Dolphins announce they will be staying inside for anthem

"KeyFin wrote:

Now, let's get back to your statement that we're pretending is a proven fact. Some folks hate any form of protesting from players and they may stop being Dolphins or even NFL fans. Is that a bad thing though? Because think about this- as a business, you have to take a stand in what you believe is good and right. Should you really care if customers who believe the opposite of you get angry over it? And if you do want to continue marketing to customers that don't share your values, what does that say about you as a person and a leader? Your belief system should never be compromised to make an extra dollar.

I think that's exactly what the Dolphins players are against, division. People got to stop thinking this is a black & white issue (no pun intended) where we assume everyone who doesn't share their viewpoints are terrible people, they have their reasons, for some their reason might be racist, but I'm willing to bet for most its not about race, they just feel the flag and anthem shouldn't be used to incite division and anger and if you read the Dolphins poem, you'll see that's where they stand as well:

So if my dad was a solider but the cops killed my brother, do I stand for one anthem and then kneel for the other? This attempt to unify only creates more divide, so we'll just skip the song and dance, and as a team we'll stay inside.

"Disgustipate wrote:

I don't doubt that there are people of certain political orientations that are going to talk a big game in a political poll. The question is if they'll stop watching, or watch something else. There's no evidence that's true, or if it is true, that those people make up a meaningful percent of the population.

NFL Kickoff viewership trend on NBC:

2020: Chiefs-Texans: 20.3 million
2019: Packers-Bears: 22.2 million
2018: Falcons-Eagles: 19.0 million
2017: Chiefs-Patriots: 21.8 million
2016: Panthers-Broncos: 25.2 million

from 2003-2008, the game never topped 20 million

— Austin Karp (@AustinKarp) September 11, 2020

Ratings for football have decline over the last "X" years(by various metrics), but it's in-line with what is happening to TV in general. There's no evidence it's a reaction to certain people having their feelings hurt or whatever, as opposed to say, a huge shift in how people are consuming entertainment media.

I think another possible reason is more and more people are drifting away from TV, I hardly ever put it on, though when I do its usually for sports, but some have abandoned Directv, Optimum, DISH, etc.....mostly because of prices and poor services. My cousin for example watches everything he needs via internet and he probably watched the Thursday night game but do we know if that counts in the ratings.

"texanphinatic wrote:

I get and respect this point of view, that after a tough M-F 9-5 a lot of us just want to kick up our feet and watch some ball, but it's worth remembering that our own personal experiences aren't shared by all. Would Jackie Robinson agree its all about escaping the seriousness and stressors in our daily lives? And for many people of color, there is no escape, which is one of the points being made.

And you don't understand how the vast majority of fans aren't going to agree with this and are going to wind up simply tuning out this stuff until it goes away? You don't understand how rubbing someone's nose in this over and over with no escape from the scolding and preaching is going to have exactly the OPPOSITE effect you want it to have?

"Rick 1966 wrote:

And you don't understand how the vast majority of fans aren't going to agree with this and are going to wind up simply tuning out this stuff until it goes away? You don't understand how rubbing someone's nose in this over and over with no escape from the scolding and preaching is going to have exactly the OPPOSITE effect you want it to have?

My advice to them is to go watch the WWE if they are so offended by people protesting peaceful - protected by the constitution.

I could never comprehend how a bunch of cantankerous old men have no problem watching African Americans play sports (a lot of times die hard fans) but the moment the athletes open their mouths to speak on behalf of injustices in the world they are discarded like trash. I don't think they much give a fuck if people stop watching them that can't tolerate social dissent.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

And you don't understand how the vast majority of fans aren't going to agree with this and are going to wind up simply tuning out this stuff until it goes away? You don't understand how rubbing someone's nose in this over and over with no escape from the scolding and preaching is going to have exactly the OPPOSITE effect you want it to have?

Once again, there's no proof of this at all.

Even then, who gives a shit? They've made a choice that might hurt their bottom line, and made an assessment that it won't for some reason be ruinous(which there's about a zero % chance of).

Hmm.. politics in sports is for me a distraction I'd rather live without, but none of it compares to the irritation of lengthy commercial breaks during the game. I've developed a routine of actually doing some work during commercial breaks and going back to being a fan between the commercials. Nothing to be done about that either I guess.

"Bumrush wrote:

I could never comprehend how a bunch of cantankerous old men have no problem watching African Americans play sports (a lot of times die hard fans) but the moment the athletes open their mouths to speak on behalf of injustices in the world they are discarded like trash. I don't think they much give a **** if people stop watching them that can't tolerate social dissent.

You know, when I watch the Dolphins play, I’m not watching African Americans playing a game. I’m color blind when it comes to the human race. In the army, we weren’t black, white, brown, yellow or red. We were all Army issue OD green. When I watch the Dolphins, if I see any color, it’s aqua and orange.

Im retired from the army now and working for AT&T. As to them “opening their mouths” I guess I just look at it like this I’m forbidden from expressing any opinion or views while in uniform at work that may tarnish the company brand, whether customers agree or disagree with my personal opinion. I risk losing my job. So why would employees of the NFL be considered any differently?

Because they’re famous?
Because they’re millionaires?
Because they’re celebrities?

They’re no different than I am. They are employees of a company who, like me are professionals in their line of work. I have customers, they have customers. I provide a service, they provide a service but if I express my personal opinion on a social issue while at work, I risk dismissal for potentially offending a customer but if any of them express an opinion while in uniform at work, whether or not I’m offended is irrelevant.

This is why I’m glad the Dolphins are taking the position of staying in the locker room. They don’t have to worry alienating one segment or another of their customer base...just like I have to refrain from alienating and offending any of my customers.

"Disgustipate wrote:

I don't doubt that there are people of certain political orientations that are going to talk a big game in a political poll. The question is if they'll stop watching, or watch something else. There's no evidence that's true, or if it is true, that those people make up a meaningful percent of the population.

NFL Kickoff viewership trend on NBC:

2020: Chiefs-Texans: 20.3 million
2019: Packers-Bears: 22.2 million
2018: Falcons-Eagles: 19.0 million
2017: Chiefs-Patriots: 21.8 million
2016: Panthers-Broncos: 25.2 million

from 2003-2008, the game never topped 20 million

— Austin Karp (@AustinKarp) September 11, 2020

Ratings for football have decline over the last "X" years(by various metrics), but it's in-line with what is happening to TV in general. There's no evidence it's a reaction to certain people having their feelings hurt or whatever, as opposed to say, a huge shift in how people are consuming entertainment media.

Also online ratings were near the record level for Thursdays game as well.

"Ronnie Bass wrote:

I think another possible reason is more and more people are drifting away from TV, I hardly ever put it on, though when I do its usually for sports, but some have abandoned Directv, Optimum, DISH, etc.....mostly because of prices and poor services. My cousin for example watches everything he needs via internet and he probably watched the Thursday night game but do we know if that counts in the ratings.

Illegal streaming is huge nowadays. I bet at least 5 million stream illegally.

"Bumrush wrote:

My advice to them is to go watch the WWE if they are so offended by people protesting peaceful - protected by the constitution.

I could never comprehend how a bunch of cantankerous old men have no problem watching African Americans play sports (a lot of times die hard fans) but the moment the athletes open their mouths to speak on behalf of injustices in the world they are discarded like trash. I don't think they much give a **** if people stop watching them that can't tolerate social dissent.

You’re equating people being against protesting or speaking out which for most of the people that I know and myself are perfectly fine with intentionally disrespecting the flag. Burning the flag or kneeling intentionally while the national anthem is playing are intentional disrespect to the flag and country. So would you be ok with a player burning the flag during the anthem because that is their method of protest? I think the real question is if it’s offensive to many, many people is it ok because your motives are good? And do you still feel that way when it’s a issue that now your on the other side? Here’s an example: Why aren’t you fighting to have officers killed or injured by protesters being allowed on the back of helmets? Or being worn on jerseys in the NBA? You must be for it if you don’t agree right??? The double standard is pretty apparent.

Careful guys. Don't let this get personal. It's an emotive subject so try to keep it objective and try to be understanding.

Okay?

"Bumrush wrote:

My advice to them is to go watch the WWE if they are so offended by people protesting peaceful - protected by the constitution.

I could never comprehend how a bunch of cantankerous old men have no problem watching African Americans play sports (a lot of times die hard fans) but the moment the athletes open their mouths to speak on behalf of injustices in the world they are discarded like trash. I don't think they much give a **** if people stop watching them that can't tolerate social dissent.

Nothing to do with being offended, has a lot to do with being tired of beaten over the head with the same message no matter which direction you look. And as for your crack about cantankerous old men and African-Americans, those athletes make millions of dollars from people who pay to watch them play. They're not paying for their political opinions. The owners aren't paying them to give their political opinions while on the field, in uniform. If you're a Best Buy employee wearing the blue polo shirt, you aren't allowed to go proselytize for your favorite religion or political cause on the job, so why should the NFL be any different?

"Disgustipate wrote:

Once again, there's no proof of this at all.

Even then, who gives a ****? They've made a choice that might hurt their bottom line, and made an assessment that it won't for some reason be ruinous(which there's about a zero % chance of).

Proof as in a professionally-run study? No. Not yet.
But I know a lot of people who have been fans their whole lives, season ticket holders, people who buy and wear the gear, who have told me they've had enough being lectured on morality and politics by players who constantly get busted for beating their wives and girlfriends and getting DUIs. They don't watch football for a political screed and they're not going to be supporting it anymore.
And no, it won't show this season, not with the COVID disrupting things, but long-term, it certainly will.

"Galant wrote:

Careful guys. Don't let this get personal. It's an emotive subject so try to keep it objective and try to be understanding.

Okay?

It's the way of the world right now. If the NFL is politicizing it why can't a random internet message board talk about it?

"Rick 1966 wrote:

Nothing to do with being offended, has a lot to do with being tired of beaten over the head with the same message no matter which direction you look. And as for your crack about cantankerous old men and African-Americans, those athletes make millions of dollars from people who pay to watch them play. They're not paying for their political opinions. The owners aren't paying them to give their political opinions while on the field, in uniform. If you're a Best Buy employee wearing the blue polo shirt, you aren't allowed to go proselytize for your favorite religion or political cause on the job, so why should the NFL be any different?

If you are tired of hearing it, just imagine how tired they are of saying it.

It is not their fault that Best Buy doesn't have a union.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

If you are tired of hearing it, just imagine how tired they are of saying it.

It is not their fault that Best Buy doesn't have a union.

Oh, I don't think they're tired of saying it at all. I think they're quite happy to have a platform where they can be paid millions to espouse their political causes publicly in front of millions of people. And the union has nothing to do with it. The NFLPA has been legendarily, historically useless.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

Proof as in a professionally-run study? No. Not yet.
But I know a lot of people who have been fans their whole lives, season ticket holders, people who buy and wear the gear, who have told me they've had enough being lectured on morality and politics by players who constantly get busted for beating their wives and girlfriends and getting DUIs. They don't watch football for a political screed and they're not going to be supporting it anymore.
And no, it won't show this season, not with the COVID disrupting things, but long-term, it certainly will.

While you're at it you can really hurt ol' Hanoi Jane's pocketbook too I'm sure.

"TheHighExhaulted wrote:

It's the way of the world right now. If the NFL is politicizing it why can't a random internet message board talk about it?

We can. That's what we're doing. I just asked people not to get personal and to keep it objective. I'd very much like for people to talk about it and to do that this thread needs to stay open. If you have anything further to say, PM me, please. I don't want to side-track the thread.

"KeyFin wrote:

Let's say that your statement is 100% true for a moment- let's call it a fact. All businesses deal with this; we have to develop rules to protect our employees and customers, even though some may not like it. For example, you have to wear shoes to enter a convenience store or a restaurant at the beach. It stinks and people get angry about it but it's also state law. Then there are others who get just as angry when someone walks into a gas station at the beach barefoot and the staff doesn't stop them...so it's impossible to appease every customer 100% of the time regardless of the rules and laws.

Now, let's get back to your statement that we're pretending is a proven fact. Some folks hate any form of protesting from players and they may stop being Dolphins or even NFL fans. Is that a bad thing though? Because think about this- as a business, you have to take a stand in what you believe is good and right. Should you really care if customers who believe the opposite of you get angry over it? And if you do want to continue marketing to customers that don't share your values, what does that say about you as a person and a leader? Your belief system should never be compromised to make an extra dollar.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but the team has two choices- publicly display their opinions on something they believe is important...or stay silent. I don't think this is the time in US history to tell anyone that their opinion doesn't matter, especially athletes who have a lot of sway with teens and young adults.

There is a difference between being an employee/service provider and being the owner of a business. As an employee/contractor you owe a fiduciary duty to the organization that is paying you, which generally means you are obliged to take actions that are financially beneficial to the organization.

I work in the restaurant industry. For an example let’s say Shula’s Steak House employs a chef who decides they are going to order locally grown, organic, ethically yada yada yada produce because that’s what that chef thinks is best for the environment. That will double that restaurant’s food costs, yet because the chef does not control pricing, advertising, etc. the business cannot recover those additional food costs. That Chef will get fired for breaching their fiduciary duty to the restaurant.

The correct course of action in that situation for the Chef is to say “I quit” and open their own restaurant that is run according to their beliefs. Another course would be to persuade in private the owners to change their business practices because “it is the right thing to do”.When you are entrusted with someone else’s money you have to act in a way that is best for them, even if it is not what you would do yourself. You do not have the right to screw up someone else’s business because of your personal moral reasons.

Getting publicly involved in political causes while at work and representing another party without the express consent and agreement of that party is wrong. You’re taking someone else’s property and using it for your personal benefit.

"Pauly wrote:

There is a difference between being an employee/service provider and being the owner of a business. As an employee/contractor you owe a fiduciary duty to the organization that is paying you, which generally means you are obliged to take actions that are financially beneficial to the organization.

I work in the restaurant industry. For an example let’s say Shula’s Steak House employs a chef who decides they are going to order locally grown, organic, ethically yada yada yada produce because that’s what that chef thinks is best for the environment. That will double that restaurant’s food costs, yet because the chef does not control pricing, advertising, etc. the business cannot recover those additional food costs. That Chef will get fired for breaching their fiduciary duty to the restaurant.

The correct course of action in that situation for the Chef is to say “I quit” and open their own restaurant that is run according to their beliefs. Another course would be to persuade in private the owners to change their business practices because “it is the right thing to do”.When you are entrusted with someone else’s money you have to act in a way that is best for them, even if it is not what you would do yourself. You do not have the right to screw up someone else’s business because of your personal moral reasons.

Getting publicly involved in political causes while at work and representing another party without the express consent and agreement of that party is wrong. You’re taking someone else’s property and using it for your personal benefit.

Sure. But I think this is tangential to the point. It would be up to the owners to fire the chef, up to the team owners or league to fire/discipline players. Of course, there would be the public/PR side of that to answer for too but if we continue with the legal/financial approach it's just one more element in the equation - what's more profitable for the business in the long run.

I think what's closer to the heart of the issue - at least as far as Coach Flores is stating - is for everyone to ask how they can do better.
The players are raising what they think is an vitally important issue. It's forcing owners, CEO's, fans and others who watch them to ask questions. They're risking the league taking flak for it, maybe losing money, but that's between them and the league. For us who watch we I would think the following questions would arise:

Do they have a point? If so, is there something I can do?
If not, can I accept the fact that think they do and consider why they might think that? And is there anything I can do about that?

If they have a point but it's complicated, is it worth trying to help clear it up?

At the very least I think reasonable people have to acknowledge that a very large number of people see, or think they see, a very significant problem. That should at least start a conversation about that.

Of course, no one has to care or pay attention. But then I suppose that person has to choose to ignore it or focus elsewhere.

For my part, I think there's a fundamental problem with the demand that people do something. It's too simplistic. Before people can "do something" I think there has to be a long and complicated look at what the problem is, then the cause of that problem, and only then can a solution be found. There are people having that conversation, but in the mainstream media at least, it's too few people.

If we can at least start to learn to hear one another though, then that will be progress.

"Pauly wrote:

There is a difference between being an employee/service provider and being the owner of a business. As an employee/contractor you owe a fiduciary duty to the organization that is paying you, which generally means you are obliged to take actions that are financially beneficial to the organization.

I work in the restaurant industry. For an example let’s say Shula’s Steak House employs a chef who decides they are going to order locally grown, organic, ethically yada yada yada produce because that’s what that chef thinks is best for the environment. That will double that restaurant’s food costs, yet because the chef does not control pricing, advertising, etc. the business cannot recover those additional food costs. That Chef will get fired for breaching their fiduciary duty to the restaurant.

The correct course of action in that situation for the Chef is to say “I quit” and open their own restaurant that is run according to their beliefs. Another course would be to persuade in private the owners to change their business practices because “it is the right thing to do”.When you are entrusted with someone else’s money you have to act in a way that is best for them, even if it is not what you would do yourself. You do not have the right to screw up someone else’s business because of your personal moral reasons.

Getting publicly involved in political causes while at work and representing another party without the express consent and agreement of that party is wrong. You’re taking someone else’s property and using it for your personal benefit.

Dude yes. I've been trying to explain this forever, and you just nailed exactly what I've been trying to say to people.

"Rick 1966 wrote:

Oh, I don't think they're tired of saying it at all. I think they're quite happy to have a platform where they can be paid millions to espouse their political causes publicly in front of millions of people. And the union has nothing to do with it. The NFLPA has been legendarily, historically useless.

I think they are tired of saying. I know I am.

The union has everything to do with it. The union is why they have the power that the Best Buy employee does not.

How many of these players are doing anything Mon-Sat to fight these injustices? How many of these players are holding rallies at City Hall on on a day off to bring attention to these issues?

If they're doing it, I don't hear about it...and there's no way we wouldn't be hearing about NFL players holding rallies. So then why do it on Sunday? Because it's easy. Because it's on someone else's dime. Honestly, people are aware. People know what's going on. They aren't watching football, or any other sport, going "What is this? What is Black Lives Matter? Who is Breonna?", I better go look into this. They are not tuning in to sports to have politics and half truths shoved at them. They time in to watch their favorite athlete play. They buy jerseys not support BLM but to show allegiance to a team/player. Sports is being twisted and used, and it turns people off. These athletes should go protest and hold rallies on other days, and use their notoriety to draw in crowds.

"resnor wrote:

How many of these players are doing anything Mon-Sat to fight these injustices? How many of these players are holding rallies at City Hall on on a day off to bring attention to these issues?

If they're doing it, I don't hear about it...and there's no way we wouldn't be hearing about NFL players holding rallies. So then why do it on Sunday? Because it's easy. Because it's on someone else's dime. Honestly, people are aware. People know what's going on. They aren't watching football, or any other sport, going "What is this? What is Black Lives Matter? Who is Breonna?", I better go look into this. They are not tuning in to sports to have politics and half truths shoved at them. They time in to watch their favorite athlete play. They buy jerseys not support BLM but to show allegiance to a team/player. Sports is being twisted and used, and it turns people off. These athletes should go protest and hold rallies on other days, and use their notoriety to draw in crowds.

where are you looking?

Also, yes, sports have almost always been political. People just get turned off when it is a political stance they do not like.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

where are you looking?

Also, yes, sports have almost always been political. People just get turned off when it is a political stance they do not like.

Are most pro athletes doing rallies? I'm aware that there are a few, but in one NFL have you have 106 pro athletes, many of whom are espousing these things. You don't have hundreds of NFL players every week holding rallies. You don't see massive numbers of NBA players weekly doing rallies or other social justice work. They'll wear the SJW jersey on Sunday, though. That's all I'm saying.