This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Perfect point. I've never seen or heard of any player protesting in front of a government building or police station. It's the owners business & if they don't like it they don't have to play. I hear all these players bashing the league & owners but they sure aren't turning down that pay check. And then you have Steve Kerr chiming in, I guess he is a head coach of the sh@@y NBA. As if his opinion means anything, dope.
True. But it seems a decent amount of people would show if cam Newton, LeBron James, jj Watt, or many other athletes would sponsor an event where they actually discuss the issues.
I get your point, but their job isn't the typical job, is it? Do most people have 80,000 people that watch them work...live TV coverage with potentially millions of others watching? They have a natural platform to reach the masses through their work.
Which is why it's even more important that the employer makes the policies here. Although we might have personal favorite players, it's the team people pay to watch. If the employer thinks these other activities are beneficial, great. If they don't want the employee to conduct themselves in that manner while on the clock, that's the right of management. Until the employee is off the clock.
The only reason they have an audience to protest on Sundays is because their employer, NFL owners, created a league and gave them a place to play. These owners also went out and got major TV deals, so the players could make millions of dollars. Protesting is costing these TV companies millions of dollars, which is going to cost the NFL and it’s players millions of dollars. If owners don’t want then protesting and costing everyone money, they won’t be protesting.
Last year Jenkins, Long and Smith went to the state capitol on a Tuesday morning after a Monday night game to discuss reforms with lawmakers.
It’s not “their” platform. It’s the teams’ platform.
I'm not disagreeing with your main point but that's a flawed analogy. The key element to Michaels' job is dialogue during the game. If he can't do that or doesn't do that he clearly isn't meeting the job requirements. The key elements to a player's job does not include standing for the anthem -as evidenced by this rule allowing them to remain in the locker room.
You’re analogy is flawed too. NFL players and owners are in the entertainment business. Their true job is to make as much money as possible. To do this, it requires winning games, but that the end of the day they’re in it to make money. The owners think that kneeling is going to lose viewers, and therefore money so they reacted. Their problem at this point is not reacting soon enough. Now it’s a major issue all over sports and social media that will carry on for at least another season. Had they acted like the NBA did 20 years ago, I think it would’ve died down a lot sooner, and they wouldn’t have lose 20% of their TV viewers.
Like I said, I didn't disagree with your point. But if someone asked you what are the core job requirements of a QB, would it include standing for the anthem?
If standing for the anthem makes himself and his company more money, then yes.-OZ- said:
even if more than half the masses DONT want to see players protesting at the games they are paying to watch....seems counter productive IMOGalileo said:
We'll just disagree here then. There are a lot of things that most of us do on a fairly routine basis that aren't core functions of our job. Doesn't mean we don't do them, but many businesses make reasonable accommodations for their employees. That said, I don't disagree that the business has a right to tell their employees to not do certain conduct at work.
