Do you support NFL change in policy to support protesting during the national anthem

It's a tough decision, I see justification for all 3 options. My family fought in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, do I turn my back on them? For option 2 if the announcers spend the whole game discussing the issue, forget about it. Option 3, I'm more likely to lose interest because the game I grew up watching in the 50's, 60's and 70's does not exist anymore. Last year I became angry at times by the officiating (keep games close), and taking the defense out of the game. Will I still watch? I'm brainwashed like you, I have no choice.

Originally posted by Overkill:
I don't care. I don't need the announcers to talk about it until halfway through the first quarter, though.

Exactly.

That is why I don't expect to see the demonstrations shown.

Originally posted by NinerTy:

Originally posted by dj43:
Let's keep the conversation on the NFL policy, please. There is another thread in the PL to address the broader issue.

Thank you.

LOL‼️‼️‼️ REALLY ⁉️⁉️⁉️

Yes, really.

Yes, support 100% as I always have.
That said, I'm an addict and would have kept watching football either way :)

Originally posted by thl408:
The only thing that would change my viewership is if there is evidence the refs are paid off.

I can't believe you missed the Super Bowl! :)

Originally posted by fryet:
When Colin Kaepernick sat/kneeled during the national anthem the NFL pushed back to various degrees. Now the NFL is apologizing and taking steps to support BLM type issues during the anthem/game. As a fan, do these changes have an impact on how you view the NFL and your likelihood to watch games?

What specifically are the new changes?

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
It's a tough decision, I see justification for all 3 options. My family fought in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, do I turn my back on them? For option 2 if the announcers spend the whole game discussing the issue, forget about it. Option 3, I'm more likely to lose interest because the game I grew up watching in the 50's, 60's and 70's does not exist anymore. Last year I became angry at times by the officiating (keep games close), and taking the defense out of the game. Will I still watch? I'm brainwashed like you, I have no choice.

Respectfully, I don't think supporting the protests has to equate with "turning our back" on veterans of US wars. Instead it can be about fulfilling the promise of the country they fought to protect.

I'm fine with it, but these poll options aren't on base for me. I'd vote Yes, but I wouldn't have watched no NFL games due to them saying no to protesting.

Originally posted by SammyFrancisco:
Respectfully, I don't think supporting the protests has to equate with "turning our back" on veterans of US wars. Instead it can be about fulfilling the promise of the country they fought to protect.

It goes without saying that there are consequences to every action. No matter which side of an issue one might take, there are consequences. In the case of veterans, there will be some that do not have a problem with protesting during the anthem while others are willing to work for equality but consider protesting during the anthem to be an insult to what they fought for. Both views should be respected. To ignore one side for the other will have some impact on viewership. It is what it is.

IMO sports should be devoid of all politics.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I personally always stand and put my hand over my heart.

With that said, it's a free country and it's your right to do it or not. It's a form of freedom of speech.

How about people get upset about the Supreme Court ruling that made it where companies could donate unlimited funds to campaigns because it's "freedom of speech".

I wanted to address the freedom of speech aspect. No, players don't have freedom of speech in a corporate environment (or maybe it is better to say freedom of consequences). Let's consider 2 scenarios:
1. Players in a corporate event using that platform to speak whatever they want. Definitely a no. Corporations get to decide the messaging that is presented entirely. For any employee that tries to usurp that prerogative, the company is definitely within its rights to fire the employee.
2. Players speaking publicly about their cause at a non-corporate event. There are countless cases where employees are fired if such speech is deemed detrimental to the company image. IMO this is more defensible than #1, but from current practice, employees should not expect to be protected by courts if they choose to do so.

The NFL could have decided to allow #2, but drawn the line on what is presented during the televised game when it comes to BLM. No kneeling or other forms of protect, just keep the game about football. That is not what the NFL has chosen. They will allow kneeling (I believe), and plan to play black national anthem before at least the first game, and probably other things too. The NFL as an organization has chosen to promote NFL - that is more than just allowing individual players from speaking on the topic during a "corporate event."

Originally posted by Niners99:

IMO sports should be devoid of all politics.

Sports has always been heavily involved in politics, especially since the 1930s Olympic games.

Due to popular demand we will forego the national anthem. The Simpsons gets everything right.

Kind of what others have said, I don't really care either way, but I do get annoyed on the play by play and so much media focus after the game about who's standing, who's kneeling, etc. I'd love it for the media to just remain focused on the actual game itself as well as the in-game. I am aware that's not how it works, and that's why it's annoying because yeah I don't care either way what people choose to do or not do, but I would like to remain focused on sports and the game itself.

They should encourage kneeling. Its a silly forced ceremony anyhow the Military pays for.