NFL

Not For Long

The brain injury issue is hurting them. Parents don't want to support the NFL and buy merchandise or make a game day with the kids if they don't want the kids to play football at all.

The NFL is oversaturated. They need to dump the Thursday night games. There's too much football and it's become a commodity. That's a bad move for the NFL who should be in the business of making games a little scarce.

Too many replays and game delays and commercial interruptions in games.

Too many hacks at ESPN talking Lefty politics.

And, yeah, jerks like Kaepernick disrespecting the flag and the anthem.

Add them all up and you get significant declines in NFL viewership and revenue. And you lose that bandwagon effect where some people will watch the big game just so they don't get left out of water cooler talk at work about the game.

" jerks like Kaepernick disrespecting the flag and the anthem. "

He is a dumbass. Pissed away a multi million dollar contract, just to impress his girlfriend. His next job may be " do you want to supersize the fries ? "

Rules changes have left too little football and too much advertising.

"Sports shows" (e.g. First Take, Undisputed) are frequently overrun by politics. ESPN and FS1 are supposed to be sports channels.

I have more of a problem with jerks like Goodell permitting NFL players to act out on the field, in uniform, while representing the team and the NFL. They can sit or kneel or give their black power salute in the locker room.

BLM bitches about the Confederate flag. They and the NFL should consider how well dissing the American flag or the national anthem goes over in NASCAR country. And I believe veterans are not amused.

I don't think the brain injury thing hurts much with viewership now, but it is a future concern. Kids who do not play the game do not grow up to be fans of the game. Lose a generation and it will be a real problem.

I think the public perception of brain injury was what diminished boxing so much as a sport the public followed so much. Muhammad Ali was the last great boxer, starting with his gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Rome.

Paradoxically, Ali resisted the draft as a champion boxer and never got the kind of hate that Kaepernick does. He did lose his boxing titles though until he sued and the USSC restored them and his boxing license.

Of course, it was the Sixties and the counterculture was rising as was opposition to a war in Vietnam among younger people. And Ali was a huge self-promoter who was mediagenic.

Even so, the parallels are worth observing. But it isn't the Sixties and Kaepernick is no Ali. I've wondered if Kaepernick is doing what he did, hoping to be another Ali or if he sees a big void in public leadership among blacks with 0bama off the national stage. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are too old and too scandal-ridden so maybe Kaepernick and his agents think Kaepernick had a big chance to be Da Man in the African-American community.

Rules changes have left too little football and too much advertising.

The NFL says they'll reduce that but I have to wonder if they can keep their money machine going if they do so. Those fat broadcasting contracts are based on selling very expensive ad slots.

I have more of a problem with jerks like Goodell permitting NFL players to act out on the field, in uniform, while representing the team and the NFL. They can sit or kneel or give their black power salute in the locker room.

Remember Ali and the restoration of his boxing title. If Goodell did ban Kaepernick in the prime of his career and the USSC eventually found it was unconstitutional to try to force a football player to stand for the anthem, the NFL could be sued for billions. So their lawyers are likely telling them not to do it. Not bad advice. If you can't make a Jehovahs Witness kid in public schools recite the pledge and observe other patriotic malarkey, then can the NFL compel a player to honor the anthem? I wouldn't bet on it if I were Goodell or any of the team owners.

BLM bitches about the Confederate flag. They and the NFL should consider how well dissing the American flag or the national anthem goes over in NASCAR country. And I believe veterans are not amused.

Of course, I'm not a sports guy anyway so I'm not sure that I care that deeply.

Muhammad Ali was the last great boxer

Come on Mike Tyson.

Of course, Ali was a huge self-promoter and mediagenic in a way that Tyson or Kaepernick just are not. And Ali had that thing going with Howard Cosell. And it was the era of Joe Namath as well when sports players just started to live the lifestyles of multimillionaires in many sports with the rise of the sports cults on the TV networks and a more universal 5-day work week so that Saturday afternoons were available for men to be at home to watch The Game.

The fact that you will recognize that phrase demonstrates that Ali was a boxing legend and one of the greatest athletes of the 20th century, like Joe Louis was back when he beat the tar out of one Great White Hope after another while sleeping with one white woman after another.

I do think George Foreman might have taken Ali though. Foreman was one of the biggest punchers ever. I thought Foreman likely took a fall when he lost to Ali. And a lot of boxing betting money changed hands. Then he made himself look ridiculous in that phony "comeback" where he waddled around the ring with his walker and his big fat gut and then supposedly won after which he made money hawking his George Foreman grill. It all seemed like one big Don King scam to me.

Remember Ali and the restoration of his boxing title.

Ali was convicted of draft evasion and sentenced to 5 years in prison. He won his appeal the the Supreme Court and did not serve any time. His boxing license was revoked and he did not fight from March 1967 to October 1970. His boxing license was restored, not the title. His comeback fight was against champion Joe Frazier. Ali lost by unanimous decision. In 1973, he lost to Ken Norton who broke Ali's jaw. Ali won the title again in 1974 in his second fight against Frazier.

There have been numerous great fighters since Ali.

Mike Tyson was indisputably a great fighter with awesome power.

To list a few others, Sugar Ray Leonard; Julio Cesar Chavez Sr.; Floyd Mayweather Jr.; Roberto Duran. Currently, Gennady Golovkin has quite a record of accomplishment (37-0, 33 KO, 20 title fights, 1 went the distance).

If you can't make a Jehovahs Witness kid in public schools recite the pledge and observe other patriotic malarkey, then can the NFL compel a player to honor the anthem? I wouldn't bet on it if I were Goodell or any of the team owners.

Students are required to attend the school and are not private sector employees, as are the NFL players.

Employees can require a standard of conduct for an employee to represent the employer to the public. They can forbid public displays of expression while on the job, in uniform, representing the company. Do you think a Black Power salute is subject to a different law than a Nazi salute? If all the White players were to give a Nazi salute, do you think that would be defended as free speech, protected by the First Amendment? For yet another example, assume a White player, in uniform, takes out s small cross and burns it. Is that protected expression?

The First Amendment protects one's right to free speech from governmental interference. What it really says is, "Congress shall make no law...." The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states.

The First Amendment right to free speech does not reach the employee in the private sector, such as NFL players.

http://www.hrexaminer.com/is-there-free-speech-at-work/

Is There Free Speech at Work?

On October 15, 2012, in Heather Bussing, HRExaminer, Social Media Policy, by Heather Bussing

[excerpt]

No Constitutional Free Speech At Work

Employees don’t have a Constitutional right to free speech or freedom of expression at work. The Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Even then, it’s not absolute. There is no free speech in your house; ask your mom. And there is no legal right to free speech or expression at work. (If you work for the government, there is a special set of rules that apply.)

So employers are generally free to restrict employee speech, at least while they are at work.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-in-the-workplace-the-first-amendment-revisited.html

Freedom Of Speech In The Workplace: The First Amendment Revisited

I spend a substantial amount of my practice on employment law issues, including workplace training on sexual harassment, discrimination and workplace violence. One question that frequently comes up during the training sessions is whether employees have freedom of speech in the workplace. The answer depends on whether the employer is a public or private entity, the type of speech involved, and the employee’s position.

No Constitutional Freedom of Speech in the Private Sector

Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces.

Other Freedom of Speech Issues in the Private Sector

On one level, a private sector employer could take the absence of a direct First Amendment right as providing free rein to discipline, terminate or retaliate against employees for their speech in the workplace. Before doing so, however, the private sector employer should take into account the effect of the anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. These laws provide a level of protection for certain types of expression in the workplace, and thus should be considered even if the right of speech associated with these laws is not a “First Amendment” right per se. For example, punishing an employee because of his religion is not technically a First Amendment violation in the private sector, but it would be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, the anti-discrimination laws prohibit certain types of expression on the part of employers, such as comments that constitute sexual or racial harassment, thereby putting a limit on “free speech” in the workplace.

The Bottom Line

Even though the First Amendment free speech criteria do not apply to private employers, determine if there is some other interest that governs the employee’s ability top speak freely. The following are some examples:

• Is this employee’s speech being restricted or punished because the employee is expressing religious or other beliefs that are different from the employer’s or from co-workers?

• Are employees of some religions or national origins allowed to express themselves regarding religion or national origin, but not others?

• Is the employee being punished for speaking a different language during lunch or breaks?

• Are the employee’s rights to share information protected by some other right, e.g. union regulations under the NLRB or PERC that allow employees to share salary information?

• Additionally, determine whether the employer has a duty to restrict the employee’s speech. For example:

• Does the employee’s speech violate the anti-harassment or anti-discrimination laws, including local ordinances?

• Are other employees using speech or expression to retaliate against an employee for exercising his or her legal rights?

  Is the employee entitled to whistleblower protection?

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

Specific legal problems need specific solutions. This article is a broad, general outline, and is not intended to provide legal advice, nor does it reflect the opinions of the author or her firm.

If their conduct is bad for business, they can keep them off the field and let them act out in the locker room. If their conduct or presence is detrimental to the league, they can be treated like Colin Kaepernick or Ray Rice. Teams cannot be required to employ individuals who will drive fans away. There is no First Amendment right to free speech which reaches employees in the private sector.

Teams may employ an athlete of questionable or unknown ability at the professional level if he offers to provide record breaking attendance. It is a business. Tim Tebow has a job, Colin Kaepernick does not.

There have been numerous great fighters since Ali.

None of them has even a fraction of Ali's fame and reputation.

Employees can require a standard of conduct for an employee to represent the employer to the public. They can forbid public displays of expression while on the job, in uniform, representing the company. Do you think a Black Power salute is subject to a different law than a Nazi salute? If all the White players were to give a Nazi salute, do you think that would be defended as free speech, protected by the First Amendment? For yet another example, assume a White player, in uniform, takes out s small cross and burns it. Is that protected expression?

Certainly, NFL players do wear uniforms as employees at work. And do fast food workers for various chains.

However, NFL players have extensive and detailed contracts on what is and is not required of them.

If they are not contractually required to display or feign patriotism, I don't see how they can be penalized for it unless their contract spells out that obligation in very plain language.

By addressing the above questions, you should begin to develop a sense of whether the employee’s freedom of speech has been violated.

I would agree if you are talking about McDonalds employees instead of multimillionaire players with packs of lawyers and a strong players union to back them.

The NFL is oversaturated. They need to dump the Thursday night games. There's too much football and it's become a commodity. That's a bad move for the NFL who should be in the business of making games a little scarce.

Too many replays and game delays and commercial interruptions in games.

Too many hacks at ESPN talking Lefty politics.

And, yeah, jerks like Kaepernick disrespecting the flag and the anthem.

On these things, we are in total agreement, I meant to add to the last reply. My apologies.

The people that love football, and their families don't give a second thought to the brain injury scam. I say scam because so few people are even affected by this, no matter the data. When they get back to me with the same studies on soccer, motocross, boxing, MMA, off-roading, WWE and auto racing I will take them seriously. Until then, it sits in the "this is political BS" box.

I dunno. The NFL players who obviously took the hardest hits for the most years do seem convinced that it is A Thing.

And didn't the NFL pledge a billion to research and compensation on this?

We see mention after mention of NFL players donating their brains to science after death to provide more data.

So it seems to me that if the NFL and the players are so united and we have a track record of retired NFL players killing themselves over the years when they were financially secure in retirement, maybe we should consider that repeated concussive injuries are bad for anyone.

After all, it is against the law to shake babies in most any state because of the danger posed by the brain rattling against the skull. These injuries to football players are still the same kind of brain injury.

Moral: taking hard shots to the head is always a bad idea.

We mentioned Mohammed Ali on this thread. I'm sure you know that his Parkinson's was attributed to...taking too many shots to the head.

Certainly, NFL players do wear uniforms as employees at work. And do fast food workers for various chains.

However, NFL players have extensive and detailed contracts on what is and is not required of them.

If they are not contractually required to display or feign patriotism, I don't see how they can be penalized for it unless their contract spells out that obligation in very plain language.

They are not required to show patriotism. They are required to display good character, and any conduct reasonably judged to been detrimental to the league suffices for termination.

NFLPA CBA at 262

APPENDIX A

NFL Player Contract

15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and pro-fessional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or pro-fessional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

Fans arriving disguised as empty seats do not pay as well as others. Blacking out a game in the local market really reduces the ad revenue. Failing to meeet the required quota of tv viewers costs millions.

Persisting in conduct known to empty statium seats and markedly reduce television viewership would seem to qualify as conduct detrimental to the league.

A player's on-field detrimental conduct which costs the league hundreds of millions of dollars would also seem to be applicable conduct.

Not even $6 seats could sell the LA Rams game in the colliseum.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

That third empty-seats video should scare the crap out of the owners and the playas.

I have not watched much. Did they air the playing of the National Anthem this weekend?

Did they air the playing of the National Anthem this weekend?

Sorry, you'd have to ask someone who actually cares.

I did cheer the Pats for the Superbowl. Only because I found out that the Pats fans are considered total a-holes by everyone else so I realized that the Patriots must therefore be my team. Which tells you about how little I know about the National Foosball League and its machinations.

My curiosity was piqued when I saw that one player had celebrated a sack with an on-field in-game Black power salute.

Didn't the owners tell them that they could engage in minor personal displays very recently? I thought I read that. The writer seemed to expect that what you'd get were things like Black Power salutes.

Prior to this, their behavior was as tightly regulated as wearing the team uniform exactly as specified contractually.

Encouraging NFL players to get even more political just seems insane to me.

Encouraging NFL players to get even more political just seems insane to me.

It seems insane to me, too. It does not seem much of a business model.

I thought Foreman likely took a fall when he lost to Ali.

Sonny Liston!

More so.

Sonny Liston!

More so.

Okay then. I just don't care deeply enough about fighters famous 50 years ago to argue it at greater length.     : )

I am struck though at how much mind share Ali still has today, mostly among older Americans. You can talk about other boxers as much as you want but Liston and Foreman and the others are primarily famous due to their bouts with Ali. And no modern boxer has anything close to the mindshare with the public of a Cassius Clay (to use his slave name).

They did take away 5 years of Ali's boxing prime over resisting the draft as you recall.

Tyson served 3 years in prison. Both had their boxing careers interrupted.

In your dreams. Ali would have floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee.

That is not certain, and really unknowable.

Mike Tyson was quicker and more skilled than Joe Frazier. And Mike Tyson hit brutally hard.

Frazier was able to hit Ali, and Tyson would have too. The real question may have been whether Tyson could have absorbed what Frazier did in order to thump on Ali. Tyson was not involved in wars in his prime, he just knocked everybody flat.

After three fights between Frazier and Ali, neither one of them was ever the same.

Frazier won the first fight, a title fight. (9–6, 11–4, and 9–6).

Ali won the second fight, a non-title bout. (7–4–1, 7–5–0, 6–5–1)

"Ali was taken to hospital immediately after the fight to check that his severely swollen right side jaw (which was apparent in post-fight interviews) wasn't actually broken. Frazier also spent time in hospital during the ensuing month, the exertions of the fight having been exacerbated by hypertension and a kidney infection."

The third fight, the Thrilla in Manila, not in Manila, was another bruising war, stopped by Frazier's corner because he basically could not see any more.

When Frazier met the punching power of George Foreman, he was knocked down six times in two rounds before the referee stopped it.

Ali was able to keep his chin away from the power of Foreman. Foreman was not exactly quick, Tyson was. Whether Ali could have avoided Tyson is a question that can't be answered. In his prime, when Tyson connected with anybody, they went down. He dropped and paralyzed opponents with body shots. In all three Frazier fights, Ali absorbed a beating while handing one out.

You can talk about other boxers as much as you want but Liston and Foreman and the others are primarily famous due to their bouts with Ali.

Well, Liston was pretty much not heard of after that dive against Ali.

Foreman went on to make a great career out of selling grills.

Frazier was able to hit Ali, and Tyson would have too. The real question may have been whether Tyson could have absorbed what Frazier did in order to thump on Ali. Tyson was not involved in wars in his prime, he just knocked everybody flat.

Looking at Tyson's early fights, it appeared he used the same MO. He would get close to fighters, push them away and them pummel them with hard punches.