The N.F.L. Kneels to Trump – Or Do They?

I logged on this morning and went through my usual routine – Went over some Bible reading, played a little music, cleaned up some emails, then scanned social media to see what was popping.

This top trending phrase stood out: The N.F.L Kneels to Trump.

It was apparently based on an opinion piece of the same title featured on the New York Times’ editorial page, this morning.

Apparently, the decision from the National Football League that there’d be no players kneeling during the national anthem in the upcoming football season.

So let’s back up.

In 2016, a mediocre quarterback by the name of Colin Kaepernick needed a gimmick – fast. He was in danger of being cut. His performance was not up to NFL standards, so what do you do when you can’t compete on the same level as those around you and need an edge?

Claim racism, or sexism, or some other “-ism” to protest and hope it catches on in a way that pulls your butt out of the fire.

So in 2016, just his fourth year playing professional football, Colin Kaepernick began sitting out the anthem, while others stood. Next, he started kneeling, and said it was to protest “racial inequality.”

It would have been easier to take the guy seriously if he wasn’t making his statement while sporting a multimillion dollar football contract, and I’m putting water in my bottle of hair conditioner to try and make it last until payday.

Yeah. I’m skeptical.

As it was, the stunt (and that’s all it was – a stunt) didn’t save Kaepernick’s position with the team, and to date, there still isn’t a team in the league who wants a quarterback that plays second-to-third string level, at best. Kaepernick remains a free agent (that means unemployed).

What he began, however, caught on. Players across the league began taking a knee during the anthem. It was just a few, at first, but then President Trump opened his mouth and began his usual, mindless yammering.

In solidarity, the numbers grew. Some players, rather than be seen as taking a side, chose to stay in the locker room during the anthem.

Let’s face it. Donald Trump is one of the most, if not the most polarizing, offensive presidents in our nation’s history, so when he says something, the reactions of large swaths of our neighbors, family, and friends are compelled to push back.

That goes both ways, however. Where some in the nation saw these kneelers as exercising their rights, others saw it as an insult to the nation that afforded them the very rights they were exercising. It’s complicated.

Those who saw these protests as overly pampered professional divas, with more money than sense to recognize their own privilege and position, launched their own protest.

They turned off the NFL.

They stopped going to games. They stopped watching games. The league was losing status and money. Something had to change, but how to go about that and respect the rights of the players, as well as the feelings of those who were in agreement became a most delicate situation, so the league did nothing and allowed the 2017 season to play out.

So Now What?

The New York Times editorial board – not really the scions of patriotic thought – laid out their outrage at Wednesday’s NFL announcement.

The owners of the National Football League have concluded, with President Trump, that true patriotism is not about bravely standing up for democratic principle but about standing up, period.

Rather than show a little backbone themselves and support the right of athletes to protest peacefully, the league capitulated to a president who relishes demonizing black athletes. The owners voted Wednesday to fine teams whose players do not stand for the national anthem while they are on the field.

The problem with this is that they supported the right of the athletes to protest throughout the 2016 and 2017 seasons. They allowed it to go too far before taking control.

This isn’t just a group of guys getting together on the weekends to play a game. This is a major business entity, paying out millions to a chosen few. None of these players are forced to be there. At the time of their choosing, they can give up their multimillion dollar contracts and walk away.

They can give up the mansions, the cars, the clothes, the endorsement deals. And when they do, the NFL will simply pluck other young, healthy, eager athletes from the wings to come in and take their place.

That’s just how it is. If the NFL chooses now to hit reset, as a means of saving their business, as well as the fiscal well-being of those players – many of them African-American – then that is within their rights to do.

In announcing their decision, they did leave room for those who chose to stay in the locker room during the anthem to do so. It was compromise.

But then, Donald Trump.

The president appeared on American Pravda early Thursday and praised the decision.

The president during an interview with “Fox & Friends” touted the NFL’s new rule, which bans on-field protests during the national anthem, and chided the league for allowing players to remain in the locker room.

“I think that’s good. I don’t think people should be staying in the locker rooms, but still I think it’s good. You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem,” Trump said.

“You shouldn’t be playing, you shouldn’t be there. Maybe they shouldn’t be in the country,” he added.

As usual, Trump can take a delicate topic, stomp all over it, and kill any chance of having open, honest, civil dialogue.

Here’s the thing. Donald Trump doesn’t get to say who belongs here and who doesn’t.

And no, this isn’t a commentary on the immigration debate.

As American citizens, albeit pampered, overly-idealized American citizens, these players have a right to express how they feel.

I may have an issue with millionaires pouting over injustice, while there are so many good people just scraping by, but still maintaining a fierce love of country. My issues or opinions, however, do not dictate the rights of citizens.

That rests wholly with our Constitution.

If these players truly have a problem and they feel they need to use their platform as professional athletes to speak up, they should. In a society that gives oversized deference to sports stars, they have the opportunity to do immense good. They can give back to the community, draw attention to a need, or otherwise work to create the kind of atmosphere that benefits this nation, far outside of their particular field of play.

They should be doing that off the field, however, if they want to keep playing for the NFL. A decision has been made to try and turn back the tide of loss, so that these players can maintain that influence. They should at least respect that. They don’t have to agree with it. I don’t agree with it, reason being that forced shows of patriotism are not actual patriotism, so why bother?

This was a business decision. It wasn’t a Trump decision.

I can’t help but laugh at the irony.

The race-hustlers and left-leaning bleeding hearts of the New York Times editorial board are clutching their pearls in breathless outrage over this decision, but I missed the splenetic editorial over those criticizing another player’s choice to kneel on the sidelines of the football field.

Which reminds me, if you want to see somebody who took their influence off of the field and into the world, maybe go check out the Tim Tebow Foundation. He’s doing a lot of good and no matter what your beliefs, you should be able to get behind his off-field work.