Some analysts believe the NFL's stance on the national anthem was a bottom line decisionGETTY IMAGES
The NFL's new national anthem policy was a main topic of discussion on the Sunday morning news shows, with team owners deciding they "did not want to be harangued by the President of the United States every week," according to the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. He said, "They were worried about their white, working class audience basically. They feared responding to the president's demagoguery.” The Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti said, “The element that's missing in a lot of these discussions is the fans. There is a bottom-line decision here with the NFL was facing, basically, the flight of its fan base as fallout from the protest. … These protests began as a racial justice movement, but once (President) Trump intervened in August, they became an anti-Trump movement” ("Meet The Press," NBC, 5/27). The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery said it is "clear the teams caved to two pressure points -- the President of the United States and their own fan bases." Lowery: "What we see here is the President of the United States, the leader of our government, using his bully pulpit, his platform to silence minority protesters who are demonstrating against violence by their government” (“This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” ABC, 5/27). NBC’s Hallie Jackson said, “This, to the president, validates where he was, the side he was on in the culture wars." Jackson noted Jets Chair & CEO Christopher Johnson is "saying, ‘Listen, we'll cover the fines for any player who chooses to stand. I will pay for those.’" Jackson: "His brother, by the way, is a Trump guy -- Woody Johnson, the ambassador to the U.K. It’s a microcosm of the divides you’re seeing around the country” (“Sunday Today with Willie Geist,” NBC, 5/27).
WIN FOR CONSERVATIVE BASE: In Boston, Ben Volin noted the "conservative-leaning" NFL owners got "exactly what they wanted, working in concert" with Trump while making the league's new national anthem policy. This anthem policy is "especially a victory" for Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones and Texans Owner Bob McNair, who "had been leading the crusade to end the protests." It also is a "decided victory for Trump and the owners who support him." If the owners "hoped that this policy would appease everyone and end the conversation, they badly miscalculated" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/27). A Ft. Worth STAR-TELEGRAM editorial states this issue is "about who's in charge -- Jerry Jones and team owners who employ the players and don't want political protests to disrupt profits" (Ft. Worth STAR-TELEGRAM, 5/29).
PROTECTING BUSINESS INTERESTS: In N.Y., Phil Mushnick wrote the new policy has "everything to do with money." Since the sideline protests began, tens of thousands of NFL fans and customers have "exercised their right to counter-protest." Television ratings and ticket sales "are down," which creates a "clear and present economic danger to the NFL" (N.Y. POST, 5/27). In West Palm Beach, Jason Lieser wrote, "Does a 10 percent drop in ratings ... for what is still by far the nation’s most popular television program justify quieting the men who make it worth watching?" Lieser: "Just because it can doesn’t mean it should" (PALMBEACHPOST.com, 5/27). A USA TODAY editorial states the NFL has "kneeled before its bottom line." By "trying to please everyone, the league pleases no one" (USA TODAY, 5/29). Meanwhile, Town Hall columnist Derek Hunter writes the idea that the NFL is "only implementing its new national anthem policy because of falling ratings and public pressure is exactly how businesses work." Hemorrhaging fans, or customers, is the "quickest path to failure, so it’s smart for the NFL to do all it can to stop the swirling public relations disaster its players created" (USA TODAY, 5/29).
PROBLEM SOLVING? In DC, Sally Jenkins wrote this new policy is "just a duck-and-cover" of the NFL's "self-created problem." It is "likely to create only more awkwardness, similar to that experienced by the Steelers when they attempted to avoid controversy last season by staying in the tunnel during the anthem" (WASHINGTON POST, 5/28). A BOSTON HERALD editorial stated the owners’ new policy "doesn’t solve a thing, and we doubt it will win back disgusted fans who’ve turned their backs on the game" (BOSTON HERALD, 5/28). In DC, E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote the owners' action is the "opposite of bravery and a blow to freedom" (WASHINGTON POST, 5/28).
RE-IGNITING THE FLAME: In Miami, Greg Cote wrote the new policy has "served the opposite of its purpose, all but guaranteeing anthem protests will be a major NFL storyline for a third straight season." The negative fallout "has been a torrent" (MIAMI HERALD, 5/26). In L.A., Dylan Hernandez wrote the NFL owners are "playing a dangerous game." The "blatant lack of respect they have shown their employees could backfire on them in the form of increased player solidarity" (L.A. TIMES, 5/26). Sociologist and civil rights activist Harry Edwards said, "This is the dumbest move possible. They put the protest movement on blast. They just created a biggest stage than ever. ... They took a movement that was in decline and have resurrected it, pumped it up with adrenaline and made it a front-page story" (USA TODAY, 5/29).
LOOK TO THE NBA: In Boston, Nestor Ramos wrote NBA players are "supported by their league in a way that the NFL players have not been." The NBA "encourages players to be active about the issues they care about, and players often are, in ways that we now know would drive the NFL up the wall." The NBA "provides and even encourages its players and coaches to be outspoken" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/26).
