NFL Protest Discussion

helimachoptor

Please use this for discussion on the anthem protests.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

Many of those who are most vocal about being 'insulted' by these protests are the same who throw around terms like 'snowflake' when it suits them. The hypocrisy is quite funny especially when you add in all the other 'disrespect' to the flag/anthem that occurs on a regular basis and they ignore.

Protests aren't meant to make people feel comfortable and I don't believe those who feign to be offended are who they wanted to reach with this protest anyway. Despite the attempts to muddy the waters this protest has brought huge awareness to the topic which is unlikely to be replicated if it took another form.

I agree with everything but this. The topic has gotten lost behind the discussion about the flag/anthem. And the new policy (a load of crap) will be debated ahead of it as well.

helimachoptor

Rumours some players will sit our the season until Kap/Eric Reid get signed.
A rumour Titans Rishard Matthews is one of those players

Joe Dog

helimachoptor wrote: »

Rumours some players will sit our the season until Kap/Eric Reid get signed.
A rumour Titans Rishard Matthews is one of those players

Won't make any difference.

Unfortunately for the players apart from a very tiny minority of star players NFL players are extremely dispensable and have almost no leverage to work with.

Podge_irl

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I agree with everything but this. The topic has gotten lost behind the discussion about the flag/anthem. And the new policy (a load of crap) will be debated ahead of it as well.

It is obfuscation and deliberate misunderstanding though. No matter what they did there would be ways found to either twist it against them or ignore it.

This is not exactly a unique situation and previous incarnations of it have followed a depressingly familiar route. I still have little doubt that history will look a hell of a lot more favourably on Kap than anyone else in this mess.

Joe Dog

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is obfuscation and deliberate misunderstanding though. No matter what they did there would be ways found to either twist it against them or ignore it.

This is not exactly a unique situation and previous incarnations of it have followed a depressingly familiar route. I still have little doubt that history will look a hell of a lot more favourably on Kap than anyone else in this mess.

You have no real entitlement to a right to protest about social issues while at work.I'm all for the players making a stand but they (or anyone else) have no right to do it during their jobs and that is something they need to accept and they could do a much better job of doing something about the issue if they just gave up on the in game protest and used their profile that the game gives them to arrange public protests outside of the NFL.

If someone in a normal job would probably be dismissed or not have your contract renewed for not doing what their employer told them to do at work regardless of whether you were right or not, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Fact is a very large proportion of fans do not want any protests, the owners don't want it and it takes away from the product because too much NFL talk in the last while has been about stuff other than football which cannot help the sport.People in general don't tend to like their recreation time being taken over by having to deal with serious issues during it.I certainly wouldn't like to have liked to listen to a debate on the 8th amendment as part of RTE's GAA coverage.

The issue has been handled dreadfully by the NFL and they should allow the players to protest if they want as they aren't doing any harm to anyone but the protesting the anthem allows people to not listen and claim the players are disrespectful to the anthem, do something less controversial (in the eyes of some people) and you can't close your eyes and ears and claim they are doing something disrespectful.

In reality people don't really have a right to free speech and free expression at work whether people want to accept that or not .

LuckyLloyd

This decision would honestly make me think about whether to engage with Fantasy Football next year. I probably don't want to be investing my time and money into a racist organisation. And, as an Irish person, I can ignore the NFL very very easily. I'd miss it, but it's getting harder and harder to square the treatment of players for the enrichment of old white owners with my entertainment.

It's very depressing all round.

KrustyUCC

helimachoptor wrote: »

Rumours some players will sit our the season until Kap/Eric Reid get signed.
A rumour Titans Rishard Matthews is one of those players

Good luck with that

They might have a chance of getting a select few to sit out a portion of the season

Getting 25% of the players is pie in the sky thinking

helimachoptor

yeah agree. Teams will move on quickly.

Matthews is a good receiver for the Titans, but he's hardly game breaker

KrustyUCC

You would need far more high profile players to sit out to get any traction at all

j8wk2feszrnpao

Podge_irl wrote: »

No matter what they did there would be ways found to either twist it against them or ignore it.

Maybe, but not to this extent; they turned possible supporters away.

The new directive is a load of crap IMO. They need to start cutting ties with political orgs like the military before focusing on the protest. But, one brings in $$$ and the other threatens $$$ loss.

Foxtrol

'Possible' supporters, as in the similar sort of 'possible' chance of me starting in the NFL this season. The same people who are screaming how they are offended by this are those who started shouting 'what about all lives matter?' during the black lives matter protests.

You either believe that there is police brutality and racial inequality or you don't. You don't suddenly change your mind and don't support it because someone kneels during an anthem. It is an excuse to hide your disagreement with it or try to shift the subject. It is cowardly but what people do when they are on the wrong side of an issue.

Podge_irl

Joe Dog wrote: »

You have no real entitlement to a right to protest about social issues while at work.I'm all for the players making a stand but they (or anyone else) have no right to do it during their jobs and that is something they need to accept and they could do a much better job of doing something about the issue if they just gave up on the in game protest and used their profile that the game gives them to arrange public protests outside of the NFL.

I would have an easier time accepting that argument if the NFL was not already so overtly political in embracing fake patriotism and militaristic traditions. They have an entire month dedicated to the military because it helps their marketing.

The idea of not bringing politics into sport died a long time ago - the organisations already brought it in. What is happening now is that the players are bringing in politics that the organisation doesn't like and are attempting to crush it.

Also, this idea of people using their profile to do things outside the game has been repeatedly raised. Many of the players already do that and will continue to do that. Nobody cares though because it is something that is easy to ignore. The entire point of this protest if that you have to force people to see you are protesting and hope that they question why. The idea that you should drop a protest because there is backlash is absurd - not a single "movement" in history started as being universally popular. Otherwise it wouldn't be needed.

Joe Dog

Podge_irl wrote: »

I would have an easier time accepting that argument if the NFL was not already so overtly political in embracing fake patriotism and militaristic traditions. They have an entire month dedicated to the military because it helps their marketing.

The idea of not bringing politics into sport died a long time ago - the organisations already brought it in. What is happening now is that the players are bringing in politics that the organisation doesn't like and are attempting to crush it.

Also, this idea of people using their profile to do things outside the game has been repeatedly raised. Many of the players already do that and will continue to do that. Nobody cares though because it is something that is easy to ignore. The entire point of this protest if that you have to force people to see you are protesting and hope that they question why. The idea that you should drop a protest because there is backlash is absurd - not a single "movement" in history started as being universally popular. Otherwise it wouldn't be needed.

You can't force people to see this though.Any time I watch PTI or Around the Horn on ESPN and something about the anthem protests comes up , I fast forward the programme until they get back to talking about actual sport, anytime I hear discussion in the pre game shows about these type of issues I fast forward past it.

The NFL is massively hypocritical I don't disagree with that at all.If I was in charge of the NFL I'd get rid of the the playing of the anthem and any promotion of the military at games.

Personally I wish we could go back to no politics in sport across the board and I suspect most people are the same.People who work hard all week don't want their recreation time being hijacked so important real world issues can be discussed and highlighted during it, they just want to watch the sport.

MrKingsley

Something ive not seen much coverage of is this https://www.reuters.com/article/us-football-nfl-players-coalition/nfl-players-agree-to-90-million-social-justice-pact-idUSKCN1IN2ZI

Thats an agreement between the players coalition and the league so obviously discussions are progressing

I think its a shame that the league and 31 owners wont allow it but on the other hand they are employees and have code of conducts to follow

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

The same people who are screaming how they are offended by this are those who started shouting 'what about all lives matter?' during the black lives matter protests.

And there you have the problem.
You can have the opinion that there is a problem with police brutality and racial inequality, and think that disrespecting the flag/anthem is the wrong approach and offends many people.
Calling people cowardly because they disagree with you on this? That's just a lazy argument.

Foxtrol wrote: »

'Possible' supporters, as in the similar sort of 'possible' chance of me starting in the NFL this season.

No. You have zero chance of starting in the NFL. There are people who have said they agree with the issues they are highlighting, but not the method. I saw an African-American lady, who said she has suffered racial abuse, but lost her son in Afghanistan and came home draped in the flag. She agrees with the issues they are trying to highlight, but not their means; and that doesn't make her a coward.

notobtuse

NFL TV viewership and game attendance has gone down over the last two years, and it’s primarily do to the player anthem protests.  Instead of the ban the NFL should have brought player agents in and told them if their clients continue with the protest (and support); to inform them in a few short years expect much lower contracts for you and the players.  Diminished viewership and game attendance results in less revenue.  And foolish people like Woody Johnson’s brother, who is in charge of the NY Jets while Woody is off playing ambassador, will only ensure the protests continue if he pays player fines.  Look for NFL ratings to go down even further this year.  I'm sick of protests and politics in football.  Protest all you want... on YOUR time!  It’s come to the point where if the Jets aren’t playing, I’m probably not watching.  I’ve acquired the Big Ten Network and SEC Network on cable and I now watch much more college football than pro.

Joe Dog

Weepsie wrote: »

They're paid to play football, not to be an advertisement for the American military.

If people are annoyed by it, it's working. They should keep doing it.

Annoying people is not to purpose of the protest.

It'll never work because America is a violent country by western standards and that isn't going to end anytime soon.

notobtuse

Weepsie wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

NFL TV viewership and game attendance has gone down over the last two years, and it’s primarily do to the player anthem protests.  Instead of the ban the NFL should have brought player agents in and told them if their clients continue with the protest (and support); to inform them in a few short years expect much lower contracts for you and the players.  Diminished viewership and game attendance results in less revenue.  And foolish people like Woody Johnson’s brother, who is in charge of the NY Jets while Woody is off playing ambassador, will only ensure the protests continue if he pays player fines.  Look for NFL ratings to go down even further this year.  I'm sick of protests and politics in football.  Protest all you want... on YOUR time!  It’s come to the point where if the Jets aren’t playing, I’m probably not watching.  I’ve acquired the Big Ten Network and SEC Network on cable and I now watch much more college football than pro.

Ticket prices have gone up every year since 2006 (probably longer) in a period when people have less and less disposable income and more and more ways to spend their time.

It's a lazy excuse

Polls show the recent decline of the NFL is primarily due to protests.

If it was ticket prices then attendance would be down and viewership up.  Both are down.

TOss Sweep

notobtuse wrote: »

NFL TV viewership and game attendance has gone down over the last two years, and it’s primarily do to the player anthem protests.  Instead of the ban the NFL should have brought player agents in and told them if their clients continue with the protest (and support); to inform them in a few short years expect much lower contracts for you and the players.

TV Viewership based on a research companies finding Nielsen and they can work the numbers all they want they are not a true reflection of TV Viewership in this modern era. Pool of just under 50k homes and using this 50k They work out averages on viewership. They don't account for online viewing or international viewing in the US.

But having said that what they wont tell is that ALL network television is suffering as per the Nielsen research

Through week seven, the NFL is down 5% overall from the same point last year. That's a troubling drop for the biggest ratings powerhouse on TV, but it seems less dire when you consider that the four major networks are down an average 8% in prime time.

NBC is down 4%, CBS is down 6%, ABC is down 11%, and Fox's prime time viewership dropped 20% through the first month of the new TV season, according to Nielsen data. And those numbers are down despite the inclusion of live sporting events, which usually bring in big audiences.

Now having said that 16 of the last 18 Top Events on TV in the US were NFL games. What does that tell you about numbers apparently dropping.

The NFL and its sponsors are not worried and most if not all of their sponsors have committed long term. Saying tv numbers are dropping is an easy go to when a Network or Media company does something wrong.

Long story short don't let the Protests killing viewership stories cloud your judgement.

TOss Sweep

notobtuse wrote: »

Polls show the recent decline of the NFL is primarily due to protests.

If it was ticket prices then attendance would be down and viewership up.  Both are down.

See my last post about TV viewership.

But one thing people fail to mention is stadiums are still full and tickets being sold out across the US both on Ticketmaster and after seller sites. The Protests have barely dented the following in the NFL. All these Polls they bring up I bet are filled out by those who dont watch the NFL anyways.

I have those people on my facebook feed all day long. "Oh I am not watching" No sh1t sherlock you never watched to begin with. Always the ones who never watch or are just casual watchers who have the most to say about not watching

notobtuse

NFL's three most important leading indicators are all pointing down.  Television ratings are down, game attendance is down and there has been a fall-off in favorable ratings.  It’s not all just some coincidence.  

One thing that might help… Just the other week a US Supreme Court ruling now lets states legalize sports gambling.  That will help sports.  But the NFL is demanding a cut of the betting, so again people will look at them as greedy bastids.

But I am happy I soon can legally bet on sports in my state.   But I will be watching Sportscenter for the scores and highlights, not watching the games.

TOss Sweep

notobtuse wrote: »

NFL's three most important leading indicators are all pointing down. Television ratings are down, game attendance is down and there has been a fall-off in favorable ratings. It’s not all just some coincidence.

I already talked about the TV ratings but have you got figures for the attendances being down at games due to Protests. I can tell you the Patriots sold every seat.

Can you show me a team that had a winning record that had a lot of empty seats in the season gone? There was 3 reports done and all of them included teams that "Used" to get high attendances but when you look at their records over the last few seasons their seasons have been over by the mid point.

The majority of the teams sold out or got close to capacity. Even the Browns only fell short on capacity on average by 7,000 empty seats across the season. The numbers are all here

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/attendance.htm

Just to give you a good guide point, Look at 2017 and then 2016 and notice all the teams with lower attendances are teams that finished with poor records or started the season with lower records. Like TV ratings easy for them to pick at them with tinted glasses.

So if you want to believe attendances are down due to protests that is fine but you would be wrong.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I'm sick of protests and politics in football.

So you are sick of players being forced to stand for an anthem and flag and support an army, and all the politics in that move? And you are sick of the politicians like Trump protesting when the players disengage from those politics?

LuckyLloyd

Weepsie wrote: »

NFL viewship was down between 2010 to 2012 (possibly 2009 too). it went up in 2013 and remained the same in 2014 and has been down every year since.

It's lazy and just a handy excuse to say it's the national anthem issue.

There are a multitude of issues. More people are streaming illegally than ever before. People are watching other sports, including college football. People are not interested in paying the increased costs. Live TV viewership is in general decline as people have so many other options. It's far more nuanced than some weird dissatisfaction with a protest.

There's also some level of revulsion at the CTE revelations, and the middle classes are turning away from the game in terms of allowing their kids to participate in it. The protests are a tiny part of the puzzle.

TOss Sweep

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's also some level of revulsion at the CTE revelations, and the middle classes are turning away from the game in terms of allowing their kids to participate in it. The protests are a tiny part of the puzzle.

Not many though. The school I work with we have seen maybe two kids drop off in the 2 years I have been working with them. I know other coaches have seen very little drop off also.

mikemac2

Baltimore fans shouting Ooooooo 's for their baseball team and then there is "home of the chiefs"

Oh but these are perfectly fine but the fans spit flames if a player takes a knee. I wouldn't call the fans respectful either ^^^

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I'm sick of protests and politics in football.

So you are sick of players being forced to stand for an anthem and flag and support an army, and all the politics in that move?  And you are sick of the politicians like Trump protesting when the players disengage from those politics?

The US military is not political.  They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.

TOss Sweep

notobtuse wrote: »

The US military is not political.  They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.

Talking about the Military is political no matter what they do for a living. They are a government run organization governed by Politics.

You also realize in this context the Military pay the NFL Millions to do Military event and advertising so this is 100% Political because otherwise the NFL probably wouldn't bother.

notobtuse

TOss Sweep wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

The US military is not political.  They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.

Talking about the Military is political no matter what they do for a living. They are a government run organization governed by Politics.

You also realize in this context the Military pay the NFL Millions to do Military event and advertising so this is 100% Political because otherwise the NFL probably wouldn't bother.

The military pay for advertising and do events for recruiting purposes.  With that logic erectile dysfunction is political.

TOss Sweep

notobtuse wrote: »

The military pay for advertising and do events for recruiting purposes.  With that logic erectile dysfunction is political.

Point went way over your head. Simple fact the Military are a body run by the US Government. Every thing they do is politically driven. Recruiting is politically driven. It falls under the category of Politics in football no matter how you want to swing this.

I have friends and family who are military and have every respect for them and have every respect for this country but the difference between me and you is the Patriotism clouding your judgement.

Hazys

notobtuse wrote: »

The military pay for advertising and do events for recruiting purposes.  With that logic erectile dysfunction is political.

Well if Cialis paid the NFL to make their players take their product and forced them to ehh stand to attention before the game otherwise they would be fined, then yes its the same thing.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

The US military is not political.  They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.

Well if respect for the US military is not political, not respecting the US military is not political either and the point still stands. It is simply wrong to single out the actions of Kaep and others as mixing politics and football when demanding that they visibly support the flag, anthem and military association is just as political...or apolitical.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

The US military is not political.  They are the ones that provide the freedoms we take for granted.

Well if respect for the US military is not political, not respecting the US military is not political either and the point still stands.  It is simply wrong to single out the actions of Kaep and others as mixing politics and football when demanding that they visibly support the flag, anthem and military association is just as political...or apolitical.

I consider the kneeling protests disrespectful to the nation.  If it continues I won’t be watching most of the games.  It’s that simple.  I really don’t care that the NFL made some rule.  The rules about kneeling during the National Anthem can be made by the player’s employer – their respective teams. Teams make their decisions based on NFL rules.  If a team won't follow NFL rules then they pay the price.  My team, the NY Jets, said the team will pay any fines leveled on players.  Not happy about it but it's their decision, and I may stop watching them also, or voice my opinion against them at every opportunity.  But the players are on the clock and need to follow employer’s rules.  It’s not a free speech issue.  Players can protest all they want, on their own time.  The biggest fear by the NFL, IMO, is people like me.  We stop watching and caring about pro football because of it, and that results in decreased revenues.   It’s simply my prerogative. 

And so what about the military and football games.  If you consider it to be political or it offends you, don’t watch.  That’s your prerogative, also.

Billy86

NFL owners admit that Kaepernick was blacklisted for peacefully protesting in accordance with the US flag code.

A number of NFL owners have been called to testify in the collusion case. On the Straight Aim podcast this week, Geragos said one owner had admitted under oath that he changed his mind because of Trump’s stance on the anthem protests.

“Maybe you can prove that [New England Patriots owner] Bob Kraft, for example, was scared of what the president might do, but for collusion you would need to show that that fear actually influenced the owners by clear and convincing evidence. So, that’s kind of a high burden,” says Straight Aim host Amy Dash.

“Well, unless you’ve got an owner under penalty of perjury testifying that he changed his mind after he was told what Trump said,” replies Geragos.

When Dash asks Geragos if he has such evidence, he replies: “Yeah. Well, bingo.” Geragos does not imply that Kraft is the owner in question.

Geragos’s statement appears to be backed up by a report in the Wall Street Journal. The newspaper says it received copies of some of the testimony from owners. “I was totally supportive of [the protests] until Trump made his statement,” said Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross in his deposition. In Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s statement he describes how Trump told him: “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

So there we have it, case closed. This was about nothing other than billionaires currying favour with the snowflake in the White House in order for both to shut down free speech that was done an entirely, literally unquestionably respectful way by a US citizen.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

And so what about the military and football games.  If you consider it to be political or it offends you, don’t watch.  That’s your prerogative, also.

It doesn't offend me at all. I'm not seeking to prevent players either respecting the anthem or protesting.

The on the employers clock doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's not really a work performance issue. If I decided that my employees say a prayer before work and one or two said no, I really doubt I could enforce it in most Western democracies.

As for disrespectful to the nation, I consider compelling people to stand for an anthem disrespectful to democracy and freedom of expression.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Billy86 wrote: »

So there we have it, case closed.

Not exactly. If the owners were influenced by Trumps statement, that's one thing, but you'd need to prove they then advised each another not to sign Kap (and that will be hard incredibly hard to prove unless they admit to some secret agreement they all signed up to).

We saw in Baltimore's case it was the backlash from fans that changed their minds, not necessary Trump or some shady owner agreement.

Ray Rice was frozen out, and maybe all 32 owners came to an agreement on that, but would it make for a successful collusion case?

Geragos is right to be bullish on this, but this has a long way to go yet.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

And so what about the military and football games.  If you consider it to be political or it offends you, don’t watch.  That’s your prerogative, also.

It doesn't offend me at all.  I'm not seeking to prevent players either respecting the anthem or protesting.

The on the employers clock doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.  It's not really a work performance issue.  If I decided that my employees say a prayer before work and one or two said no, I really doubt I could enforce it in most Western democracies.

As for disrespectful to the nation, I consider compelling people to stand for an anthem disrespectful to democracy and freedom of expression.

If they don't want to stand for the anthem they are allowed to stay in the locker room.  Just don't show disrespect during the anthem while on the job.  The owners are not asking them to say prayer.  And if they did have a prayer before the game similar accommodations would be made.  Just not make a disrespectful display of yourself during the anthem or other times of reverence.  I can make my employees wear a uniform and greet people coming into the establishment, and discharge them if they refuse.  Why is it any different than making a player stand during the anthem?

LuckyLloyd

Shambolic, the league is an absolute disgrace.

Billy86

notobtuse wrote: »

Just don't show disrespect during the anthem while on the job.

Which basically nobody has done. I have a vague memory of the odd player sitting on the bench during the anthem last year which would be classed as disrespectful (it's what Kaepernick did the first time too, the 49ers long snapper was ex-military and advised him to kneel in accordance with the US flag code, so Kaepernick did from that point on).

Why is it any different than making a player stand during the anthem?

You can't make your employees get down on their hands and knees and say a prayer at 12pm every day under the threat of fines or getting the sack.

Billy86

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not exactly. If the owners were influenced by Trumps statement, that's one thing, but you'd need to prove they then advised each another not to sign Kap (and that will be hard incredibly hard to prove unless they admit to some secret agreement they all signed up to).

We saw in Baltimore's case it was the backlash from fans that changed their minds, not necessary Trump or some shady owner agreement.

Ray Rice was frozen out, and maybe all 32 owners came to an agreement on that, but would it make for a successful collusion case?

Geragos is right to be bullish on this, but this has a long way to go yet.

Yeah apologies, I worded it poorly - especially using 'case closed' when I did not intend to refer to the legal case . What I meant was that any argument about "he just isn't good enough" is nonsense, and he was point blank refused jobs because of his peacefully protesting in accordance with the flag code (e.g. not even coming close to breaking any flag/anthem rules) with the US President getting involved in the matters of private businesses and their citizens on the matter.

eagle eye

Billy86 wrote: »

NFL owners admit that Kaepernick was blacklisted for peacefully protesting in accordance with the US flag code.



So there we have it, case closed. This was about nothing other than billionaires currying favour with the snowflake in the White House in order for both to shut down free speech that was done an entirely, literally unquestionably respectful way by a US citizen.

Lots of Americans disagree with you. Are you just going to dismiss those who have a problem with players kneeling during the anthem?



53% of those who voted in a poll over the last few days were in favour of the NFL's new rules on kneeling during the national anthem.



A different poll has 51% of Americans against kneeling during the national anthem.



These are high numbers against kneeling. How can you be fully supportive of something that is never going to achieve it's goal because it's causing controversy in and of itself.



To me the main reason that nobody wanted Kaepernick was because many players didn't want him in their locker room bas the are against kneeling during the anthem. He would divide any locker room he walked into. That is not good for any team.

TOss Sweep

53% of those who voted in a poll over the last few days were in favour of the NFL's new rules on kneeling during the national anthem.

A different poll has 51% of Americans against kneeling during the national anthem.

Do you have a link to these polls and what were their audience?

These are high numbers against kneeling. How can you be fully supportive of something that is never going to achieve it's

High numbers? 3 and 1% are hardly high numbers and heres the thing with Polls they are generally not a true reflection of the overall opinion. The fact it was so close you could say there is an even split.

Ask anyone is does analytics how they feel about such small margins and they will tear your high numbers apart.

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I can make my employees wear a uniform and greet people coming into the establishment, and discharge them if they refuse.  Why is it any different than making a player stand during the anthem?

The analogy with a uniform is invalid.

James McClean is entitled to decline to wear a poppy. He is entitled to refuse to stand and acknowledge the Union Jack and sing God Save the Queen. He can be criticised for either, but I don't think anyone is arguing that he must be forced to do either.

What he cannot do it refuse to wear the strip of his club.

Billy86

eagle eye wrote: »

Lots of Americans disagree with you. Are you just going to dismiss those who have a problem with players kneeling during the anthem?

So long as it is protected by the US flag code, the US constitution and by US laws, then yes.

53% of those who voted in a poll over the last few days were in favour of the NFL's new rules on kneeling during the national anthem.

A different poll has 51% of Americans against kneeling during the national anthem.

And other polls have the majority agreeing that it is appropriate.

It is a deeply partisan viewpoint, with those who vote Democrat saying it is appropriate and those who vote Republican say it isn't. The irony there is that so many Republicans love nothing more than to bang on about the constitution and first amendment rights, so for them this has nothing to do with kneeling or protesting. It is entirely about what he is protesting. Which is brilliantly ironic again, because what he and others have been protesting is based around inequality in the US based on skin colour.

If this were a white NFL player protesting for more gun rights, they would be all for it.

These are high numbers against kneeling. How can you be fully supportive of something that is never going to achieve it's goal because it's causing controversy in and of itself.

Because the US enshrines the right to protest in the first amendment and the manner in which Kaepernick was doing so was entirely in accordance with the US flag code; it's that simple. Yet the people who take issue with it are the ones who cannot stop jumping up and down about the first amendment and constitution in general.

If these Americans continued down the cult-like path they are on and decided they did not want black players in the league at all because Trump said so, by this logic black players should get kicked out of the league too.

To me the main reason that nobody wanted Kaepernick was because many players didn't want him in their locker room bas the are against kneeling during the anthem. He would divide any locker room he walked into. That is not good for any team.

I thought it was because he wasn't good enough to match even Branden Weeden or Brett Hundley? Either way, NFL owners have come out to say their stance on the matter is dictated by Trump - and that is why Kaepernick is not in the league.

If someone wants to see these protests banned, they are by default saying they disagree with and are standing against the US Constitution. Which is absolutely fine as the constitution is something that gets amended from time to time (this is the first amendment we are talking about after all). But they won't say that as it puts a lot of those same Republicans in a tricky spot next time there is a school shooting when many of them will be right back banging on relentlessly about how the US constitution needs to be respected and their rights treated as sacred.

As I said the whole thing stinks of wanting constitutional protections for themselves, but not for those pesky black lads protesting against inequality. This whole ordeal is going to be a bad look and a bit of a black eye for the NFL for many, many years from now.

Joe Dog

Where are the players union in all this.

If this is a serious issue and the players feel strongly about it then they should call a strike and stick it to the owners and finally get a resolution that they can be happy with.

The players are allowing themselves to be supposedly taken advantage of because the union appears to have no balls and if this is such a big issue then they need to be willing to make sacrifices for it even if that means losing years salary.

eagle eye

Joe Dog wrote: »

Where are the players union in all this.

If this is a serious issue and the players feel strongly about it then they should call a strike and stick it to the owners and finally get a resolution that they can be happy with.

The players are allowing themselves to be supposedly taken advantage of because the union appears to have no balls and if this is such a big issue then they need to be willing to make sacrifices for it even if that means losing years salary.

They criticised the move and said they weren't brought in to discuss the possibility of this happening.



The Union can't really take sides in this because they have members who are against kneeling.

eagle eye

Billy86 wrote: »

So long as it is protected by the US flag code, the US constitution and by US laws, then yes.

And other polls have the majority agreeing that it is appropriate.

If there is a huge amount against it, it doesn't have to be majority, then it's going to affect the NFL as a business so they are right to fine players to try and stop it happening.


The whole purpose of this is being forgotten about because all everybody is talking about is whether it's right to kneel or not.

Billy86 wrote: »

It is a deeply partisan viewpoint, with those who vote Democrat saying it is appropriate and those who vote Republican say it isn't. The irony there is that so many Republicans love nothing more than to bang on about the constitution and first amendment rights, so for them this has nothing to do with kneeling or protesting. It is entirely about what he is protesting. Which is brilliantly ironic again, because what he and others have been protesting is based around inequality in the US based on skin colour.

If this were a white NFL player protesting for more gun rights, they would be all for it.

So you are anti-Republican, this is all I'm taking from what you said there because it's so biased.

Billy86 wrote: »

Because the US enshrines the right to protest in the first amendment and the manner in which Kaepernick was doing so was entirely in accordance with the US flag code; it's that simple. Yet the people who take issue with it are the ones who cannot stop jumping up and down about the first amendment and constitution in general.

A lot of people who have worked in the army and the reserve forces are unhappy about this. Those people have every right to be unhappy about it. If this was happening over here I'd be very unhappy about it.

Billy86 wrote: »

If these Americans continued down the cult-like path they are on and decided they did not want black players in the league at all because Trump said so, by this logic black players should get kicked out of the league too.

Now you are getting silly.

Billy86 wrote: »

I thought it was because he wasn't good enough to match even Branden Weeden or Brett Hundley? Either way, NFL owners have come out to say their stance on the matter is dictated by Trump - and that is why Kaepernick is not in the league.

I never mentioned Weeden or Hundley at any time. I did state that imo he isn't a good QB but the way some people were talking he should be starting which I don't agree with. I don't think there are many places where he would be a good backup either.



Well Trump is the President of the United States of America so his word is important. I know you are anti-Republican so that probably sickens you.

Billy86 wrote: »

If someone wants to see these protests banned, they are by default saying they disagree with and are standing against the US Constitution. Which is absolutely fine as the constitution is something that gets amended from time to time (this is the first amendment we are talking about after all). But they won't say that as it puts a lot of those same Republicans in a tricky spot next time there is a school shooting when many of them will be right back banging on relentlessly about how the US constitution needs to be respected and their rights treated as sacred.

We are going down the political route here again. This is sport and business. Sport is supposed to be fun for people to watch and it's not with these protests going on.

Billy86 wrote: »

As I said the whole thing stinks of wanting constitutional protections for themselves, but not for those pesky black lads protesting against inequality. This whole ordeal is going to be a bad look and a bit of a black eye for the NFL for many, many years from now.

Take out of it what you will. I'd be of the opinion that in thirty or forty years people will read about it and say how foolish both sides were.

One side managed to annoy a lot of people by kneeling during the national anthem and the whole point they were trying to make was lost in the furore.

The other side, the NFL, could have eliminated the whole thing by just not having the national anthem played at games.

TOss Sweep

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Do you have a link to these polls and what were their audience?

High numbers? 3 and 1% are hardly high numbers and heres the thing with Polls they are generally not a true reflection of the overall opinion. The fact it was so close you could say there is an even split.

Ask anyone is does analytics how they feel about such small margins and they will tear your high numbers apart.

Hey Eagle Eye do you have a link to said polls?

TOss Sweep

This is the way I see it:

- Taking a knee in front of a flag is not disrespectful in any way.

- Your freedom of speech or protest is only protected if you work for a Government agency BUT not in the private sector and the NFL while morally wrong are doing nothing wrong legally

- This whole thing was blown up by Trump. Before he opened his dumb mouth only a handful of players were doing it. The weekend after he said something the majority of African Americans were taking a knee.

- The majority of those opposing the knee have no idea why the players are doing it and are only now objecting because of what Trump said. Most just hated Kap for what he was doing but because their own teams were not doing it they didn't care. Trump gets involved and boom atomic bomb dropped. Now everyone on both sides has an opinion and it has divided opinions.

- If all of these players were white Trump would not have opened his mouth and I bet you any amount of money the tables would be turned politically.

- This whole debate is Political no matter how anyone wants to swing it.

- This whole thing sums up Politics in this country and puts a glaring spotlight on the nonsense of both the Far Left and Far Right.

My own thought is while I disagree with the NFLs rules they are within their right to do what they are doing. They are in the private sector and anyone who works in the US knows you have very little rights in most states when it comes to working. Take MA considered a Liberal state. MA is a work at will state and there is very little protection for employees. You turn up do your job and get on with it. Anything else and they can fire you. There is some protection but it aint great. If I did what the NFL players were doing I could be sacked on the spot. Private sector as I mentioned above is not protected.

StringerBell

Strongly considering not watching this year, first time since the 90's that would be. I just can't get my head around this organization and how **** they are basically.

Remember when the anthem was done before the players even came out of the locker room?

I know Trump would have you believe it's always been the case that the teams had to be out for the athem but this only actually came about in 2009. As is often the case Trump doesn't have a good working knowledge of, well, anything other than how to make reality TV

The over the top military love is bad enough but my stomach is being turned thinking about doing anything to support the league this year. I'll miss it for sure, I just don't think it's an organization I can support.