Football is a popular sport and is watched by many Americans hence any unusual occurrences arising from the sport receives a lot of attention. One such controversial events concerns the protests by the National Football League (NFL) players towards the national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner that started during a mere preseason game. No one noticed the new trend that would soon become popular. The players of the NFL took such pre-game protests to greater heights when dozens of them from across the league stood arm-in-arm, refused to take part in singing, or knelt when The Star-Spangled Banner echoed through the stadium while the Pittsburg Steelers remained in their locker room (Gaines, 2017). The rise in the levels of protests resulted from one of the recent criticisms of President Trump during a political rally in which he had asserted that it was his wish that the NFL fired those players involved in the blatant disrespect of the American flag (Lauletta, 2017). Additionally, the protests by the players, a large number of the NFL team owners, and managers released statements in support of the players, which denounced the president’s statement. Such actions have raised debates on what impact will be felt on national unity. It is also not certain for how long the protests will continue and to what extent the actions of some players will appeal to the public. Some players have huge following especially on social media sites and are regarded in high esteem in the society. This article consequently investigates the magnitude of the protests in an attempt to seek solutions to the problem. The essay also provides my view of the controversy regarding the correct approach to address the raised issues.
The most amazing thing about the whole controversy is the fact that the protests started with a single individual in a meaningless game at a time when it was ignored. The San Francisco 49ers was having a preseason match on August 14, 2016 against Houston Texans (Gaines, 2017). During that match, Colin Kaepernick, who had not dressed in the game’s gear remained on the bench as the national anthem played and not a single media house noted the behavior. Kaepernick again sat on the bench when the national anthem of the US played a week later before a game in Denver, and the event still remained unnoticed. The player also remained quiet on the issue. However, two weeks later following the first protest before a game between his team and the Green Bay Packers in San Francisco on a Friday evening that the issue received the first media focus. Using her smartphone, Jennifer Lee Chan captured a fully dressed Kaepernick as he remained on the bench while the Star-Spangled Banner played in the stadium on August 27, 2016 ( Cooky, 2017 ).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
While most of the players that protested the playing of the national anthem did so in part because they were responding to the president’s remarks, Kaepernick had done so because of a different reason. The player remarked following the completion of the third game in which he had stuck to his guns. In his remarks, he had indicated that the protests were done because he felt that the country’s approach to handling the African Americans and the rest of the people of color was inappropriate. After he had issued the statement, the player repeated his protests a week later before his team’s final game during the preseason while the whole nation was watching on television. However, this time, he chose to kneel rather than sit and his friend, Eric Reid joined him ( Cooky, 2017 ). The new move, to kneel as opposed to sitting, was a transformation that Nate Boyer had inspired in Kaepernick. Specifically, Boyer, a retired green beret had told him that kneeling was an act of respect because Kaepernick would still participate in the anthem instead of skipping it altogether. Boyer has borrowed his reference from his active years as soldier in which, as he explained, was an act of respect for comrades in the armed forces. The trend would than gather pace among the NFL players, which is a major controversy surrounding the game in the modern time.
The controversy around the issue that has emerged concerns the role that the National Football League plays in uniting Americans. Elsewhere, sports are considered a neutral ground for all people, which is why political agendas have been kept out of them at least for some time (Gaines, 2017). With this approach to sporting, most people concerned with the debate have been out to explain if the recent protests are justified or if they should be discouraged. The arguments from either side of the debate concerns the issue of patriotism. Precisely, does kneeling or any other form of disobedience to the national anthem indicate a sense of patriotism of the players to the nation? Each side hopes that the action by the players will be noticed nationally. Therefore, it is needful to consider what each of the sides of the debate, the liberal and conservative approach to issues, talks considering the protests.
The conservatives are obviously against the move by the players and the main argument they stage borrows from the idea that sports should not be politicized. This perspective is wide, and not even its broadness can take it out of context. According to my perspective, I believe that sports are social events, which is why they should be spared from a political interference. The singing of The Star-spangled banner, a song that every US national should be proud of because of the message and symbolism it presents, before the NFL games communicates the very intention of the sport. As much as people expect to be entertained, the national anthem’s tune suggests that they should be reminded of the values they share as a nation and the need to stay united. Historically, the Star-Spangled Banner was composed in celebration of the victory that the US army had experience in the War of 1812 against the British Navy (Spier, 2012). The flying of the flag by then meant that the US had managed the heavy bombardment by the then strong Royal Navy, a symbol that it would carry on through the hardest of the times to come. The choice of the NFL should not be mistaken since the sport is the most popular in the US, which means that the timing of the games and the singing of the national anthem receives the widest audience possible (Dame, 2017). The aim remains patriotism, which is why those against Kaepernick and his friends complain of betrayal of one of the greatest values of the nation that the flag should remind them. Arguing from this perspective, therefore, it is possible to see why the conservatives feel that the players were betraying the call for patriotism that they should have.
I also advocate that the players should be discouraged from boycotting the singing of the national anthem or giving inappropriate gestures when it plays. The very sense that sports should unite people in the US and around the world suggests that the people that play in the NFL should carry the sense that they represent the national interests ( Cooky, 2017 ). Therefore, people, all of them involved in the NFL as an industry, should not encourage actions that communicate the political perspectives of individuals. Some of the loudest voices in this line of talk consider that while the political issues around the US are inevitable, the NFL is not the appropriate place to air out such issues (Spier, 2012). They argue that it is a show of disrespect for the people that fought for the creation of ‘ the land of the free and the brave’ for the players to refuse to participate in the national anthem. This argument seems, and in fact indicates that each individual in the US has the duty of patriotism, and that it is not optional. The call of patriotism is one that the national anthem reminds all people that listen to it, and the largest audience that the US has is during the airing of the NFL live games ( Cooky, 2017 ). This perspective also points at the need for the players to understand that the contracts that the players have in the NFL should be mutual; the players should give patriotism back as the payment to the lucrative offers that they gain playing the sport. President Trump’s idea on the appropriate action that the employers should take towards the rogue players is reflected in his social media response to the actions as quoted below,
“ If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect our great American flag (our country) and should stand for the National Anthem. If not, YOU ARE FIRED. Find something else to do,” (Dame, 2017).
The President’s argument, much as it could be criticized, indicates that the role of the sport is not only to provide an economic advantage to the players, but also to promote patriotism towards the national values of the US. Therefore, the point is clear that taking political stands into the game risks the role of the sport. The opponents of the move say that the players should find other avenues through which they can air their views and spare the NFL of the blushes that their actions will create on the patriotic call of The Star-Spangled Banner.
I believe this argument appears to have a strong implication on the appropriate move that the industry should take towards such a behavior. Initially, sporting was fun, the opponents still argue, but the recent protests have been divisive, pointless and distracting (Gaines, 2017). I consider that such moves are a nightmare to the public relations of the NFL if they do not show any significant signs of stopping them. The players and the rest of the advocates of the protests could be wishing to preach the sense of the freedom of expression, but a large section of the sport’s fans might prefer that their football remains free of guilt-tripping and toxic politicking. For such a reason, most people have been tuning out of the live airings of the game. It should also be noted that the television ratings of the NFL have reduced following the occurrence of the events, which is according to a poll that was conducted in July 2017 (Dame, 2017). The poll also found that close to one third of the Americans were no longer willing to watch the game because of the disgust they would feel watching the kneelers.
While such arguments have been staged against the kneelers, they have something to argue in their defense. For instance, they argue that their actions are in line with the First Amendment that granted them the freedom of speech. This argument should be the strongest that the liberal-minded thinkers have been using to defend the actions of the players. Specifically, the argument considers that because every American has a right to think and express their ideas in the manner they wish, they should not be limited on the platform they should use in exercising such an important right ( Cooky, 2017 ). This argument counters the issue of patriotism directly, suggesting that perhaps why they chose the NFL games because of an assurance that they would get immediate attention. In this case, the issue that the players were presenting is a national one. Specifically, the US has had issues with an inclusion of the African Americans and the rest of the people of color for some time now. To some of the people affected by such issues, the treatment of the minority groups in the nation has been inspired by politics, suggesting that the government needed to improve the manner in which it treated them. The issue of the American police treating the African Americans discriminatively has been receiving significant attention levels in the US media for a long time. Therefore, the players thought that they would help if they used the largest platform possible to let the public and the President understand their concerns. In fact, Kaepernick reported that he understood that he needed to act according to his faith, citing the bible in James 2:17, which calls Christians to act according to their faith ( Love, 2017 ). Therefore, the players who protest against the tune of patriotism suggest that they have a point to put across to the world and the president specifically.
From my point of view, I think Kaepernick’s actions went overboard. Kaepernick and his colleagues argued that they had a real point to let the public know. The issue at hand was a quest for a fair treatment of the people of color in the US, as Kaepernick had indicated. The second issue was the fact that they were communicating that the president might have been wrong in using his political power to threaten them and force them onto ideologies that they least respected (Toledano, 2016). Kaepernick himself suggested that people should not consider his move as a show of a lack of patriotism since he felt that he needed to be part of the anthem only that he should let his views be known to the public. Kaepernick even thought that he should be a part of the team and avoid staying in the dressing room when the national anthem played. However, I believe that his approach was not right. Perhaps he should have marshalled up other players to boycott the games instead of sitting down when the national anthem is played. People may take such actions for disrespect of the nation and as a sow of seeds of discord. Instead of the league uniting all Americans, the actions of Kaepernick and others may make conservative Americans to lose appeal of the game. In as much as the concerns raised are valid, the methodology used according to me reduces the popularity of the game more than it promotes.
In conclusion, the controversy of the NFL players protesting the playing of national anthem of the US has gained much ground since Colin Kaepernick first did it. The players might be having a critical message to communicate to the public as they have argued in defense of their actions. However, I think it is disrespectful for players to protest against the flag of their nation. Therefore, even while the players have something to communicate, they should do so in a manner that avoids the current controversy, perhaps through other channels such as advocacy groups and others. Issues of discrimination cannot be ignored. Every individual has a right to protest when his or her rights are infringed upon. Nevertheless, the approach that is used needs to make sure that it does not cause conflicts.
References
Boyer, N. (2016). An Open Letter to Colin Kaepernick, from a Green Beret-turned-long Snapper. Army Times .
Cooky, C. (2017). “We Cannot Stand Idly By”: A Necessary Call for a Public Sociology of Sport1. Sociology of Sport Journal , 34 (1), 1-11.
Dame, T. (2017). Is kneeling during the National Anthem justified? . The Wave Breaker . Retrieved 31 December 2017, from https://shswavebreaker.com/news/2017/10/04/is-kneeling-during-the-national-anthem-justified/
Gaines, C. (2017). NFL anthem protests began during a meaningless preseason game nobody noticed and are now everywhere. Retrieved December 31, 2017 from http://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/sports/sports-nfl-anthem-protests-began-during-a-meaningless-preseason-game-nobody-noticed-and-are-now-everywhere-id7366930.html
Lauletta, T. (2017). Sports: Trump on national anthem protests: "Get that son of a b---- off the field right now" . Pulselive.co.ke . Retrieved 31 December 2017, from http://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/sports/sports-trump-on-national-anthem-protests-get-that-son-of-a-b-off-the-field-right-now-id7360899.html
Love, B. (2017). The NFL players’ decision to take a knee is justified. Retrieved December 31, 2017 from https://manateehsnews.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/the-nfl-players-decision-to-take-a-knee-is-justified/
Toledano, M. (2016). Advocating for reconciliation: Public relations, activism, advocacy and dialogue. Public Relations Inquiry , 5 (3), 277-294.
Wyche, S. (2016). Colin Kaepernick explains why he sat during national anthem. NFL. com .
