how does this impact Major League Baseball? More than you might think. There’s actually no rule on the national anthem in MLB right now — there’s not even a rule requiring that it be played at all — which makes baseball unique among the major North American sports. Both the NBA and WNBA require players to stand for the anthem. When asked by Seifert, an MLB spokesman said this:
While this is not a league rule, the playing of the national anthems of the United States and Canada remains an important tradition that has great meaning to our fans. The playing of ‘God Bless America’ at designated games is a club choice.
But the absence of a rule doesn’t mean this isn’t an issue. Orioles center fielder Adam Jones had told USA Today last year that he didn’t expect such a protest to occur — and then, two weeks later, A’s catcher Bruce Maxwell knelt during the national anthem before a game last year.
Maxwell’s decision to kneel came after President Donald Trump — speaking on Friday in Huntsville, Ala., where Maxwell grew up — made reference to NFL players not standing for the anthem as employees who, as he put it, should be fired by their teams. Maxwell, an African-American raised in a military family, joins Colin Kaepernick and other athletes in attempting to raise awareness about brutality and injustice at the hands of authorities by kneeling during the anthem.
Maxwell received relatively little pushback, but then, he was also the first MLB player to kneel during the anthem, at least in the 21st century. He also knelt for just two games, and said himself that his anthem protest wouldn’t continue this season.
So clearly the idea of anthem protests — and a policy banning them — is a controversial one, and the incidents which athletes are protesting continue to occur. It’s also one on which the MLBPA has thus far declined comment. If MLB wanted to create a Rule, like the NFL and NBA, requiring players to stand for the national anthem, could it?
Before I continue, please note: I am not saying the NFL is correct or incorrect. What I am saying, however, is that just about every non-lawyer in the twitterverse invoking the First Amendment on this issue — on both sides — is absolutely wrong.
Let’s start with the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note the first word in this amendment: Congress. The First Amendment, on its face, is a restriction on Congress only, and that’s for a reason: Congress makes the laws. (There are also federal regulations, which are also laws — or at least have the force of laws — but they’re also pursuant to Congressional grants of authority and limited by something called the non-delegation doctrine, so really they’re pursuant to Congress’s authority.) So basically all the First Amendment guarantees where freedom of speech is concerned is that the government* cannot pass a law which restricts the content of what you’re saying.
*The States have to follow the First Amendment because of something called incorporation, a full explanation of which would be both tedious and unnecessary. For our purposes, it’s enough to know that the Fourteenth Amendment says that the States have to adhere to the first ten amendments to the Constitution (called the “Bill of Rights“), and that includes that states must follow the First Amendment too.
Yes, that’s right — I said “content.” Because the federal government can restrict the time, place, and manner of that content. Here’s the classic example: you cannot shout “fire!” in a crowded movie theater. It’s also a terrible example, because you legally (under the First Amendment, anyway) can shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater.** That’s because the case that said you couldn’t, Schenck v. United States, was overruled 50 years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
**That said, it’s still not advisable to shout “fire!” in a crowded movie theater. You might not get arrested, but you will get kicked out of the theater, and you almost certainly will get sued.
A time, place, and manner restriction is the sort of thing that requires you to get a permit before a march, or a municipal ordinance saying that you can’t make excessive noise at 2:00 am. The city can’t pass a law saying that Nazis aren’t allowed to march, but it can pass a law saying no one can march on private property, or that no one can march at 2:00 am, or that you can’t march with bullhorns and fire trucks. That’s because, while the government is essentially categorically prohibited from restricting what you say, they can regulate how and when and where you say it, within boundaries.
Now you’re probably wondering why time, place, and manner restrictions matter here. As noted previously, the First Amendment is a restriction on governments, not private corporations. Because the NFL isn’t the government (yet), that would seem to suggest that the NFL is permitted to tell team employees whether they can protest while at work, righ
For another reason, however, that might not be the case.
There’s a wrinkle here and it concerns the location of the protests — specifically, in major-league sports stadiums, almost all of which are built with government money. Many of those stadiums are even still owned by governments. And that makes them public fora. For our purposes, a public forum is a place, like a sidewalk or a street or a public park, where the government has to allow expression of opinions. That also means that owners are limited by the First Amendment when promulgating rules restricting speech, because it’s a government venue they are regulating.
It’s also possible that the players themselves are not the only issue here. Owner rules can be struck down even if they violate the speech rights of non-parties to the suit. So let’s say that the NFL — or an NFL owner — interprets this Rule to apply to fans as well as players. That’s almost certainly unconstitutional and violative of the First Amendment, even though the NFL isn’t the government, because the enforcement is taking place in a government-sponsored venue.
***I am not going to differentiate here between types of public fora. If you’re interested in learning about that, read this.
So what if MLB enacted the NFL’s policy but made clear it applied only to players? Then it would be governed largely as a matter of labor law. Michael McCann, in a piece I highly recommend, found it was no sure thing that an NFL team could fine or discipline a player for kneeling during the anthem. As for MLB, a team would have an even more uphill battle. Here’s why:
That’s from the Major League Uniform Player’s Contract, and this is the exclusive list of reasons for which a team may terminate a player. That “good citizenship” includes protesting is an easy case to make in a courtroom. So a team can’t fire a player. How about fining or suspending a player?
This is probably the only provision in the CBA that gives MLB authority to discipline a player for kneeling during the national anthem. (In fact, the word “protest” appears nowhere in the CBA.) However, this provision doesn’t override federal or state law. As McCann notes,
For instance, a player could pursue remedies offered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is a federal agency that reviews charges of discrimination. Federal laws guarantee that employees cannot be subject to different types of discrimination as well as certain kinds of employer retaliation. If, for instance, an African American player could show that being fired for protesting the national anthem is associated to his race, he would have a plausible argument that he has been subject to race discrimination. Likewise, if other players supportive of the protests are fired as retaliation, those players might have suffered unlawful harassment. EEOC charges take time to play out, and are complicated in this context by the presence of a CBA. Still, a fired player might seek relief from the EEOC.
And state laws like this one, apply too:
Connecticut has enacted a statute titled, “Liability of employer for discipline or discharge of employee on account of employee’s exercise of certain constitutional rights.” This statute expresses that employers can’t discipline or fire employees on account of those employees exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.
So here are the takeaways. MLB isn’t a government, so it can’t directly infringe a player’s First Amendment rights. But a rule affecting players is still unconstitutional if it is applied to non-players because stadiums are public fora and such a rule would infringe on fans’ First Amendment rights. It probably can’t terminate players for protesting under the uniform contract, because courts consider protesting to be a form of citizenship and protesting racially-based police brutality is probably protected under race discrimination laws. And other discipline, while possibly legal under federal labor law, may be illegal under state laws like those in Connecticut.
As for the NFL rule, expect legal challenges. A lot of them.
-
Not true. The NBA absolutely has the ability to protest. They wear warm-ups with messages on them, among other things.
I was referencing the national anthem, thought that was clear when I stated it in the beginning and later said protest. If not clear, then let me make it clear. The NBA does not allow anything but standing for the national anthem in a dignified manner. If NBA players were taking knees during the national anthem, they would be under scrutiny as well. The CBA protects them and gives them an out to say they cannot.
-
Most people know that King is a total whack-job. Nazi salutes? Really. What a douche.
But he does keep getting elected.
The NFL really stepped deep in it this time.
There are whack jobs on both sides, that's life. And they keep getting elected. This may be shocking, but the other side thinks they aren't whack jobs. GOP loves King. Democrats love Maxine Waters. There are at least 200 other such examples.
Can we get out of this political crap now? Are you capable?
-
Do you have evidence to suggest they didn't do any research on this? Or evidence to show they have not been successful in many business endeavors in their professional lives, other than just saying you disagree?
I think the real question is how much the NFL's revenue increase is due to the business acumen of the people running the organization versus simply being in professional sports at this specific time. The increase in rights fees across the board in both professional and college sports, and the popularity of football overall, leads me to believe that a lot of the NFL's success is mostly due to simply being in the right place at the right time.
-
We disagree. What else is new?
Goodell hates him, and has for years. He would not want to give him a win.
The head of PR for the NFL is Joe Lockhart. If you know anything about him you would know he has no intentions of giving the Cheeto a win. They can't stand each other.
This is about money. They are data driven people and their data would lead them to their decision. They are in a bad spot, because no decision is good for them. It's a matter of what decision is less bad, not an envious spot.
-
There are whack jobs on both sides, that's life. And they keep getting elected. This may be shocking, but the other side thinks they aren't whack jobs. GOP loves King. Democrats love Maxine Waters. There are at least 200 other such examples.
Can we get out of this political crap now? Are you capable?
Agreed.
Goodell hates him, and has for years. He would not want to give him a win.
The head of PR for the NFL is Joe Lockhart. If you know anything about him you would know he has no intentions of giving the Cheeto a win. They can't stand each other.
This is about money. They are data driven people and their data would lead them to their decision. They are in a bad spot, because no decision is good for them. It's a matter of what decision is less bad, not an envious spot.
This is about money, unless it supports your argument to argue otherwise? If your argument about money were true, then what in the world does Joe Lockhart have to do with anything.
I think the real question is how much the NFL's revenue increase is due to the business acumen of the people running the organization versus simply being in professional sports at this specific time. The increase in rights fees across the board in both professional and college sports, and the popularity of football overall, leads me to believe that a lot of the NFL's success is mostly due to simply being in the right place at the right time.
It's hard to prove, but I really do believe that this is a valid point. There were a confluence of factors outside of the NFL (online betting, fantasy sports) that significantly increased fan interest, especially in games that they wouldn't have ever been interested in previously. The NFL may or may not always be able to rely on those demographics.
The game itself, and various other internal factors, have either stagnated or declined, depending on whose opinion you solicit. My biggest gripe, personally, is that the game has gotten significantly choppier due to penalties and replay review, and this isn't anywhere on the NFL's radar when it comes to advancing themselves - it will continue to get worse. There are other changes that have turned people off.
-
Goodell hates him, and has for years. He would not want to give him a win.
The head of PR for the NFL is Joe Lockhart. If you know anything about him you would know he has no intentions of giving the Cheeto a win. They can't stand each other.
This is about money. They are data driven people and their data would lead them to their decision. They are in a bad spot, because no decision is good for them. It's a matter of what decision is less bad, not an envious spot.
Of course it's about money. The "cheeto" is an extremely vindictive gentleman who has been rejected numerous times by the league and will use this issue to keep the league from getting max money by attacking it any way possible. The owners tried to placate him with this rule, and for a second they did. But cheetos, like cockroaches and chicos, are impossible to kill; he'll be back hammering them again when the players protest bigger and stronger than ever.
-
Of course it's about money. The "cheeto" is an extremely vindictive gentleman who has been rejected numerous times by the league and will use this issue to keep the league from getting max money by attacking it any way possible. The owners tried to placate him with this rule, and for a second they did. But cheetos, like cockroaches and chicos, are impossible to kill; he'll be back hammering them again when the players protest bigger and stronger than ever.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/dZylOH8HYZ6KOed8N6/giphy.gif)
-
Without googling, I'd guess less than 20 years. Certainly no more than 30. I know it was a move made because of advertising dollars from the US Armed Services. Recruiting numbers were down so they tried to make the most popular sport in the country a recruiting tool.
2009 and you are correct that it was solely due to US armed services money.
-
Outstanding takedown of NFL (and Spanky) by Steve Kerr.
https://www.si.com/nba/2018/05/24/steve-kerr-nfl-national-anthem-policy-idiotic
I'm sure you probably have had a professional &/or personal interaction or two with Steve Kerr during your career as a sports journalist. I spent four hours on a golf course with him during his last season with the Bulls, and I can tell you he is about as "stand-up" a guy as you will ever meet. Extremely humble, gracious, and level-headed.
-
I'm sure you probably have had a professional &/or personal interaction or two with Steve Kerr during your career as a sports journalist. I spent four hours on a golf course with him during his last season with the Bulls, and I can tell you he is about as "stand-up" a guy as you will ever meet. Extremely humble, gracious, and level-headed.
One of the best.
-
Locked because I'm tired of getting reported posts. I think we've tried this before. I don't think it worked out well.