Replies

Why Daniel Carter is wrong.

The argument that we should be championing free speech in the NFL is false because freedom of speech is not the issue. I have no problem with the multi-millionaire prima donna's believing in a cause … any cause. Personally, I know my political views differ from my employer's, but unlike NFL Players, I am not on a nationally televised program designed to increase the revenues of my employer, but if I was, my employer would expect me to follow a corporate line regarding everything from how I dressed to how I acted to what I said whenever I was working in my capacity as an employee representing the company. Period. End.

Now, up until recently, nobody knew any players political views, because their game, which is what is being televised, for the purpose of making money for owners, television networks, and advertisers, not only did not require them to talk to the camera, it provided no opportunity to express any view about anything … with the possible exception of some sideline reporter asking a player about the game at hand. So what changed was that players stumbled upon a way to hijack what was being reported on. I say stumbled upon, because I honestly do not think CK was smart enough create all this by himself on purpose. I think the networks were the actual brains behind making this an issue because they were hoping that it would garner headlines and people would tune in, thus increasing ratings, so they could charge advertisers more, so they could pay the owners what they promised to pay them for the right to televise the games. What they did not take into account is what is often called the "law of unintended consequences". In short, a stunt to improve ratings turned into a polarizing agenda that turned fans away. I also believe the owners, at least initially, did not care one way or the other, because their contracts with the networks were fixed, so the network could do whatever they wanted to increase ratings … if this was a problem, it was THIER problem.

The players, emboldened by Obama's class warfare and support of BLM, decided that they SHOULD take up the torch, and become spokesmen for a cause that they actually knew little about and could not personally relate to, because ... you know, they are actually more privileged and richer than 99% of Americans. The team owner's, I think were OK with the stunt until they started to realize that instead of helping them earn more by increasing ratings, people were really turning away from their product, and vowing to never come back … and that is why we are finally seeing action from them. The owners are not trying to eliminate the free speech of the players … they are simply doing what every other employer does, and telling their employees that when on the clock, they represent the company, and if they want to be social activists, then can … but on their own time. The reason the owners are acting now, is because the impact on ratings can now be seen, and they know that soon they will need to renegotiate their network TV contracts, so they are fixing the problem the networks created before the contracts are up so they can ensure their next contract does not decrease in value.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.