Having them stay in the locker room is for the benefit of Mighty Whitey and no one else. Seeing players kneel is a constant reminder of a struggle they refuse to acknowledge.  

"If we can't see them, it isn't happening" is not a solution to the problem, it's avoidance. We hide them away like we hide our guilt and shame.  

There's a great song called White Man's World by Jason Isbell (quite possibly the greatest singer/songwriter to walk the earth in recent times) that sums this up perfectly: "There's no such thing as someone else's war. Your creature comforts aren't the only thing worth fighting for."  

So it's akin to an employer saying you can pay a fine if you don't say the prayer in the staff room or you can leave the staff room and go stand in the hallway while everyone else says the prayer.

The pay the fine thing seems to me freedom of expression with a charge. The stay in the locker room seems to be freedom of expression so long as no can you see you expressing

I'd request that they kindly drop the US national anthem when the NFL plays its games at Wembley and respect their hosts with the UK national anthem instead.

No, because the people than can and should be doing something about it aren't listening. Because they don't care.

But that doesn't mean they should stop protesting.

-C!

NFL is just saying you can't use our forum for your personal protest, which they have a right to do.

******

Maybe they do have that right... but they better be prepared for the consequences of their actions. This may not result in increased viewership.

-C!

Maybe they do have that right... but they better be prepared for the consequences of their actions. This may not result in increased viewership.

--------------------------------------------------

Viewership was down 10% from the prior year, and lowest since 2008.  I think the viewership took a hit from them not addressing the issue and hurt their "brand".

The pay the fine thing seems to me freedom of expression with a charge.
----------------------------------------------------------

The players are asking the NFL to pay to broadcast and support their protest, in an NFL uniform, during a NFL sponsored event, and being broadcast on an NFL network.  How come the NFL isn't free to say no to that?  The NFL has rights and the responsibility to protect their brand.  Especially if it is impacting their bottom line.  The NFL should level o a fine of 100K and split that for a inner city charity and a homeless veterans fund. 

Seeing players kneel is a constant reminder of a struggle they refuse to acknowledge.

--------------------------------------------------------

If the players want to rent their own auditorium, pay for network  broadcast , then play the anthem and kneel, sure go ahead, but asking the NFL to flip the bill for it, they can say no.  I don't care that they protest, but using something that doesn't belong to them and forcing them to support it isn't right. 

Kaepernick's original protest... against police brutality and racial injustice... as well intentioned as he was... was taken out of context because he chose to do it during a part of the game day ostensibly meant to honor the military and armed forces. Who are not the police, and is an institution with quite a good record for racial equality and opportunity, all things considered. Now, timing-wise, he stood out and got attention, but his 'message' was muddied by choosing to do it, to those who don't necessarily follow every player intimately, by throwing shade on a third party -- at least, that's what it looked like. That's how it was picked up by the media, by politicians, etc. And once that misconception is out there, once that bell is 'rung', it's difficult to undo that perception. That first impression was the lasting impression, right or wrong as that may be.

So who cares if he protests during a ceremony honoring the military? Well, that goes a few different way. Most military I've talked to were either ambivalent about it, or thought he was a dick. Buuuuut.... how's that translate into numbers? It's probably not a huge segment of the population. Then you have those in the home audience who generally 'tune out' during the Star Spangled Banner anyways because its a piss break or it's time to stock up on chips. So, timing.

You want to make a statement about racial injustice, or police brutality, or whatever? When the camera's on you, and it hurts 'the man' to take it off of you. During player introductions. Post-game, on field (or even locker room) interviews. Our leaders and politicians are all in the pockets of corporate America, right? That's always the glib go-to criticism of politics in America, correct? So if you want the 'right people' to care, hit them where it hurts. Sure, the DOD is a sponsor of the NFL, but if you really want to hit the deep pockets of sponsorship, drop some truth-bombs either when they're cutting to/from commercials, sideline interviews, or during the Ford/Chrysler/Anheuser Busch/Michelob Halftime or Postgame segments.

And for every Sterling Brown incident that shines a bright spotlight on exactly why they're protesting, be just as vocal about a team... an NFL in general... that retains and turns a blind eye to the wife beaters, the Michael Vicks, and others that, well, might actually benefit from an 'accdental' tazering. That'll get people listening, and get people caring that certainly aren't caring now.

——-

Also younger fans losing interest in the NFL. The NFL, MLB, and NASCAR are all seeing the average age of their viewers rise, while the NBA is mostly stable. They are just as likely to watch Esports as regular sports.

The CTE issue isn’t helping either, as the league is seen as placing profits over the welfare of their players. And fewer parents are going to be letting their kids play football to avoid brain damage. 

---------------------------------------

First, is the NFL the main sponsor of NFL games? Why does what the NFL says trump all the other sponsors, like Nike, Under Armour, Ford, Anheuser-Busch, and so on, (who I have seen statements from on this issue saying they support free speech)?

Second, if you were to divide up an NFL game into its most essential parts, wouldn't the players feature quite high on the list? Why are you so eager to relegate them to the role of mere employees? When people watch, they are are at least partly watching because these are the players who play the game at the highest level. Which is why the NFLPA has as significant a voice as the NFL when it comes to agreeing the terms of labour under which the players play. And, in direct answer to your question, this is why they cannot unilaterally 'say no to that' because doing so means unilaterally changing the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. And hence we get the NFPLA saying they have to review the proposed change and challenge anything that is inconsistent with the CBA.

Finally, you keep saying on an NFL network. I thought the games were mainly shown on networks like CBS, FOX, NBC and ESPN. I think ESPN shares some programming with the NFL network, but I don't see how these networks can be described as being NFL networks.

Why are you so eager to relegate them to the role of mere employees?

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------

Well, because they are, at least of the team which is a franchise of the NFL.  The NFL like any other franchise has the right to impose reasonable rules to the franchisees, especially to protect the brand.  

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

but I don't see how these networks can be described as being NFL networks.

Those networks agree to the re-broadcast of the NFL games.  So, yes NFL owns the content, the other networks own the right to the re-broadcast of that content.  There is the NFL network or NFLN.