The issue of on-field player protests is "likely to bleed into a new round of frustration and vitriol that will again overshadow games" following the NFL implementing new rules regarding the national anthem, according to Greg Moore of the ARIZONA REPUBLIC. The league "picked a scab by announcing that teams would be fined if players kneel" during the anthem (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 5/24). USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes if the NFL thinks this "anti-kneeling action is going to squash all possibilities of protests so as to keep the focus on the field and 'stick to football,"' it probably has "another thing coming" (USA TODAY, 5/24). In Greensboro, Ed Hardin writes this new policy "puts a nice little bow on a gesture that would have ended of its own volition anyway." Protests now will "likely take a different form" (Greensboro NEWS & RECORD, 5/24). In Chicago, David Haugh writes the policy "lacks common sense" and the league has "poured gasoline on the flames of controversy that time finally had begun the extinguish." The number of protests "had dwindled" and media interest "had waned." Haugh: "NFL owners have given us something else to discuss away from the sport itself, reviving a conversation that turns many casual fans away" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 5/24). In Philadelphia, Les Bowen writes the NFL's decision "does not seem likely to signal the end of the matter" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 5/24). In Miami, Greg Cote writes, "The NFL just placed a Band-Aid on its problem, makeup that fails to cover the scar" (MIAMI HERALD, 5/24). In San Jose, Gary Peterson writes under the header, "NFL Owners' National Anthem Policy Won't Put Issue To Bed" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 5/24).
DEEPENING THE NATIONAL DIVIDE: In Detroit, Dave Birkett writes all the NFL's decision did was "further amplify the divide in this country between right and left, between players and owners and between fans everywhere" (DETROIT FREE PRESS, 5/24). In St. Paul, Brian Murphy writes this is a "convoluted compromise that was more of a cop-out." Murphy: "Congrats, NFL, for managing down a divisive cultural issue that undoubtedly will pit hawkish owners against their more dovish colleagues." Each team can make their own policy for punishing players who protest, which means employment rules now "depend on where you work, potentially pitting teams in navy blue California against ruby red Texas" (ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, 5/24).
ALIENATING BOTH SIDES: In N.Y., Mike Vaccaro writes the NFL has "enacted a new policy that nobody seemed to be clamoring for and may well have the magical effect of alienating both sides." This is a "classic half-measure, designed to please everyone, destined to please no one" (N.Y. POST, 5/24). In DC, Jerry Brewer writes the NFL "tried to play the middle on an issue that has no middle." The policy "lacks clarity because it's trying to placate so many people" (WASHINGTON POST, 5/24). THE UNDEFEATED's Jason Reid wrote it is "unclear what was worse: that it took the NFL so long to come up with this split-the-baby nonsense, or that the game’s top decision-makers so proudly rolled it out during a news conference" (THEUNDEFEATED.com, 5/23). ESPN's Michelle Beadle said, "Hiding people, giving them the choice between hiding in the back or following their strict rules is not a compromise" ("Get Up!," ESPN, 5/24). In Toronto, Bruce Arthur: "This isn't a compromise. It's surrender" (TORONTO STAR, 5/24).
REASONABLE DECISION: USA TODAY's Josh Peter writes this is "largely a win-win outcome." The owners "protect their brand, which was under attack from critics incited" by President Trump. The anger from fans who "objected to the protests potentially contributed to declining TV ratings and potentially threatened revenue -- revenue the players enjoy." The players "no longer have to feel divided or distracted" (USA TODAY, 5/24). In California, Vincent Bonsignore writes it is a "reasonable appeal." Team owners have put "money and muscle into" the issue of social reform by finalizing a partnership with the NFL Players Coalition and dedicating "close to $90 million for efforts and programs combating social inequality." Stopping on-field protests is "not an unreasonable demand, given the sizable hand the NFL is lending to the cause and the obvious result of players continuing to use the anthem as a platform" (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 5/24). In L.A., Bill Plaschke writes it is a "decent compromise to an indecently messy situation." Plaschke: "Remove the rhetoric, examine the bottom line and understand that this divisive issue is actually about the one simple thing that everyone understands: It's all business." It "had to act." The business "demanded it." For the sake of viewers and sponsors and ticketholders, "most of which were decreasing, the league had to create the same backdrop evident in every game in every other major professional sport" (L.A. TIMES, 5/24). In Atlanta, Steve Hummer writes the NFL is "stuck between the right of self-expression and the reaction of a fan base that does not spend its money to be irritated before the kickoff." This decision was a "thoroughly reasonable one, in a business sense" (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 5/24).
DIDN'T HAVE A BETTER OPTION: In Baltimore, Peter Schmuck writes the league had to "walk a fine line here, protecting the rights of players to act against societal injustice while mollifying fans who felt the protests were disrespectful to our active soldiers and veterans." It would be "easy to be cynical here and call this a self-serving attempt to find some middle ground and keep everybody happy, but the NFL really didn’t have a better option here" (BALTIMORE SUN, 5/24). ESPN's Trey Wingo said, "There was nothing the NFL could have done that would be a win because no matter what they did, they were going to be criticized by some faction" ("Golic & Wingo," ESPN Radio, 5/24). In Atlanta, Jeff Schultz writes, "There really was no decision the NFL could have made to avoid criticism" (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 5/24).
A RACIAL MATTER: THE HILL's Luis Sanchez reported the NAACP "criticized the NFL" for its new anthem policy. The organization in a statement said, "Instead of coming together to address an issue disproportionately plaguing the African-American, the NFL owners have chosen to bury their heads and silence players" (THEHILL.com, 5/23). USA TODAY's Bell writes this is a "bad look for the NFL wrapped in control and retaliation, with overtones of a racist mentality, to snuff out resistance" (USA TODAY, 5/24). In Indianapolis, Justin Mack writes this policy lets "black players and fans know actually where they stand." Mack: "Speak when spoken to. Work hard and entertain us. You'll be paid well, but don't you dare cross us or you'll be out of a job." It feels like an "across the board 'be quiet and stay in your place' moment from the league" (INDIANAPOLIS STAR, 5/24). In Toronto, Shree Paradkar asks, "How many ways could we count the anti-Blackness of NFL’s new rules?" (TORONTO STAR, 5/24).
TIME TO OPINE: A NEWSDAY editorial states the league "came up short" when it altered its national anthem policy to try to "defuse an issue that dogged it last fall." This solution of "compulsory patriotism is discomforting, especially when football players have no real options to work elsewhere." Forcing players who want to "protest to remain in their locker rooms so the NFL doesn’t lose sponsorships or fans isn’t a ringing endorsement of the freedom to dissent" (NEWSDAY, 5/24). A N.Y. DAILY NEWS editorial states as a "purely legal matter, it's well within the league's right as a private employer to set clear codes of conduct for workers while they're on the clock." As an "expression of American values, it reeks" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/24).
