NFL Protest

[*Nately120*]

(10-02-2017, 04:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The chance to address this was when it first started.  However, a prompt resolution would require actual leadership and decision making, both things that Goodell has shown he utterly lacks in all possible ways.  Any employer is completely within their right to prohibit protest or political actions/speech at their place of business.  The players aren't what's important in this regard, the fans are.  What I mean by this is that you may alienate players, but they're not going to find another employer who will pay them millions of dollars to play football.  This being the case then placating your fan base is the paramount concern.  Forcing the NFL to be apolitical by banning all forms of protest or political speech while you are representing the NFL (i.e. in uniform, at the stadium etc.) would be the smart business decision.  If you can fine William Gay for wearing purple cleats to raise domestic violence awareness in honor of his murdered mother you can fine players for engaging in political protest at their place of employment.

Ehh, I can agree and disagree with you here.  Owners might just be supportive of their players because they actually spend time interacting with people from diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds OR they might just want to keep their million dollar investments happy.

We've seen time and time again good players being retained after doing heinous things while players who are easily replaced get cut for the same thing or lesser offenses.  If this were handled like that I would amused to see an owner say if you are kneeling and you aren't a starter you can pack your bags and get out.  But that just leads to the idea that players who are good are allowed to spit in the face of veterans, or whatever narrative people want to project onto this situation.

I get that an organization can and should limit what representatives of the brand say.  I worked for a professional sports team and I signed all the paperwork saying that I could be fired if I misrepresented the brand or made derogatory comments, and so on.  I was under no illusion that I had the same amount of leeway as someone who worked for the same company that was getting millions of dollars per year, though.  That's the rub.  The people who are doing the offending here are essential to the brand and essential to the bottom-line of their organizations and they're quite organized in their protests.  I just don't see how a team can handle this in a way to appease the angry fans that wouldn't derail their team significantly.

I suppose the team that stinks the most could fire them all and then invite all the flag-loving fans to watch them, but I don't see that really being much of a financial benefit, either.  I think the owners are doing the smart thing by supporting their players (ie, their investments) and waiting for it to all blow over like every other thing people have been mad about for years on end.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2017, 05:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ehh, I can agree and disagree with you here.  Owners might just be supportive of their players because they actually spend time interacting with people from diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds OR they might just want to keep their million dollar investments happy.

We've seen time and time again good players being retained after doing heinous things while players who are easily replaced get cut for the same thing or lesser offenses.  If this were handled like that I would amused to see an owner say if you are kneeling and you aren't a starter you can pack your bags and get out.  But that just leads to the idea that players who are good are allowed to spit in the face of veterans, or whatever narrative people want to project onto this situation.

I get that an organization can and should limit what representatives of the brand say.  I worked for a professional sports team and I signed all the paperwork saying that I could be fired if I misrepresented the brand or made derogatory comments, and so on.  I was under no illusion that I had the same amount of leeway as someone who worked for the same company that was getting millions of dollars per year, though.  That's the rub.  The people who are doing the offending here are essential to the brand and essential to the bottom-line of their organizations and they're quite organized in their protests.  I just don't see how a team can handle this in a way to appease the angry fans that wouldn't derail their team significantly.

I suppose the team that stinks the most could fire them all and then invite all the flag-loving fans to watch them, but I don't see that really being much of a financial benefit, either.  I think the owners are doing the smart thing by supporting their players (ie, their investments) and waiting for it to all blow over like every other thing people have been mad about for years on end.

You misunderstood, I'm talking about the league office.  The owners have a relationship with the players.  Ike Taylor considered Dan Rooney to be a father figure.   The league office can be dispassionate and clinical.  With a real leader in charge of the league it would be easy to accomplish.

[*bfine32*]

I like what the Detroit owner did. She asked her players not to kneel and that she would give her name and money to any cause they wanted to support.

[*Nately120*]

(10-02-2017, 06:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You misunderstood, I'm talking about the league office.  The owners have a relationship with the players.  Ike Taylor considered Dan Rooney to be a father figure.   The league office can be dispassionate and clinical.  With a real leader in charge of the league it would be easy to accomplish.

That might be hard to pull off if the owners go to bat for the players.