NFL owners are "harboring significant concerns about how the business of football could be impacted by the ongoing culture war over the protests" during the national anthem, according to sources cited by Jason La Canfora of CBSSPORTS.com. One source said, "It's definitely fair to say that owners are on edge about the current climate. They will be watching the ratings very closely and there is a worry that a segment of NFL fans want these games to be an escape from the everything else that is happening in the world and politics, and that they'll find something else to do on Sunday's if that's no longer the case." No league sponsors have dropped the league as yet over this issue, but the source said, "There have been a lot of private conversations with them at the team level and the league level. Some sponsors have concerns about the ratings moving forward" (CBSSPORTS.com, 10/1). La Canfora noted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is "working closely" with civic-minded players on "ways the NFL can assist them in their community endeavors, an effort that began well before" President Trump's comments. Sources said that the NFL has been "getting closer to finalizing and announcing some of those plans." The league is "seeking tangible ways to help players channel their concerns over social injustice, racism, police brutality and other societal ills into action at a grassroots level." Goodell said, "It's about doing specific things with players to support their philanthropy and service." Sources said that the measure has "long been a priority for Goodell" (CBSSPORTS.com, 10/1).
WORKING ON SOLUTIONS: In Atlanta, Jeff Schultz noted Falcons Owner Arthur Blank plans to have an "open discussion with players, coaches, team officials and an outside facilitator" early this week on "race relations and related matters." It is "hoped players will speak openly about complicated issues and offer possible solutions." They could "range from meeting with people in the community to law enforcement, but nobody knows for certain yet." Blank said, "They want to be heard, and it’s our responsibility to listen and respond as best we can" (AJC.com, 9/29).
DEALING WITH THE CHAOS: ESPN.com's Van Natta & Wickersham reported last week was one of the "most chaotic and divisive weeks of Goodell's 11-year tenure." About 25 team owners entered the league's HQ in N.Y. for "routine committee meetings that quickly became anything but." Some owners were angry that NFL Exec VP/Communications Joe Lockhart said that "players' words and actions on the subjects of police brutality and racism were 'what real locker room talk is.'" Lockhart had "unnecessarily politicized the league's response." Then the topic "turned to the subject of angry fan bases and nervous sponsors." The protests during Week 3 had "unfolded mostly at the discretion of the players." Some owners "preferred a league-wide directive." In the meeting, many owners "wanted to speak." One owner said the discussion was "hijacked" by Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones. By the time the meeting ended, no one had "pitched a concrete plan about how to move forward" (ESPN.com, 10/1).
STILL NOT ON THE SAME PAGE: Van Natta & Wickersham noted NFLPA Exec Dir DeMaurice Smith said that Goodell "never mentioned" last Tuesday's meeting with players "during their Monday call." He said that he first heard of it after hearing that NFL Exec VP/Football Operations Troy Vincent had "reached out directly to at least a dozen team captains to invite them to attend." A source said that team owners, not Vincent, "invited the players, at the suggestion of Goodell." Both sides agree that Smith and other union execs were "not invited until Tuesday morning, when Goodell asked them to attend in an email." But by then, it was "too late." Smith was on the road for a "series of locker room meetings and couldn't attend." Even something as simple as convening a mutually beneficial owners-players summit had "ripped open scars." More than a dozen players who "initially had agreed to attend ended up canceling after hearing the union's leaders were initially unaware of the plans." Smith: "I viewed that as insulting to our players' leadership." During the meeting, players saw something "more monumental" than the owners. The owners "found themselves in a position of weakness; their worry about the impact on their business had become a crisis, and they needed the players to help them." Smith said, "For the first time, the owners are afraid of the players. It has less to do with money and it has more to do with control. The owners are used to being in control -- and they aren't on this. They know it. They hate it." Smith added, "Knowing the league the way I know the league, they are first and foremost concerned about the impact on their business. That's always their first concern. I mean, who are we kidding?" To the commissioner's suggestion that the protests should end, Smith said, "My only response was, 'I don't have the power to tell our players what to do'" (ESPN.com, 10/1).
PLAYING BOTH SIDES? In N.Y., Gary Myers wrote the owners' disgust "was genuine." NFL owners will "back their players until it starts costing them money, meaning advertisers and fans walk away and TV ratings go down" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 10/1). In Boston, Ben Volin wrote while the league is "trying to paint a portrait of a unified front and a willingness to affect social change, the reality is that there is very little middle ground over these anthem demonstrations, and the issue has divided teams as much as it has divided the rest of the country." The league’s owners are "trying to have it both ways." They say that they "stand by their players and support their right to free speech, but they worry about fans and sponsors dropping the league and hurting the bottom line" (BOSTON GLOBE, 10/1). In Phoenix, Dan Bickley wrote the league is "becoming as divided as our country, caught between the patriotism they packaged and sold and the athletes/golden goose they must protect." Sports fans are "no longer here to help." They are here for "their own benefit." The vitriol "is shocking" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 10/1). YAHOO SPORTS' Charles Robinson wrote what "scares the NFL right now" is that Trump’s "appetite for upheaval and division -- indeed, his courtship of the downward slope -- can never be satisfied." And in the case of the league, he is now "feeding off its product, profit and brand." One can "see why the NFL is falling into some panic because Trump is turning the social activism of players -- and when they choose to express their stance on it -- into a movement that could seriously threaten the league’s bottom line." Outside of the concussion concerns, this "may be the league’s most brutal and lasting slope." With Trump and the NFL, the slide "could go on for years or even decades with no solid footing to be had" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 10/1).
 |
Ryan believes NFL players have a right
to express themselves |
MISSING THE MESSAGE: U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) yesterday said that NFL players have a "right to express themselves." However, Ryan added, "What so many Americans ... see is you're disrespecting the idea of America, that we want to make this free country a more perfect union and that people have died and fought and survived to protect it. So they don't see the point that they're trying to make." In a memo distributed to league personnel, Goodell said the week was a “challenging” one. He wrote, “Our clubs and players have come together and entered into dialog (sic) like never before.” He also included a statement from the players of the Broncos released Friday, which stated, “We may have different values and beliefs, but there’s one thing we all agree on: We’re a team and we stand together -- no matter how divisive some comments and issues can be, nothing should ever get in the way of that. Starting Sunday, we’ll be standing together” (WASHINGTON POST, 10/2). Former MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent in a special to the WALL STREET JOURNAL asks, “How should executives and other officials deal with the recent spate of protests at NFL games?” There is an “ancient legal maxim that the person who defines the issue can command the decision, but the NFL situation already has become a raucous mess.” It “cries out for a balanced and measured statement of governing principles by people who can command respect.” Vincent: “Perhaps former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice or James Baker.” Commissioners “must respond to public pressure and define what constitutes tolerable behavior on the part of the players.” They “must move quickly to explain that disrupting games or offending paying customers is out of bounds.” After all, the “ultimate authority is the customer, whose commercial support pays everyone’s salaries” (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 10/2). In DC, Matt Bonesteel cited a CBS News poll in which only 28% of white respondents “strongly or somewhat approve of NFL players protesting police brutality and racial inequality during the playing of the national anthem.” That number rises to 74% “among black respondents.” The poll of 1,335 people was conducted for CBS by YouGov from Sept. 26-28 and has an approximately 3.8% margin of error (WASHINGTON POST, 9/29).
