Goodell’s Extension: Back to the Mail Room?

[Van Everyman]

Increasing scuttlebutt that Goodell’s contract extension may be in danger. SoSH favorite Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter with a piece in ESPN describing a call organized by Jerry Jones with 16 owners discussing his fate. They don’t go so far as to say Goodell may get canned but there are def. some choice quotes:

"You don't get to have this many messes over the years like Roger has had and survive it," one owner said during the call.

"We just don't have enough problem solvers," another NFL owner said. "We gotta get it right or we're just going to let it burn. Last time I felt like this was before the 1993 CBA settlement. That was just depressing, and Paul Tagliabue and Gene [Upshaw] stepped up and saved it in a spectacular way. We don't have that feeling right now."

"That was our recurring theme, that there's no leadership," said another executive familiar with Thursday's conference call. "Everyone [in the league office] is trying to win the latest news cycle, and there's no long-term vision. It's just, 'How can we minimize the bad headlines, maximize the revenue and move on to the next day?' And there's an increasing frustration to that approach."

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21206250/dallas-cowboys-jerry-jones-owners-trying-halt-roger-goodell-proposed-contract-extension

Will be interesting to see if this story gains momentum or peters out. From my perspective, the league has actually done a slightly better job of late dealing with some of the crises—likely the influence of Joe Lockhart. There was a fascinating passage in the Don Van Natta/Seth Wickersham ESPN piece that described how Goodell had endorsed a plan that would actually lobby on Capitol Hill for the players’ social issues in return for players agreeing to stand for the anthem – and the players have been legitimately impressed with his attentiveness to their concerns. After the PR dumpster fire the league has been for the last two or three years, it doesn’t seem like a coincidence that as soon as Goodell seems to be finding some common ground with players that some owners would be making noises about replacing him.

 

[jose melendez]

This is about him not ordering the players to shut up. They defended him to the end before. If he's fired it will be for the one thing he's done right.

 

[mauidano]

This is about him not ordering the players to shut up. They defended him to the end before. If he's fired it will be for the one thing he's done right.

So theoretically they have chosen the pressure of the POTUS instead of unifying with their respective teams, the ones who make them the money.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I was talking about this to my wife today. The NFL has to figure out a way to thread a tiny needle here. The game is fucked without the players, obviously. At the same time it seems like a not immaterial number of fans are actually bothered by the anthem thing to the point where they are willing to not watch. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am pretty sure that Roger Goodell doesn't have the first fucking clue as to how to find it.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I think the league's only choice is to just keep working with the players on their causes, work with the players to hear them, ignore the noise from the President and elsewhere, and just let it slowly blow over. It is hard to see any other approach working. Every time they rip the band aid off, they have to go back to square one. If in the short term they lose Papa John's or whatever they just have to stay the course. Eventually, the players will fear for their paychecks too. Anything else and it degenerates, is my guess.

 

[Van Everyman]

FWIW, here is the passage about the “action plan” that was presented to Goodell:

League executives tried to show they understood the players' concerns. Several league staff members presented a three-pronged action plan: expand the My Cause, My Cleats initiative; help convene more meetings with lawmakers to ramp up lobbying for players' causes on Capitol Hill and, through the clubs, in statehouses across the country; and use the NFL's platform to promote it all. The league had scrapped a staff idea to extend an olive branch to Kaepernick -- who in October filed a collusion claim against the owners -- by inviting him to visit the league headquarters.

The action plan had met harsh criticism when it was first introduced inside the league office the Thursday before the owners' meetings. Anna Isaacson, the NFL's vice president of social responsibility, chief marketing officer Dawn Hudson and others had presented the plan to Goodell and top executives, including public relations chief Joe Lockhart, chief operating officer Tod Leiweke, chief media and business officer Brian Rolapp and general counsel Jeff Pash. Isaacson characterized the plan as a chance to seize the social moment and make an impact beyond football. There was also a request for a huge marketing budget. The league's business executives ripped it, accusing Isaacson -- who had joined the NFL after working in merchandising and community relations for baseball's Brooklyn Cyclones -- and Hudson of losing sight of the goal, which was to persuade all the players to stand for the anthem. The plan was "too political," they said, and would likely invite further attacks by Trump. "How could you possibly present this to owners?" one executive asked. As the proposal was discussed, Goodell remained mostly quiet but seethed because he felt the plan was uninspired.

Neither Goodell nor the business executives liked the action plan at that moment, but what worried the business executives was that Goodell was not focused on what they deemed the priority: the very real financial problems facing the NFL. Fact was, they were right. Goodell believed that all players should stand, but he and Vincent had been working with them for more than a year on their concerns, calling them individually and holding meetings, and the commissioner deeply cared about their cause.

Now, in the meeting with players, Goodell, despite his initial reservations about Isaacson's plan, supported it "full bore," an owner says. Not only that, the commissioner moved around the room to guide the conversation about its pluses. Many times he told the owners they weren't hearing the players' core arguments. "We're all in this together," Goodell told them. The players and the union executives, who have been at odds with Goodell for years, were impressed. "It was the proudest I've ever been in the NFL," one owner said later. This was Goodell leading in a manner they'd rarely seen: He was not playing a zero-sum game, he was not risk-averse and his compassion clearly lay with the players in the face of severe pressure from hard-line owners and business executives. "He did a great job because he didn't say much," Blank says. "I don't mean that in a negative way."

http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/21170410/gaffes-tv-ratings-concerns-dominated-nfl-players-forged-anthem-peace-league-meetings

 

[Stitch01]

Pretty much. Goodell seemed to making progress until Jones and the rest of the Captain America wannabes started stomping their feet that the uppity players weren't getting in line fast enough. Threading the needle here involves getting player buy in that the league is hearing their concerns and it's not going to happen overnight. Little Danny Snyder crying about it...not helping.

 

[Jungleland]

Like many here I would've been overjoyed, at least with schadenfreude, if Roger was canned a year ago. But I'm gonna be sick if it's being a decent person on the anthem front that does him in.

 

[dcmissle]

The blurbed criticisms in the first post are high minded and pretty sophisticated. But in the main they are not animating the owners in opposition. Goodell has done the things he has done because the owners wanted him to do them; lol at any notion that the owners have silently and powerlessly endured his many missteps.

If he goes it will be because, like a worn dish rag that has cleaned up too many messes, he will have outlived his usefulness. And because, like adolescent boys, they chafe because he cannot make the several big problems go away.

We will know that enlightenment has dawned when they cease treating their so-called business partners, the players, as enemies. That has been going on for many years, and if it ever bothered the owners, Goodell would have been gone long before now.

The NFL has several difficult challenges that threaten the long term prosperity of the league. It is not close to addressing them in a serious sustainable way.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I like the dish rag metaphor.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Jerry needs a lot of votes to fire the Commish, but what happens if there aren't enough votes to get Roger another contact and the current one expires?

 

[Van Everyman]

 

[VORP Speed]

Wrong thread

 

[Rough Carrigan]

This is about him not ordering the players to shut up. They defended him to the end before. If he's fired it will be for the one thing he's done right.

I know that for a lot of people with POTUS on one side and some nebulous combination of black lives matter/inequality on the other it's almost impossible to look at things without a certain emotion. But for basically everyone at any job, if you choose to make a political statement on company time that alienates part of your company's audience or client base you *will* be punished. There were a whole constellation of different ways to handle it that didn't amount to alienating a significant part of your audience in this way.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Do we really believe Jerry Jones is making a stand about *this* and not about how he thinks Goodell has "mistreated" his team?

 

[mauidano]

I know that for a lot of people with POTUS on one side and some nebulous combination of black lives matter/inequality on the other it's almost impossible to look at things without a certain emotion. But for basically everyone at any job, if you choose to make a political statement on company time that alienates part of your company's audience or client base you *will* be punished. There were a whole constellation of different ways to handle it that didn't amount to alienating a significant part of your audience in this way.

Good argument. "Alienating" and forcing your "employees" to do something that goes against their moral beliefs is not helping the situation, right or wrong. The POTUS took a situation that would have eventually simmered down and threw gasoline on it for his OWN benefit. The whole point is not twisted so far that it's never coming back to anything sensible.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Analogies to employees in any other industry (other than professional sports and maybe entertainment) are pointless. These guys are (a) in the top .0001% (or whatever) in the world at what they do, they are not replaceable like almost all of us are in whatever it is that we do, and (b) they literally are the product that the NFL is selling. This is why the options for the owners are limited. As much as they want to tell the players to shut up and play, Bob McNair found out how few options he actually has if the players decide to do something like this. What are his options now? Suspend and/or fine the entire team? Forfeit games? What might happen in any other situation with "basically anyone at any job" doesn't matter.

 

[InstaFace]

I was talking about this to my wife today. The NFL has to figure out a way to thread a tiny needle here. The game is fucked without the players, obviously. At the same time it seems like a not immaterial number of fans are actually bothered by the anthem thing to the point where they are willing to not watch. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am pretty sure that Roger Goodell doesn't have the first fucking clue as to how to find it.

Are we sure most of those aren't just hugely-disproportionately vocal about it? And can we be sure they won't come back? What are they going to do next fall, go hiking every sunday? Following sports is an addiction, as every longtime member of this site can attest, and for good reason.

 

[dcdrew10]

As much as I hate to admit this, Goodell is astutely playing the long game with the Anthem protests. The fans feelings aside, the issue of institutionalized racism in America is obviously important to the players. The more Trump and the owners have pushed on the issue, the more players have pushed back. This had mostly gone away until Trump, Jones, and McNair made a huge deal about it. The CBA negotiations are going to be contentious as fuck. The players are already out for blood because they "lost" the last CBA and feel like they need to "win" the next one. The players are also not a fan of Goodell and his Ginger Hammer act when it comes to discipline. Throw in the on going discussions of use of pain killers and marijuana and you are going to have a CBA negotiations that are even more contentious. Does anyone think Goodell/the league are going to give up discipline power without getting the first born of all NFL Players in perpetuity? Or modify marijuana rules to allow therapeutic exemptions without having more strict testing for other drugs? The odds of a strike/lockout seem really high. However, if Goodell can get the Anthem/social justice issues settled in a way that makes the players happy he is:

1. Eliminating a potentially huge sticking point in the negotiations
   
2. Taking some of the moral high ground away from the players
3. Building some good faith with the players'

And biggest of all, if he "solves" the kneeling issue he wins no matter what way you looked at it. To the fans who hate the SJWs for kneeling, he got them to stand. For the players and people who support kneeling, he addressed their concerns adequately enough to get them to stand. For the owners, he got the focus back on the football and kept the money flowing. For the players, he stood up to the owners. It's pretty smart.

The flag humpers are doing their best to screw this up, because it will only get more players to kneel if they try to force them to stand. The more Jones, McNair, and others fight the players the more they drag it out, the better for the players and the more entrenched they become. I wonder in Jones has backed himself into a corner on this and the only way he has to come out not looking like a total loser is to mess with Goodell's contract. There's less than three years until the CBA expires. Forcing Goodell out could actually hurt the owners.

 

[Stitch01]

Jones injecting himself in the Goodell contract negotiations to save face was for sure part of the subtext of the ESPN article

 

[dcmissle]

Goodell has handled the anthem stuff well. Virtually everything else that’s high profile — player safety issues, player and team discipline, the LA situation — he’s handled abysmally. So it would be just like them to make the anthem the reason for sending him packing. Probably because he did not squash Kap at the beginning.

Jones is chafing over that, which is causing grief in Texas, and getting run through the discipline mill for the second time, which is jeopardizing his season with Elliott.

All 32 suck. They deserve the guy they have.

 

[BaseballJones]

It doesn't seem like a difficult solution, assuming (big assumption) that people can be reasonable.

1. The NFL needs - NEEDS - to hear the concerns the players have. They're legitimate concerns about society and race, and the NFL has an enormous platform to try to affect change. They've shown a willingness to go there in terms of breast cancer awareness, domestic violence, etc. The NFL needs to make it clear that they hear the NFL players, they support them in the large picture concerns of racial inequality and injustice, and want to work to affect societal change. Some sort of NFL-sponsored campaign could be relatively easy to work out. And it might actually help impact society! -gasp-

2. Every workplace has rules, and no, you're not effectively a slave (as some folks have implied) because your workplace has rules you are expected to follow (or consequences result if you don't). These guys work in an industry where they get to be obscenely rich and famous and that's not really slavery by any definition of the word. The players need to understand that every workplace has rules, and the NFL can insist - if it so chooses - that the anthem is important to this industry and to the success of the industry, and because it is, all players and coaches will be expected to stand for the anthem or be penalized.

3. The players should be able to respect - if nothing else - the business side of the NFL losing money due to the anthem issue. If the NFL loses money, the players will lose money in the end. They HAVE to know that. And the NFL should be able to help players develop another platform for speaking out against societal issues. Not just that, but come alongside the players and say, we are with you on that. One of the real problems is that the anthem issue has become divorced from Kaepernick's original concerns, which are real and totally worth having a national conversation about. Kudos to him for using his platform to send a message. It's too bad it's gotten lost in what the anthem protests, and the subsequent criticism of them, have become. When's the last time, for example, we talked about police brutality against minorities? Yet that's what CK was really addressing originally. Not that the national conversation needs to be limited to that, but we've blown by that and are totally on other things.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Please with the comparisons to other workplaces that have rules. It's apples and hand grenades, but at any rate does your employer make you stand up and put your hand on your heart and play the anthem before you sit down at your workstation to do whatever it is you do?

 

[BaseballJones]

Please with the comparisons to other workplaces that have rules. It's apples and hand grenades, but at any rate does your employer make you stand up and put your hand on your heart and play the anthem before you sit down at your workstation to do whatever it is you do?

No, but there are other rules that apply to me from my work that you might find equally appalling. I'm choosing to work in this environment anyway and live with those rules that I don't like and find, frankly, restrictive on my personal freedom.

I don't know why the comparison isn't legitimate. Especially if it's true (it may not be, but if it is) that the NFL is losing money because it's audience is by and large against these anthem protests.

Back to my actual point - I don't think it should be that hard for the NFL to work well with the players on this.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

No, but there are other rules that apply to me from my work that you might find equally appalling. I'm choosing to work in this environment anyway and live with those rules that I don't like and find, frankly, restrictive on my personal freedom.

I don't know why the comparison isn't legitimate. Especially if it's true (it may not be, but if it is) that the NFL is losing money because it's audience is by and large against these anthem protests.

Back to my actual point - I don't think it should be that hard for the NFL to work well with the players on this.

I made this point upthread:

Analogies to employees in any other industry (other than professional sports and maybe entertainment) are pointless. These guys are (a) in the top .0001% (or whatever) in the world at what they do, they are not replaceable like almost all of us are in whatever it is that we do, and (b) they literally are the product that the NFL is selling. This is why the options for the owners are limited. As much as they want to tell the players to shut up and play, Bob McNair found out how few options he actually has if the players decide to do something like this. What are his options now? Suspend and/or fine the entire team? Forfeit games? What might happen in any other situation with "basically anyone at any job" doesn't matter.

I am actually not sure that the owners can force the players to stand since the current rules don't make it compulsory (just suggested) and a change in that rule might have to be collectively bargained, but it doesn't really matter. Even if they could unilaterally change the rule to make standing compulsory, what would the owners do if the players still knelt?

 

[InstaFace]

Please with the comparisons to other workplaces that have rules. It's apples and hand grenades, but at any rate does your employer make you stand up and put your hand on your heart and play the anthem before you sit down at your workstation to do whatever it is you do?

Although the Supreme Court ruled that they cannot compel students who object to do so, I believe a great many school systems still have students and teachers stand and recite the pledge of allegiance at the start of the school day. You may recall a recent decision about this quite locally.

And lots of teachers are great, but very few of them are in the top 0.0001% of their profession. And there's a great many of them, overall. And their employer is one which generally needs to be more careful than private employers in the restrictions they impose on speech in the workplace.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Well, again, I'm not saying that the owners can't legally force them to stand, maybe they can. I'm saying that comparing the leverage that the players collectively have on this issue to me and the other drones in the cubicle farm I am sitting in is not an apt comparison.

It's one thing when it's Colin Kaepernick by himself, its quite another when it is 80% of the entire team like we saw in Seattle yesterday.

 

[BaseballJones]

I made this point upthread:



I am actually not sure that the owners can force the players to stand since the current rules don't make it compulsory (just suggested) and a change in that rule might have to be collectively bargained, but it doesn't really matter. Even if they could unilaterally change the rule to make standing compulsory, what would the owners do if the players still knelt?

I imagine they'd fine them. If it's true that the NFL is losing money by these players' actions during the anthem, then yes they would not be in the wrong to fine them for such behavior, if it was against the rules.

Now, I agree with your point that if there's no rule regarding behavior during the anthem, that it might need to be collectively bargained. But I don't know about that. Not every rule that the NFL has has been part of CBA negotiations, has it? (that's not a smart-ass remark, that's a genuine question)

 

[Ralphwiggum]

So, they fine the kneeling players who pay the fine and keep kneeling, and this solves the NFL's problem how? Ultimately the only way to ensure that there will be no kneeling players in any given week is to cut or suspend anyone who kneels. The owners won't do that, which is why the comparison to what would happen in your workplace or mine is stupid.

 

[Reverend]

No, but there are other rules that apply to me from my work that you might find equally appalling. I'm choosing to work in this environment anyway and live with those rules that I don't like and find, frankly, restrictive on my personal freedom.

I don't know why the comparison isn't legitimate. Especially if it's true (it may not be, but if it is) that the NFL is losing money because it's audience is by and large against these anthem protests.

Back to my actual point - I don't think it should be that hard for the NFL to work well with the players on this.

A profession of conscience is different.

 

[SumnerH]

Well, again, I'm not saying that the owners can't legally force them to stand, maybe they can. I'm saying that comparing the leverage that the players collectively have on this issue to me and the other drones in the cubicle farm I am sitting in is not an apt comparison.

It's one thing when it's Colin Kaepernick by himself, its quite another when it is 80% of the entire team like we saw in Seattle yesterday.

Exactly, it's about the business case. Yeah, ideally the NFL would like the players to shut up and stand for the anthem. If that's not on the table, though, they can either ignore the protest or fine the players and risk a bigger firestorm or walkoffs. I suspect the latter is likely to damage profits more than the former (which would almost certainly blow over in a few months if the owners stopped pressing things).

 

[tims4wins]

What is it, exactly, that the players want the NFL to do about racial (and other social) injustice in America? More things like My Cause, My Cleats? That's where I am a bit lost on this. I agree that racial injustice is an issue. I agree that the players, as very public figures, have the right, if not a civic duty, to bring notice to social issues. But how is the NFL supposed to help solve one of America's longest, most complicated, most divisive issues? And also, possibly more importantly, why is the NFL supposed to help? The can of worms opened with things like pink October, and camo November. The NFL is a sports league, if it had stuck to that and not marketing the pink and the camo and everything else it might not have this issue today. These are all - of course - good, important causes, please don't get me wrong. It's just not the place of the league, IMO, to be involved with this stuff.

 

[BaseballJones]

So, they fine the kneeling players who pay the fine and keep kneeling, and this solves the NFL's problem how? Ultimately the only way to ensure that there will be no kneeling players in any given week is to cut or suspend anyone who kneels. The owners won't do that, which is why the comparison to what would happen in your workplace or mine is stupid.

You fine them a lot of money, and then at least the owners are making up some of the lost revenue, while the players pay a stiff price for their behavior. I don't think it would be too long before the players feel it in the wallet enough so that most of them stop.

The reason I made the comparison is not because it would be necessarily clean and easy to implement it, but just to address the issue that some people apparently think it's akin to slavery for their employer to make them do something they don't want to do (and, conversely, to restrict their freedom of expression). Because EVERY employer has SOME rules that employees have to live by. Do the players think that if they worked for their local Chili's that they'd be free from such oppressive rules? That's all I'm trying to say about that.

I mean, to your point, you could say the same thing about ANY rule the NFL wanted to implement. What if the players all decided the hell with the NFL rule about not wearing personalized eye black with messages on it, or other such uniform violations? What would the NFL do then? Well....they'd just fine them again and again and again, I guess.

I think that if the players are reasonable people (that was my premise), and the NFL is actually HEARING them and working WITH them to address their areas of real concern, then as reasonable people, they'd agree to not protest the anthem.

But who knows.

A profession of conscience is different.

I don't know what you mean. Do they feel about the anthem like conscientious objectors did about the draft? That is, as a matter of principle, they cannot ever stand for the anthem under any circumstances? Or is it that this is just their preferred means of protest? I think it's probably the latter, since before this year, they were standing for the anthem. But I don't know.

Exactly, it's about the business case. Yeah, ideally the NFL would like the players to shut up and stand for the anthem. If that's not on the table, though, they can either ignore the protest or fine the players and risk a bigger firestorm or walkoffs. I suspect the latter is likely to damage profits more than the former (which would almost certainly blow over in a few months if the owners stopped pressing things).

I think you might be right, which is why I said that the owners could - IF THEY CHOSE TO - implement some sort of rule regarding standing for the anthem. Who knows if they would choose to, and I certainly wasn't making a statement on whether they SHOULD. Personally, I don't have a problem with them protesting during the anthem, and the NFL isn't losing money from ME over this. But.....for lots of NFL fans, this is a big, big deal apparently.

 

[Super Nomario]

3. The players should be able to respect - if nothing else - the business side of the NFL losing money due to the anthem issue. If the NFL loses money, the players will lose money in the end. They HAVE to know that. And the NFL should be able to help players develop another platform for speaking out against societal issues.

I think you're missing two things:
1) The strong reaction to the anthem protest - positive or negative - is part of why it has caught on as a form of protest. Ben Watson wrote a book on racial injustice, but no one cares. People care about the anthem protest, which is part of what gives it reach and meaning.
2) Every protest form in the history of civil rights has been hated - or ineffective. If the players stop kneeling at the anthem and find a new vehicle for protests, it will either be hated or ineffective. People like to be able to ignore these kinds of problems; if they can ignore protests, the protests aren't doing much, and if they can't, they're going to be resentful.

Not just that, but come alongside the players and say, we are with you on that. One of the real problems is that the anthem issue has become divorced from Kaepernick's original concerns, which are real and totally worth having a national conversation about. Kudos to him for using his platform to send a message. It's too bad it's gotten lost in what the anthem protests, and the subsequent criticism of them, have become. When's the last time, for example, we talked about police brutality against minorities? Yet that's what CK was really addressing originally. Not that the national conversation needs to be limited to that, but we've blown by that and are totally on other things.

I think we see some of that in the steps that Kaepernick and Malcolm Jenkins and Anquan Boldin have taken. First we start with the outrage and the protest, and then it's up to leaders to channel that outrage into whatever the constructive actions need to be. It's not clear yet whether that step will be enduring or effective.

What is it, exactly, that the players want the NFL to do about racial (and other social) injustice in America? More things like My Cause, My Cleats? That's where I am a bit lost on this. I agree that racial injustice is an issue. I agree that the players, as very public figures, have the right, if not a civic duty, to bring notice to social issues. But how is the NFL supposed to help solve one of America's longest, most complicated, most divisive issues? And also, possibly more importantly, why is the NFL supposed to help? The can of worms opened with things like pink October, and camo November. The NFL is a sports league, if it had stuck to that and not marketing the pink and the camo and everything else it might not have this issue today. These are all - of course - good, important causes, please don't get me wrong. It's just not the place of the league, IMO, to be involved with this stuff.

Where this is dangerous for the NFL is that I don't think the players need or even necessarily want the league involved here. Kaepernick wasn't protesting the NFL. The Texans yesterday are the only one of the protests that seems like it's related to something in the league's control that they want stopped or changed. For the most part, what the players want are things outside the league's control. The NFL wants to get involved because they want to get the players to stop kneeling.

 

[Reverend]

What is it, exactly, that the players want the NFL to do about racial (and other social) injustice in America? More things like My Cause, My Cleats? That's where I am a bit lost on this. I agree that racial injustice is an issue. I agree that the players, as very public figures, have the right, if not a civic duty, to bring notice to social issues. But how is the NFL supposed to help solve one of America's longest, most complicated, most divisive issues? And also, possibly more importantly, why is the NFL supposed to help? The can of worms opened with things like pink October, and camo November. The NFL is a sports league, if it had stuck to that and not marketing the pink and the camo and everything else it might not have this issue today. These are all - of course - good, important causes, please don't get me wrong. It's just not the place of the league, IMO, to be involved with this stuff.

For starters, the players seem to want to be able to express themselves.

What’s incredible is how little the players are asking for. And people are still irate over it.

Which has sorta becomes part of the point itself.

 

[Reverend]

I don’t know what you mean. Do they feel about the anthem like conscientious objectors did about the draft? That is, as a matter of principle, they cannot ever stand for the anthem under any circumstances? Or is it that this is just their preferred means of protest? I think it's probably the latter, since before this year, they were standing for the anthem. But I don't know.

I am inclined to let them make their own determinations as free men.

This is literally foundations of western civilization stuff. It’s also worth noting that these principles were initially developed in considering forced religiigoous confessions of faith. But forcing such is... stupid. Even if it wasn’t deeply offensive to humanity.

Is this that? As per above, I leave it to these men to determine for themselves. The very fact that bothers people underscores for me the importance of their actions.

 

[tims4wins]

Where this is dangerous for the NFL is that I don't think the players need or even necessarily want the league involved here. Kaepernick wasn't protesting the NFL. The Texans yesterday are the only one of the protests that seems like it's related to something in the league's control that they want stopped or changed. For the most part, what the players want are things outside the league's control. The NFL wants to get involved because they want to get the players to stop kneeling.

Good point about the players not wanting the NFL involved. I guess the NFL is involved because they don't want the protests. Tricky situation.

For starters, the players seem to want to be able to express themselves.

What’s incredible is how little the players are asking for. And people are still irate over it.

Which has sorta becomes part of the point itself.

Right, but as SN basically said, what the players are asking for is, in a way, something the NFL can't afford to give them - if the protests are hurting business, they can't turn a blind eye.

Of all the things to not watch football over, I still find it hard to believe that the anthem protests have the biggest effect. Surreal.

 

[swiftaw]

I wonder what would happen if the NFL just decided not to play the anthem before games. Would more fans be upset with no anthem or a protested anthem?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Right, but as SN basically said, what the players are asking for is, in a way, something the NFL can't afford to give them - if the protests are hurting business, they can't turn a blind eye.

Of all the things to not watch football over, I still find it hard to believe that the anthem protests have the biggest effect. Surreal.

I think that's a pretty open question. And I think there is disagreement on that very question within the league itself.

Ultimately, the league is going to do what is in its financial interest viewed from the big picture sense. On the one hand you have the potential for losing sponsors and maybe some viewership. On the other, you have the potential for walkouts and even strikes if you go so far as to tell the players that they cannot express themselves in this way. I think the league understands this is a serious enough issue right now that if they were to mandate standing, games very well could be lost. So, the flip side of the question is whether the league can afford not to give them this right. I think the fact that they haven't yet mandated standing is probably a pretty good indication that they have some concerns the answer is they cannot.

And I think the owners are acutely aware that if they guess wrong they could be plunging the league into some dark times.

What the owners need here desperately is a face-saving external way out of the problem. Like having Congress pass a law compelling the players to stand. Some ridiculous thing that would get struck down by courts but would give them the opportunity to say, "well, we tried, blame the courts" or something like that.

 

[Van Everyman]

Where this is dangerous for the NFL is that I don't think the players need or even necessarily want the league involved here.

As I said upthread, I find it ... intriguing that the NFL is offering to lobby Capitol Hill and state legislatures and dedicating "a huge marketing budget" in support of these causes in return for the players agreeing to stand for the anthem. It seems to me that would be a huge victory for the players in this case, assuming the owners agree to do it.

 

[edmunddantes]

The CBA negotiations are going to be contentious as fuck. The players are already out for blood because they "lost" the last CBA and feel like they need to "win" the next one.

There is a not insignificant group of owners that felt like they lost the last CBA negotiation. They were particularly irate with Robert Kraft and his "late game" heroics to help negotiate a settlement. They felt like the players were close to capitulating, and they gave too much up Kraft compromise.

 

[tims4wins]

I wonder what would happen if the NFL just decided not to play the anthem before games. Would more fans be upset with no anthem or a protested anthem?

Up until like 5 years ago, the players were never on the field for the anthem, except the Super Bowl

 

[tims4wins]

I think that's a pretty open question. And I think there is disagreement on that very question within the league itself.

Ultimately, the league is going to do what is in its financial interest viewed from the big picture sense. On the one hand you have the potential for losing sponsors and maybe some viewership. On the other, you have the potential for walkouts and even strikes if you go so far as to tell the players that they cannot express themselves in this way. I think the league understands this is a serious enough issue right now that if they were to mandate standing, games very well could be lost. So, the flip side of the question is whether the league can afford not to give them this right. I think the fact that they haven't yet mandated standing is probably a pretty good indication that they have some concerns the answer is they cannot.

And I think the owners are acutely aware that if they guess wrong they could be plunging the league into some dark times.

What the owners need here desperately is a face-saving external way out of the problem. Like having Congress pass a law compelling the players to stand. Some ridiculous thing that would get struck down by courts but would give them the opportunity to say, "well, we tried, blame the courts" or something like that.

I guess I hadn't thought of it that the NFL may just have to bite the bullet and suffer the ratings decline. That doesn't really seem like a potential option though based on the history of how Goodell, Jerrah, et. al. operate.

 

[Reverend]

Good point about the players not wanting the NFL involved. I guess the NFL is involved because they don't want the protests. Tricky situation.



Right, but as SN basically said, what the players are asking for is, in a way, something the NFL can't afford to give them - if the protests are hurting business, they can't turn a blind eye.

Of all the things to not watch football over, I still find it hard to believe that the anthem protests have the biggest effect. Surreal.

By the same token, though, it doesn’t seem like the owners’ approach is particularly effective—and they obviously have the most on the line.

Many of them though apparently can’t seem to imagine trying to handle things any differently; the rich are not like us, as the saying goes.

Edit: DDB did it better.

 

[tims4wins]

By the same token, though, it doesn’t seem like the owners’ approach is particularly effective—and they obviously have the most on the line.

Many of them though apparently can’t seem to imagine trying to handle things any differently; the rich are not like us, as the saying goes.

Edit: DDB did it better.

Right, letting the players just do what they want and watching ratings / advertising dollars shrink just is not their MO

 

[dcmissle]

A gag order would be useful so none of the others McNair themselves. I think this eventually flames out by the end of the season.

 

[Reverend]

Right, letting the players just do what they want and watching ratings / advertising dollars shrink just is not their MO

Well, yeah, obviously not. But they seem to be in full on hammer mode and see everything in front of them as nails.

They aren’t really distinguishing themselves as the shrewd captains of industry they fancy themselves here, eh? I’m not seeing a lot of savvy and strategy.

 

[Super Nomario]

As I said upthread, I find it ... intriguing that the NFL is offering to lobby Capitol Hill and state legislatures and dedicating "a huge marketing budget" in support of these causes in return for the players agreeing to stand for the anthem. It seems to me that would be a huge victory for the players in this case, assuming the owners agree to do it.

Well, maybe. I dunno. If the fans upset at the players kneeling want the NFL divorced from politics, is having the NFL become a significant lobbying voice on the part of racial equality going to help the league's bottom line? It's fine when it's a bunch of kumbaya shit, but what about when the next Eric Garner or Oscar Grant happens? Is the league going to take any stance that could be remotely construed as anti-police? What about when President Trump tweets something that can be construed as racially insensitive? You can't promote racial equality and dodge controversy entirely. If I was a player who was legitimately concerned with this stuff, I would be pretty skeptical about any offer the league would make.

I'm pretty sure I know what the NFL wants to happen: they cut a deal that gets the players to stand, they send a coterie of (vetted) players to Washington, get some nice photo ops with the players and some Congressmen, run some ads against racist bullying, and donate money to Jenkins / Boldin's org, etc. Win points for shutting down the protests AND being a positive force of healing racial fissures as long as they're not too controversial! And hope this whole "race" thing just kinda dies out. Maybe I'm cynical.

 

[InstaFace]

What is it, exactly, that the players want the NFL to do about racial (and other social) injustice in America? More things like My Cause, My Cleats? That's where I am a bit lost on this. I agree that racial injustice is an issue. I agree that the players, as very public figures, have the right, if not a civic duty, to bring notice to social issues. But how is the NFL supposed to help solve one of America's longest, most complicated, most divisive issues? And also, possibly more importantly, why is the NFL supposed to help? The can of worms opened with things like pink October, and camo November. The NFL is a sports league, if it had stuck to that and not marketing the pink and the camo and everything else it might not have this issue today. These are all - of course - good, important causes, please don't get me wrong. It's just not the place of the league, IMO, to be involved with this stuff.

You might as well ask why, at every private sporting event between two private clubs, the national anthem is played and observed somberly like it's the Olympics, or the graduation ceremonies of a service academy.

The NFL certainly chose its own battlefield here, repeatedly over a long time, and perhaps worst of all starting in 2011 when they took the DoD's millions to double down on the patriotic pomp and ceremony. They bought the PR risks when they took the money.

(though it seems the tradition ultimately started with the nationalistic fervor surrounding WW1 and the 1918 World Series).

 

[Sportsbstn]

Well, yeah, obviously not. But they seem to be in full on hammer mode and see everything in front of them as nails.

They aren’t really distinguishing themselves as the shrewd captains of industry they fancy themselves here, eh? I’m not seeing a lot of savvy and strategy.

It's the proverbial rock and a hard place. Piss off the players or piss off a good portion of the fans. These are not the decisions these guys are used to making in their respective business lives. Either way, ratings are dropping and in the end players and owners will end up back in the same boat because they desperately need each other.