The union said it would challenge any aspect of the rule that is inconsistent with the CBAgetty images
The NFLPA in a strongly worded statement issued just minutes after the NFL announced its new national anthem policy noted the league had "not consulted the players' union in creating the new protocol and accused league officials of hypocrisy," according to a front-page piece by Futterman & Mather of the N.Y. TIMES. The union added that it would "challenge any aspect of it that is inconsistent" with the CBA. The new policy is an "attempt to find a middle ground on a divisive issue that has shaken the country's most successful sport for nearly two years," beginning when Colin Kaepernick knelt during the anthem and continued after President Trump "escalated the issue a year later as he attacked kneeling players as unpatriotic." However, while the NFL had "hoped to quiet the debate," people "on opposite sides appeared to dig in further" after yesterday's announcement (N.Y. TIMES, 5/24). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Andrew Beaton writes the NFL's decision has the "potential to inflame an already intense labor situation with players who were using the protests as a vehicle to draw attention to racial inequality and social justice." Because these rules were "part of the NFL's manual on game operations" and not the CBA, they were "subject to change without the players' approval" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 5/24). THE MMQB's Albert Breer notes the NFLPA yesterday "directly called out" NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Giants President & CEO John Mara for "breaking their word." Sources said that the union's response was due to those two "telling players at an October meeting that the rules wouldn't change." Breer: "It's easy to see why players felt like the policy was hustled right by them" (SI.com, 5/24). In Houston, John McClain writes the new policy is "guaranteed to create chaos and more bad blood between the owners and the players." It is "double-dog daring the players to protest on the sideline" (HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 5/24).
PLAYERS REACT: Eagles S Malcolm Jenkins, who raised a fist before every game last season, took to Twitter and reacted to the new policy, writing, "What NFL owners did today was thwart the players' constitutional rights to express themselves and use our platform to draw attention to social injustices like racial inequality in our country." Jenkins: "Everyone loses when voices get stifled." Seahawks WR Doug Baldwin said he was "not surprised" with the policy but was "disappointed." Baldwin: "The NFL cares about one thing and that's the NFL -- that's the bottom line." Eagles DE Chris Long tweeted, "This is fear of a diminished bottom line. It's also fear of a president turning his base against a corporation. This is not patriotism. Don't get it confused" (USA TODAY, 5/24). Bears LB Sam Acho said players will continue to "find a way to stand up for people who were being unjustly treated, find a way to stick up for justice in whatever way, shape or form you can possibly do it" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 5/24). Browns QB Tyrod Taylor: "To make a decision that strong, you would hope that the players have input on it. But obviously not. So we have to deal with it as players, for good or a bad thing" (ESPN.com, 5/23). Steelers OT Ramon Foster: "There are certain rules that are constitutional and there are also workplace rules. If they set in place workplace rules, you got to kind of deal with them" (PENNLIVE.com, 5/23).
ALL ABOUT THE BOTTOM LINE: In Denver, Mark Kiszla writes the policy is "really all about the color of money." It was "born not out of patriotism but the ardent defense of the bottom line" (DENVER POST, 5/24). In Philadelphia, Bob Ford writes the NFL is "guided by the morality of the marketplace." If corporate partners are "upset that their wares are being peddled in an environment that might turn off some of their customers, then something is going to change, even if only for cosmetic purposes." If some fans are "annoyed to the point of turning off their televisions or choosing not to attend games, then something is going to change, even if the change is designed to hide the issue rather than address it" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 5/24). In N.Y., Mike Lupica writes NFL owners "simply decided that football players, even a handful of them, kneeling during the playing of the anthem was extremely bad for business." They "allowed themselves to get shamed into this." The owners will "never say this," but they "did not want to be attacked any further" by Trump (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/24).
NOT AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM: USA TODAY's Mike Jones in a front-page piece writes the policy means owners will "no longer have to see pictures and videos of clusters of players kneeling in the midst of teammates that choose to stand during the anthem." They "no longer will have to deal" with Trump using this issue to "further divide Americans while hammering away at the league." Jones: "Let's not misconstrue this as the owners possessing a strong desire to ensure patriotism reigns in their league. This is about one thing: Protecting the brand (which means protect the pocketbook)" (USA TODAY, 5/24). The AP's Tim Dahlberg writes the new policy "wasn't an attempt to settle a real issue, not even close." This was "strictly for self-preservation and to keep any protest off the TV cameras and away from the prying eyes" of Trump (AP, 5/24). In L.A., Mariel Garza writes this "self-interest policy seems clearly about one thing only: protecting their profits" (L.A. TIMES, 5/24). In Honolulu, Ferd Lewis: "We should not be surprised by the owners' stance, of course. What the NFL is really about is stuffing more money in the already-bulging pockets of its owners" (Honolulu STAR-ADVERTISER, 5/24).
