support of his teammates who choose to protest during the national anthem. He feels players are the lifeblood of the league and should use the football field as a way to “seize the platform” for this issue. He says at this point one either decides to support the underlying cause or not.

I disagree with his position on supporting those players who choose to risk offending a significant portion of his team’s fanbase by protesting during the national anthem and who use the football field as a platform for demonstrating their political views. Like many fans, I pay admission or subscribe to a TV package to watch the sport of football with no interest in any of the owners’, coaches’ or players’ political views during the event. Playing the national anthem prior to a game has been a time-honored tradition throughout my entire life and is part of the sporting event.

I would feel the same if the underlying cause were abortion, immigration, gun regulation, etc. - political protest has no place on the sports playing field. For that matter, who has the audacity to assert that their issue is more worthy of protest than another? When he and his fellow players enter the stadium, they are employees working within the scope of their employment and are obligated to conduct themselves in a manner not detrimental to their employer. Demonstrating during the national anthem and turning off millions of customers clearly fits that description. I also don’t believe players are the “lifeblood of the league” but feel that paying customers are.

I admire Chris’ selfless commitment to his causes and appreciate the way he plays football but feel it’s important to bifurcate the two when appropriate.



[Post edited by Hoos Operator at 06/05/2018 08:52AM]