Trump uninvited the Eagles to the White House less than 24 hours before the team was scheduled to visit
President Trump last night "abruptly rescinded an invitation to host the Eagles at the White House" for today's celebration of the Super Bowl LII victory, citing the "'smaller delegation' that was planning to attend and again stoking a national debate" about NFL players protesting during the national anthem, according to a front-page piece by Berman, Tamari & Bowen of the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER. Trump in a statement said, “They disagree with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country. The Eagles wanted to send a smaller delegation, but the 1,000 fans planning to attend the event deserve better." A source said that "fewer than 10 players planned to attend" the celebration. Despite that, Eagles officials were in DC yesterday "preparing logistics" for the visit. A source said that Eagles Chair & CEO Jeffrey Lurie, who has been critical of Trump's presidency, "planned to make the visit." Some players, such as S Malcolm Jenkins and DE Chris Long, "made it clear they would not attend" the White House ceremony, though team officials "left the decision to the players." Eagles QB Carson Wentz said that he "did not consider the visit to be political" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 6/5). In Philadelphia, Dave Zangaro reported the team was "planning on letting its individual players decide whether or not they wanted to attend the visit to the White House" and at least "some of the team was looking forward to visiting the White House." While Jenkins was not planning on making the trip, he indicated that he "didn’t want to ruin the experience for others" (NBCSPORTSPHILADELPHIA.com, 6/4).
WALKING THE TIGHT ROPE: ESPN.com's Adam Schefter cited a source as saying that a "large group of Eagles players had decided not to attend, including most -- if not all -- of the black players." ESPN.com's Sal Paolantonio cited another source as saying that the team "did not learn of the cancellation until the White House put out its statement." There had been "ongoing conversations within the Eagles organization in the weeks leading up to the scheduled visit in an attempt to map out an itinerary that the team felt comfortable with" (ESPN.com, 6/4). NFL.com's Mike Garafolo reported Lurie "did not want to put his players in a tough spot and eventually decided to send a smaller contingent of fewer than 10 players," including Super Bowl LII MVP Nick Foles (NFL.com, 6/4). In Philadelphia, Marcus Hayes writes the Eagles' ownership group "largely despises" the Trump administration, but the team and Trump’s representatives "spent weeks hammering out a trip to Washington that was palatable to all" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 6/5). A senior White House official said that, "initially, more than 80 members of the Eagles team requested security clearance" to attend the event. In N.Y., Michael Shear reports after the NFL last month announced its new anthem policy, the number of players who "said they planned to attend dwindled rapidly." A different White House official said that Trump was "irked by the final decision of the team to send just a handful of representatives despite the fact that so many of the team’s fans had been invited" (N.Y. TIMES, 6/5).
NO-WIN SITUATION: Panthers WR Torrey Smith, a member of the Eagles' championship team, tweeted, "There are a lot of people on the team that have plenty of different views. The men and women that wanted to go should’ve been able to go. It’s a cowardly act to cancel the celebration because the majority of the people don’t want to see you. To make it about the anthem is foolish" (TWITTER.com, 6/4). NFL Network's Garafolo said, "All things being equal, they would have loved to have gone to the White House. But once it got to this point and it was canceled on them, they weren't exactly heartbroken" ("Good Morning Football," NFL Network, 6/5). The INQUIRER's Hayes asks if "full attendance is now compulsory to receive an invitation to the White House." The Patriots for their visit last summer had 32% fewer players "visit Trump’s White House than Obama’s" in '15. He notes Patriots Owner Robert Kraft donated $1M to Trump’s inauguration fund, while Lurie "gave $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 6/5). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio wrote the Eagles' statement after the White House canceled the visit "can be read as the team tiptoeing around the possibility of getting into a back and forth" with Trump. In the statement there is "no mention of the White House visit" and "no mention of the cancellation." There is also "no mention of the President." The Eagles "know they’re in a no-win situation." It is a "continuation of the fear with which the NFL regards the President and his base" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 6/4).
Some players like Jenkins and Long made it clear they would not attend the ceremonyGETTY IMAGES
PLAYING POLITICS: POLITICO's Restuccia & Griffiths wrote the cancellation was a "classic Trump move." Instead of "risking an awkward moment in front of reporters and television cameras, Trump turned the tables, issuing a fiery statement that is certain to play well with his base." Trump and his advisers "believe the culture war they’ve incited over the national anthem is a hands-down political winner." Sources said that Trump "intends to continue hammering away at the issue heading into the midterms and his own reelection bid" (POLITICO.com, 6/4). In DC, Dawsey & Lowery cite sources as saying that Trump after his comments at a September rally in Alabama about players kneeling during the national anthem was "surprised by the cacophonous and continuing cheers and became convinced that making players stand for the anthem -- and repeatedly railing about the issue on Twitter -- is a political winner." Trump "watched the league’s approval ratings drop -- particularly among his supporters -- and frequently quizzed senior administration officials in the Oval Office about his ongoing feud." Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg said, “He’s 100 percent beaten the NFL into submission. It’s quite a smart move for him because he opens the White House to the fans while making it about the national anthem" (WASHINGTON POST, 6/5). FS1's Skip Bayless said, "He feels like he has the NFL on the run, so it's just going to be ratcheted up ... because it appears this is good for the President." FS1's Shannon Sharpe: "Now he has something else to take to his base -- 'I won't let them come.' He's going to keep this going. He's going to continue to flame this because this works for him" ("Undisputed," FS1, 6/5).
CONTINUING THE FIGHT: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Beaton & Bender write Trump by pulling the Eagles' invite is "upending a tradition and furthering his feud with the country's most popular sports league" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 6/5). The AP's Colvin & Haines Whack noted is "digging deeper into a culture war that he's repeatedly stoked" (AP, 6/4). YAHOO SPORTS' Eric Adelson wrote, "Whether you love or loathe the president, you can see how he identifies cultural fault lines and turns them into trenches." He has "found a chasm" with the anthem issue and is "happy to take a backhoe to that rift" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 6/4). In Philadelphia, Jonathan Tamari writes under the header, "In Nixing Eagles Visit, Trump Again Plays Divider-In-Chief." In many ways, Trump's battles "spur more support from people who see Trump as fighting for them" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 6/5). YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote Trump is an "undeniable master of waging culture wars to rile up his base." Players protesting during the national anthem is a "popular issue for him to fight on, so he fights on it every time he can" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 6/4). SI.com's Robert Klemko writes Trumps "knows this sort of thing is red meat for his base" (SI.com, 6/5). NBCSN's Chris Simms: "I don't think you can win this battle against him" ("PFT," NBCSN, 6/5). ESPN's Trey Wingo: "What essentially has happened is that the NFL didn't want him to be an owner, and now Donald Trump owns the league" ("Golic & Wingo," ESPN Radio, 6/5).
NOT GOING AS PLANNED: USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes the White House snub "underscored just why it was such a bad idea for NFL owners to pass that new, murky national anthem policy, as if it would squash the criticism coming from the President." Trump apparently "never had any intention of pulling his punches on the NFL over the anthem issue, whether they changed the policy or not." NFL owners now "look silly" in weighing the criticism from Trump as "one of the significant factors for changing the anthem policy." Kowtowing to him was "hardly the ticket to reducing the attention on the matter ... or to solidifying its fan base." That plan is "backfiring, with more fuel now heaped on the issue" (USA TODAY, 6/5). ESPN's Stephen A. Smith said Trump "has the NFL in the palm of his hands." Smith: "He can do whatever he wants to them right now because of the positions they have taken or the positions they refuse to take. ... He's got them by the you-know-whats because they folded to him” (“First Take,” ESPN, 6/5). In N.Y., Ken Belson writes this is the "thanks the NFL got for trying to appease the president." Belson: "They have the worst of all worlds -- players are angry at the owners, and the president continues to attack the league" (NYTIMES.com, 6/5). YAHOO SPORTS' Wetzel wrote under the header, "This Is The NFL's Punishment For Trying To Appease President Trump." Team owners thought the new anthem policy "would give Trump enough of a 'win' that they hoped he might stop beating them up." It was "one of the most ludicrous crisis-management strategies ever implemented" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 6/4). THE RINGER's Clair McNear wrote it is now known that the move was "every bit the folly that it seemed." Trump will "never let the NFL inequality protests rest" (THERINGER.com, 6/4).
