Taking a stand against the protest in NFL

Enough is enough. You couldn’t turn on the television – news or sports shows – any time during the last 10 days without seeing more comment and recomment about the protests in the National Football League … and President Donald Trump’s tweets about them.

To recap, quickly:

• It all began when Colin Kaepernick decided he would not stand for the National Anthem before football games, protesting racial injustice and oppression in America. Until gaining the national spotlight with his actions, he was most noted for setting the NFL record for going from penthouse to outhouse in the shortest period of time – leading 49ers to NFC Championship game in 2013, then losing his starting job midway through 2015 season.

• Last season a few other players showed empathy for Kaepernick’s cause with similar sideline demonstrations.

• Furor heightened this year when Kaepernick could not land a job with an NFL team – leading to charges of racism against owners.

• That led to an increase in sideline demonstrations this year.

• President Trump finally threw gas on the fire by tweeting his displeasure with the protestors – saying NFL owners should “Fire the SOBs.”

• Athletes around the NFL and across other sports expressed their outrage, claiming President Trump was attempting to impede their right to free speech.

• Roger Goodell, the $35 million-a-year commissioner of the NFL, voiced support for the players.

• Facebook erupted with support for the protestors, pointing to the standard line that “wars were fought to protect the right to free speech.” There also was counter-anguish from the other side, many pledging to end their support of the NFL.

So, now that the battle lines have been drawn, let’s move to the bottom line so that this inflamed situation can be put to rest.

• Under free speech rules, Kaepernick had every right to make his protest.

• And, under the same rules, the other players had every right to copycat his actions … except for the fact that the NFL contract requires players to stand for the National Anthem.

• President Trump, once again, was anything but presidential in his crude manner of admonishing the players for disrespecting the National Anthem and the country. But he voiced the disgust of many Americans.

• The main impetus behind the Facebook rants about “free speech” was not an impassioned defense of the Constitution, but a visceral hate of President Trump. The false motives are too trans-

parent.

• And where is that same outrage from the Left about impeding free speech when college campuses un-invite – or riot – in an attempt to block the appearance of a speaker who has conservative leanings? Hypocrisy.

The real issue regarding these protests is not about the right of the players to do so. Nobody wants to take away their right to free speech. But they should do so on their own time – not when they are in uniform and being paid a lot of money to play football.

If they really want to right social injustice – or any of the other problems in this country – take off the uniform and run for public office. Eagles offensive lineman Jon Runyan did so and became a U.S. Representative from New Jersey. The late Jim Bunning, one of the great pitchers

in Philadelphia Phillies history, became a U.S. Senator from Kentucky. The late Jack Kemp went from an AFL quarterback career to nine terms in Congress before becoming Housing Secretary. Former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann ran for governor of Pennsylvania.

The issue involves an employer’s right to establish a comfortable atmosphere for profit-making. Subjecting patrons to political protest is hardly the best atmosphere.

Imagine going to a restaurant, being greeted by your server and hearing, “I would like to tell you about tonight’s dinner specials, but first let me say that global warming is going to kill us all if we don’t do something about it right away.” You would be running for the door.

Or, imagine going to the grocery store, emptying your groceries at the register and hearing, “Before I ring up your purchases, let me tell you about the employment inequities at this

store and the substandard pay scale.” You would leave the ice cream to melt on the conveyor belt.

Even worse is the fact that people are paying exorbitant amounts of money to see NFL games, go to concerts or sit in theaters to view plays such as “Hamilton.” They go for entertainment … but are subjected to political angst.

One television pundit tried to make the case that the NFL is the perfect platform for protest. Look how much good is done when if spotlights Breast Cancer Awareness Month. That is a totally false analogy.

There is no controversy to the cause of Breast Cancer Awareness. It has the support of 100 percent of the American people. A protest that involves disrespecting the National Anthem introduces controversy and divisiveness into a business situation. In fact, polls show that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the sideline protests.

Personally, I work way

too hard, and for way too many hours to allow my few moments of diversion to be dragged back into the real world of bickering. If it continues, I will find other – non-combative – ways of relaxation.

And many others feel the same way.

Years ago people stopped watching shows such as the Academy Awards, the Emmys or the different musical award presentations … because they kept getting dragged into the world of protests. These people are not burying their heads in the sand. They know work is needed to improve America. But there is a time and a place for political debate … and there is a time to relax.

The NFL is already suffering the effects of the weekly non-football drama, as ratings have plummeted this year and promise to continue to fall. Soon, ticket sales and the sale of NFL licensed products may follow suit.

When that dropoff in interest begins to affect

Goodell’s earning potential, he might change his tune quickly.

It is not out of line for a team owner to tell his players they are certainly welcome to their political opinions … but keep them out of the game. Just as a business owner can insist that an employee must wear a dress shirt and tie to work … or cannot have visible tattoos … or cannot solicit patrons for personal causes.

Along that line of thinking, President Trump was correct. An owner can “fire” a player whose actions are hurting business. There is no Constitutional crime in that move.

The only crime (of impropriety) takes place when the President chooses an inflammatory route to make his point. There is already enough inflammatory actions among the players. May I remind you of the vile actions of Odell Beckham Jr. in the New York Giants-Philadelphia Eagles game?

May I also remind you that Hillary Clinton jumped on this bandwagon and played the race card when she charged that Trump only “attacked black athletes.” Typical tactic of the Left. If someone disagrees with a black person, it must be because he/ she is a racist. This debate is spiraling downward at a dizzying pace.

It would all help if people acted in a civilized way, protested in a civilized manner, and spoke in a civilized tone.

And, ever since I was four years old, I still want a pony for Christmas. Unfortunately, there’s not much chance of any of those things happening.