This needs to stay as an NFL thread and not get political. If it goes 'POFO' it'll be closed.

 

Isn't the "NFL tread" in the main discussion this season though? I have a feeling that this is not a suitable topic for our site...way too political.

 

You did. I moved it here. You should have received a message when I moved it. Per the sticky in this thread we're testing all threads in here. Either way though, threads aren't permitted to go political, so as long as this stays strictly on the subject of the NFL, helmets etc. it's fine. If it degenerates into political debate it'll close.

 

I don't see any way that it doesn't go political. What the NFL, and other leagues, is doing, is by nature political theatrics.

 

I'm willing to give it a go. The difference here would be discussing the place, or not for political messages in the NFL, versus, discussing political positions or politics itself.

 

The NFL has pandered to the far right for years with pregame ceremonies, commercials, ect.

 

I know it's in the thread title but maybe we should avoid talking about 'pandering'. It's a bit of a volatile term.

 

CAn they put names of the police officers and and innocent bystanders killed by these criminals on their helmets to get them some social justice as well? Just asking….

 

what? The national anthem and introductions are considered right wing? Last I checked that flag represents every American and those who served and serve this country. Unless I’m missing something in your statement.

 

Here's the way I see it. Either the NFL is a suitable vehicle for political messages or it isn't.
If it is deemed to be suitable then the issue arises as to which messages it wants to put forward, and that's where things get messy.

To my mind, the league itself should avoid political messages in games.

Instead, if individual players or groups of players or whole franchises feel passionate about any particular message and want to use their platform to promote it then they should do so in agreement at whatever level. So players should speak with their team etc. and then arrange to engage in whatever speech or actions are agreed. We always talk about it being a business, so that's just showing due consideration and respect when one understands that actions can have consequences, even unintended.

So, to use a very different and much milder example, I volunteer with a local charity here where I live. They engage in educating and inspiring young children (and anyone else) to be passionate about and care for the marine environment. I help them with various snorkel dives and presentations with school classes, and occasionally I also get roped into giving a radio or TV interview on a local station. Now, doing these things sometimes means I would get to work late or need a half day off. It also means that I get recognised as connected with a very mild environmental position (mild as in we're nothing like Green Peace etc.). I have spoken with my bosses and do speak with them, to agree time off etc. and they've been kind to accommodate me. It's unlikely, but possible, that someone could get upset with our message of caring for the oceans and perhaps bring that to the boss. He could decide he doesn't want that and needed to stop public speaking on this. At that point I would need to try to arrange something with him. I could stop speaking, and maybe doing the activities, or I could modify it somehow, or if I decide that my volunteer work is too important then I could consider looking for another job. Whatever the case, it's about trying to be respectful and considerate and making my own choices and priorities.

I think the league could do something similar. Many people don't want to have certain messages in their face on game day. Instead, the league could support individuals or groups or teams in doing other things. Now, some local fans might not like that, but the game day period has been respected, they'll need to learn to respect that some people want to promote messages they don't agree with. ESPN, NFLN, CBS etc. could give a bit of air time to cover those activities too. Even if I disliked the message I might well prefer that coverage of the off-field activities of some players and teams to the nonsense football talk half of them spout.

This, to me, is a decent compromise allowing players etc. to use their platform to promote a message they're passionate about - and in a clearer, more efficient way than words on helmets and kneeling or standing - while preserving the core activity of the NFL that brings so many different people together - football.

Of course, the NFL as its own business can choose to engage in these messages. If that's the case and one doesn't like it, then the sad choice would be to not give them any way, stop watching, and write to them to tell them why, etc.

 

Fair enough. In my opinion, the NFL is a business and they have the right to promote or avoid any topics they choose as an organization. I do like that they are listening to players who want to show support for certain causes, but I also think that it's a slippery slope when some causes are allowed to be promoted while others are not.

For instance, what if I'm a player who's passionate about saving the rainforest? Or curing cancer? I feel like every voice should be heard if they're going to open it up to this sort of statement on NFL uniforms. Every cause is personal to those who believe in it; for example, I'm a huge advocate of better mental health in the US. You may not even see the problem there though and find that sort of message ridiculous...so it has to be respectful to everyone involved (fans included).

For players in general though, I support the idea of them being able to publicly stand for their causes with fear of being terminated. I just hope the league realizes that it will create a god bit of backlash from people who do not agree with those stances. Personally, I miss the time in this word where we can strongly disagree on hop topics but still remain friends, allies, etc.

That should be the real goal here- how do we have these types of conversations and not make it political or offensive?

 

I agree to a certain extent- but when do you stop being a "person" and start being an "employee"? Should there be a divide there where once the cameras turn on, it's all business and your personal opinions need to be put to the side?

To me, I think the solution is give every player 60 seconds to talk about their cause in post-game interviews...get it in there right up front if they have something they want to say. The only restriction I'd put on it is that the message has to be suitable for everyone and not be offensive.

For instance, they couldn't say, "We really need to save the rainforest, so all you jerks who want to cut down trees to build stuff in that area need to stop being so dumb." I think everyone can promote their beliefs without stepping on someone else's opinions.

 

I think I expressed how to do that in my post.

 

I don't think your suggestion works directly because you're giving ESPN, CBS, etc. the opportunity to edit statements as they see fit and then deliver it to the public...which could come off a lot different than what they actually meant. I honestly think that's a core problem today in all these hot topic issues we can't discuss here- they're edited for the viewer and presented in a way that will create the most impact for the media outlet's benefit. So much gets taken out of context that players just don't want to talk to the media over issues like that anymore.

For that reason, I think the NFL has to control the flow of information to protect themselves and the players. So maybe you do this sort of thing on the team website on player profiles or during an "official" live interview, something like that.

 

I think it's divisive to allow politics of any sort into sports. Granted, enforcement is always an issue, but if the last 2 years has taught the major leagues anything it's that going too political — becoming too divisive — is bad for business. The NBA went full bore political last 2 years and its ratings have dived. It lost 25% of its viewership over the last 2 years and ratings for the finals were down 49%.

Even the NFL, the king of US sports, took around a 7% drop in ratings last year after all that race-laden advertising. At some point the higher ups are going to realize it just doesn't make business sense to be so divisive. Either way, I doubt we see this long term. Most of this is reactionary, and it will die down to a minimum within a few years IMO.

 

You have no data to support the claims that viewership is down due to politics. It's pure speculation on your part. It probably has more to do with illegal streaming then it does politics.

 

There's no spike in illegal streaming that would explain that. Furthermore, illegal streaming would not so dramatically affect the NBA — the major league that went further than all others in race-laden advertising — but not other leagues that did less of it.

Best plausible explanation is the sudden BLM advertising.

Oh, and here is some evidence:
https://www.newsweek.com/nba-rating...s-sports-over-social-justice-messages-1579886

In a poll, 34.5% said they watched less sports because of social justice messaging while 11% watched more. Note that the difference is 23.5% which is very close to the drop in NBA viewership.

 

My brother in-law says he boycotts football at cookouts every year but still watches every Raven game on Sunday. What people say and what they do are two different things.

 

I don't see a problem with it, personally.

Fairly or not, professional athletes are often expected to be a role models, and they're using their position to take a stand. And I like that.

 

Sure, but the correlation isn't zero. It's positive enough that the polls are useful.

Regardless, nothing else explains the timing AND the differential effect on the NBA.

 

They have narrowed their focus to essentially "racism is bad" and that is still too "political" for some people

They are also using "Salute to Service" but somehow that got ignored because agendas

 

I meant earlier in my post. That players etc. can pursue whatever activism they see fit outside games.

 

To be very fair, while ratings are down, Neilsen doesn't account for streams and has only announced lately that they will.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nielsen-expands-streaming-measurement-efforts-4170940/

 

Already addressed that. Streaming can't explain the timing AND the NBA having it far worse off than the other major leagues. There's simply no other viable explanation for what occurred than race messaging. Have to first come up with a viable alternative theory that explains both. Streaming isn't it.

 

For me personally, I stopped watching the NBA when Wade left Miami. I figured out I was more a fan of him than the team. So you have to be careful in saying, "The data shows...." when it comes to personal opinions and preferences.

 

When there's no other viable hypothesis then yes "the data shows" it's most likely race messaging. That's the only hypothesis that actually explains both the timing and the NBA stats. Even the polls back that up. Point is, you have to first come up with a viable alternative hypothesis. What's yours?

 

I just gave you mine- when Wade left the Heat, I stopped watching entirely. That's an indisputable fact of why one of the millions of people stopped watching the NBA over the past few seasons.

 

lol.. NEVER has any player leaving any team led to a 49% drop in ratings for the NBA finals. Sorry that theory fails miserably. And btw.. not everyone cares about Wade and the Heat. No, so far the only viable explanation, and one backed up by polls, is race messaging.

 

It's not a theory- it's a fact based on one person.

Why did everyone else leave? I have no idea. But now you have a factual account of one person's journey.

I lied though- I did watch some of the NBA Finals...I forgot about that. Part of what hurt US ratings was that it was a Toronto team in the finals this season.

 

The question was never about YOU. It was about the NBA stats, like why all those millions left. So it's totally irrelevant why you didn't watch the NBA finals (or part of it) if it doesn't help explain that 49% drop, or the 25% drop for the season as a whole.

Again.. stay on point: there is NO other viable hypothesis that explains both the timing AND the NBA stats than race messaging. Or if there one no one seems to be able to offer it.

 

If I was one of the millions who stopped watching, then how is it not about me? I am absolutely, positively a part of that statistic and you're telling me that I must have quit watching because of racial injustice. That is untrue.

My point here is that as a single person among the millions you're referring to, your findings are incorrect in my case. And I'm sure many did stop watching due to racial injustice topics- maybe you're 100% correct overall. The only thing I'm saying is that you can't say "that's the reason" when it clearly is not "the only reason" people stopped watching.

 

Well, in the NBA's case, most of their games are usually on cable/satellite. A lot of people lost their jobs in 2020 or had to reduce their work hours, which is likely leading to them cutting certain expenses such as cable/satellite.

 

Dude.. when talking about stats, "the reason" does NOT imply it explains every single data point. "The reason" explains the stats. So no your personal experience doesn't matter if it doesn't explain the stats.

Regardless.. I'm going to destroy my own theory right now. There actually is another team sport that saw such a decline: NHL. Didn't look at hockey before. They saw a 61% drop for the finals in 2020.

OK.. so what's the common denominator? They had to move the finals back to a later date so more sports were competing against each other. Same with NBA. So there's clearly another factor here.

 

It's good to have you back buddy- I've missed the arguments, LOL.