.jpg)
Anyone who’s been paying any attention to the National Football League in the last several seasons knows that Goodell and Co. have been struggling with how to deal with protests during the pregame playing of the national anthem. It seems that each Sunday, there’s a new controversy about a player’s conduct during the anthem, whether it’s now-retired tight end Martellus Bennett flashing a Black Power sign, Steelers’ tackle Alejandro Villanueva leaving his team in the locker room to salute the flag, or 49ers’ safety Eric Reid taking a knee with several teammates.
Last season, fans and media members alike were calling for action from the NFL’s owners and higher-ups. Well, apparently it’s been a point of emphasis this offseason; Albert Breer reported the following via MMQB:
“On Tuesday, NFL owners put three hours aside for a privileged session to speak—amongst themselves and family members—about the most sensitive of topics. One was how the league will handle players kneeling during the national anthem going forward. An idea being floated in the room goes like this: It would be up to the home team on whether both teams come out of the locker room for the anthem, and, should teams come out, 15-yard penalties could be assessed for kneeling.”
Let’s unpack both prongs of the proposed rule.
1. Home teams decide whether players come out
Given that the owners were the ones who came up with this proposition, I wouldn’t interpret this piece as Goodell pushing responsibility onto owners for fear of negative public blowback. Rather, this solution probably came to the forefront because not all owners (and their families) were able to agree whether they wanted teams in the locker rooms or on the field for the anthem.
That being said, I think this portion of the rule could have a seriously negative impact on the public perception of the league. Not only would owners would be forced to--at least partially--reveal their political views to consumers of the NFL’s product, but this sort of unilateral action by team brass would most certainly cause intra-organizational disputes. If you think the Steelers-Villanueva debacle was bad (mentioned above), just imagine what this new rule would bring. In an age where athletes have bigger media (and social media) presences than ever before, you can bet there will be someone like Michael Bennett speaking out Week 1 when his owner makes him stay off the field for the Star Spangled Banner. Given the extent to which the owners will be sticking their necks out by making this sort of decision, I’m really not sure why they arrived at this remedy to the issue.
2. 15-yard penalties for teams who protest
Alright, so let’s say a particularly liberal owner decides to put everyone out on the field, and one player on a competing team decides to take a knee. Right off the bat, the 15-yard penalty tells the public all it needs to know about how the league feels about protests in general--that fact alone will agitate plenty of players who wish to express their viewpoints freely. And when the 15-yard penalty is assessed, imagine how the other 45 players on the sideline will feel that one guy decided to throw the whole team under the bus for the purpose of his protest. Now you have yourself intra-team conflict as well as intra-organizational turmoil.
Will the 15-yard penalty be enough to deter a player who wishes to kneel? Will the coaches choose to bench players if they protest? In doing so, won’t the NFL effectively be silencing players who want to speak up on social issues? How will this fare in the court of public opinion?
There are a lot of questions and not many clear answers. I understand that the NFL was trying to come up with a solution to a difficult situation, but I don’t think this one is gonna do the trick.
Comments