• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump and NFL boycott

The Greater Fool said:
Oops.

I'll bet I could vamp a way for Article I to apply to this situation... ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, I know I've seen them referenced as "Articles of amendment" to the Constitution. Of course, if you say Article I, it is at best ambiguous whether you are talking about Article I of the original constitution or Article I of Amendments to the Constitution, so most people just say "1st Amendment".
 
Ziggurat said:
No, that's not at all what I think (big surprise, you can't imagine I'm anything other than the caricature you've formed in your head). [your posts reveal about you] ...
Click to expand...
FTFY If you are not well represented by your posts I would have no way of knowing.

Back to the point you missed:
Ziggurat said:
But I don't think many people watch sports games just because they agree with the politics of the player.
Click to expand...
The added publicity will have the same effect advertising football has. If such publicity did not draw interested viewers, advertisers sure waste a lot of money.

Your premise is the publicity causes lost viewers, mine is that such losses are minimal. If you read the link I cited which analyzed NFL loss in popularity you'd have seen a detailed account of how little the protests account for said losses.

It's even possible the net loss is really a net shift to other media than TV to watch games. That analysis was noted, the hypothesis proposed, but not investigated further.
 
The NFL totally controls the expression of it's players on the field during games. They banned the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal honoring dead police officers; they banned a player from wearing pink cleats to honor his mother, who died of breast cancer; this despite the NFL having a breast cancer awareness month.
If the NFL is allowing these players to kneel/sit during the National Anthem, the NFL is condoning their behavior. It is not a 1st amendment issue as it is not the government regulating their conduct but the NFL.
The NFL markets heavily to Americans who are patriotic and express love of their country. This is evidenced in the ubiquitous use of military personnel in their pregame shows. They know these people represent a large portion of their fan base. They also know that a different large fan base and source of talent comes from the Black Community. I think this creates a problem for the NFL in balancing the desires of one set of fans to celebrate America with the desires of another set of fans to protest.
This puts the league in a position of trying to balance the issues of what does one fan base want to see versus what does the other fan base want to see.
My meaningless opinion is that I want to see football. If the anthem is going to be played, I want to see everyone display the proper protocols for the playing of the anthem. Don't want to do that be off field for the anthem. Other option, simply dispense with playing the National Anthem at the start of games.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not Trump yapping that made viewership drop. It was the NFL doubling down on the protests that did. He goaded them into a mistake, and they stupidly fell for it.

As for his motives? Attention, an easy victory, planet X, doesn't really matter. Trump gonna Trump.
Click to expand...

Technically, if viewership did drop, it was because people got their precious feelings hurt and decided they needed to go away from the bad things that anger them. Assuredly they migrated to online forums or facebook where they ranted about "PC censorship" and "safespaces" completely oblivious to the irony.
 
Taking a knee is similar to the ice bucket challenge, in that it is trendy for some people to take part, but it is completely different because the ice bucket challenge actually was useful and raised money for research.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Back to the point you missed:The added publicity will have the same effect advertising football has. If such publicity did not draw interested viewers, advertisers sure waste a lot of money.
Click to expand...

That's stupid on its face. You want to know one of the reasons advertising is expensive? Because you can't just put any old message out there and expect to get positive results. You have to carefully craft the message to be appealing.

This publicity wasn't crafted to be appealing to anyone, really.
 
d4m10n said:
The idea of corporations giving their earners leeway to express themselves as they see fit certainly appeals to me.
Click to expand...

Does it make you want to watch football? Or do you just like it in the abstract?
 
Horhang said:
The NFL totally controls the expression of it's players on the field during games. They banned the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal honoring dead police officers; they banned a player from wearing pink cleats to honor his mother, who died of breast cancer; this despite the NFL having a breast cancer awareness month.
If the NFL is allowing these players to kneel/sit during the National Anthem, the NFL is condoning their behavior. It is not a 1st amendment issue as it is not the government regulating their conduct but the NFL.
The NFL markets heavily to Americans who are patriotic and express love of their country. This is evidenced in the ubiquitous use of military personnel in their pregame shows. They know these people represent a large portion of their fan base. They also know that a different large fan base and source of talent comes from the Black Community. I think this creates a problem for the NFL in balancing the desires of one set of fans to celebrate America with the desires of another set of fans to protest.
This puts the league in a position of trying to balance the issues of what does one fan base want to see versus what does the other fan base want to see.
My meaningless opinion is that I want to see football. If the anthem is going to be played, I want to see everyone display the proper protocols for the playing of the anthem. Don't want to do that be off field for the anthem. Other option, simply dispense with playing the National Anthem at the start of games.
Click to expand...
Banning a pre-game gesture is not the same as banning an altered uniform or requiring a strict dress code.

About the closest you could get was banning the touchdown spike.

As for kneeling, there's a precedent.
Tebowing was not only not banned, it was celebrated/marketed.
Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl tebowed as part of a bet with the mayor of Denver following the Broncos playoff victory over the Steelers in 2012.[210] On October 9, 2012, Tebow was awarded the trademark to Tebowing after winning a legal battle with two fans who had expressed interest in trademarking the name.[211]
In December 2011, the life-sized wall graphics company Fathead released a "Tebowing" sticker that became the company's best-selling product in two days.[212]
Tebowing was included as a feature in the Madden NFL 13 video game.[213]
Click to expand...
Mr Tebow was not allowed to write Bible verse numbers in his face paint.

As for the touchdown spike: NFL to loosen rules on touchdown celebrations, shorten overtime
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
That's stupid on its face. You want to know one of the reasons advertising is expensive? Because you can't just put any old message out there and expect to get positive results. You have to carefully craft the message to be appealing.

This publicity wasn't crafted to be appealing to anyone, really.
Click to expand...

Any connoisseur of marketing knows negative ads of commercial products often have positive effects. When it comes to politics, negative ads can influence votes between candidates, but that is different from marketing products.

NEGATIVE ADS MIGHT JUST BE POSITIVE FOR YOUR BRAND
 
My point quite simply was that the NFL can and does regulate every aspect of the players on the field on game day. If they choose not to regulate this it is a choice of the league.
 
A Reuters poll indicates a majority of Americans, when polled, don't believe the NFL players who kneel in silent protest should be dropped by their team.

The Sept. 25-26 poll found that 57 percent of adults do not think the National Football League should fire players who kneel. This included 61 percent of NFL fans who watch at least a few games per season. The results were split along party lines, however, as 82 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of Republicans disagreed with the president’s comments about firing football players.

Eighty-five percent of adults said, for example, that they almost always “stand in silence” when the national anthem is played at an event they are attending. Seventy-four percent said they almost always put their hand over their heart. Yet, when it comes to professional athletes, there is less agreement about what is appropriate. While 58 percent of adults said that “professional athletes should be required to stand during the national anthem at sporting events,” there is rising support for those athletes who do not. In the latest poll, 40 percent of Americans said that they support the stance that some pro football players have made to not stand during the anthem. That is up from 28 percent who answered the same way in a similar Reuters/Ipsos poll last year.
New link
Click to expand...

I'm one of the fans who always stands with my hand over my heart when the anthem is played. Yet I have no problem at all with people who don't or don't want to. I have even less problem with professional players who choose to kneel as a form of protest. I respect that, in fact. What I do have a problem with is the way Trump has gone about this. I'm glad to see 53 percent of Americans do not think it is appropriate for the president to comment on “how the NFL and its players conduct themselves during the national anthem.”

I'm one of them. ;)
 
What The PDJT does not realize is that all the additional demonstrators this past weekend are directly a result of what he tweeted. In other words, they're saying "**** you, Trump."
 
alfaniner said:
What The PDJT does not realize is that all the additional demonstrators this past weekend are directly a result of what he tweeted. In other words, they're saying "**** you, Trump."
Click to expand...

That interpretation isn't logical.

If Trump thinks that people (or even just his base) don't like the protests, then by provoking more protests, people who don't like them to begin with will like them even less. That solidifies, not undermines, his position. Rather than being an unintended consequence, there is every reason to believe that was the goal. The only way this would really be a mistake for Trump is if his base supported the protests to begin with.
 
CORed said:
Okay, I know I've seen them referenced as "Articles of amendment" to the Constitution. Of course, if you say Article I, it is at best ambiguous whether you are talking about Article I of the original constitution or Article I of Amendments to the Constitution, so most people just say "1st Amendment".
Click to expand...

What we now call the Bill of Rights contains twelve articles that were proposed Amendments to the COTUS in 1789. Article the first has not been ratified and Article the second was not ratified until 1992 (27th Amendment). Articles three through twelve were ratified and became the first ten Amendments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom