American sports provide a platform to unite fans from all across the country. As a passionate, lifelong professional sports fan and South Florida resident, I attend games and support teams within the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and Major League Baseball (MLB). Whenever I am at a Miami Dolphins football game, and the Dolphins score a touchdown, the atmosphere inside a stadium or arena is incomparable. Thousands of fans suddenly burst out cheering, high-fiving, and hugging one another. For a period of only a few hours, everyone in the crowd is bonded by one team. Everyone at the venue is focused on what is happening on the field, and nothing else seems to matter. This is exactly how a football game should unfold. However, within the last year, the sports world has shifted its attention to the national anthem. When the Star-Spangled Banner is played, professional athletes, mostly in the NFL, have begun to venture outside the custom of standing with one hand over their heart. A growing number of athletes have begun a silent protest before each game, choosing to either kneel, raise a fist in the air, or lock arms with teammates. These actions have posed an issue, as the media has become saturated with news covering the recent updates on the protest, rather than the games themselves. Although professional athletes have a legal right to freedom of speech, the silent protests in professional sports have had a negative effect by venturing away from what they were initially intended to represent and influencing civilians to protest when it is not needed.
The protests were initiated in 2016 by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick when he decided to kneel during the national anthem before a regular season football game. At the time, Kaepernick was the quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers. During a post-game interview last season, when questioned about his intentions behind the protest, Kaepernick told reporters, “This country stands for freedom, liberty, [and] justice for all, and it’s not happening for all right now…One thing [that needs to change] specifically is police brutality… [and how] men and women who have been in the military have come back and been treated unjustly by the country they fought for.” After these comments were made, Kaepernick expressed how he would continue to kneel until he felt changes were made in society. As a result, Kaepernick received tremendous backlash from the media and fans. There were few players across the league who agreed with the protest, as only a handful of others started to kneel, but the majority remained standing throughout the 2016 season. One season later, Kaepernick is unemployed as owners and general managers of NFL teams refuse to offer him a contract.
Since athletes, owners, and coaches in the NFL have begun to protest across the nation, it is hard to believe Kaepernick is still searching for work. Even though an increasing number of professional athletes have now expressed their admiration towards Kaepernick, and sided with his protest, there is evidence to suggest that these individuals have begun to protest for other reasons. The main reason is due to recent comments made by President Donald Trump. In fact, it is reasonable to believe President Donald Trump single handedly elongated the protest in the NFL. In late September 2017, just a couple of weeks after the NFL season had begun, Trump, in a speech, stated “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He’s fired. He’s fired!'” Before Trump had made this statement, “the anthem issue had begun to fade away…In fact, in the second week [of the 2017 NFL regular season], fewer than 10 players took a knee. Then, two days before the games on Sunday in week three, President Donald Trump [issued those comments]. That led to league-wide protest” (Myers 53). With this correlation between Donald Trump’s comments and the increasing number of athlete protestors, the legitimacy of the entire protest comes into question. Since there was a rapid spike of protests in the NFL after Trump’s comments, the protest itself has shifted to reflect the players disagreement or hatred towards Trump’s presidency, not social injustices and inequality in the United States as a whole, which was what Kaepernick intended to bring awareness towards. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why Kaepernick remains unemployed, as his intentions still remains different from the majority of personnel in the NFL who continue to protest.
There are statistics to represent the division among American citizens who support or oppose the national anthem protests. According to a YouGov poll, “only 30 percent of the public approved of Trump’s handling of [the national anthem] protests…[while] 33 percent of NFL fans approve” (Ellison). Although a three percent difference between the general American population and NFL fans does not seem significant, it is clear that there is a group of people who want to watch football, not a protest. However, it is also important to analyze whether or not Americans believe athletes should be required to stand. According to another poll, “a total of 46 percent of voters say…[athletes] should be required to stand” (Ellison). There is a significantly lower percentage of voters who agree with Trump as opposed to requiring that athletes are forced to stand. This correlates directly to the reason behind the significant increase in protestors in the NFL immediately after Trump chose to get involved. Once again, there is evidence to support that the NFL protest is not in existence to stand up for racial inequality, but to stand up against President Trump. However, it does not really matter whether or not there is a protest in professional sports to begin with, as “attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors [of sports fans] about national social issues do not sway because of their love for sports, sports teams, or professional athletes. Views about highly charged social issues, like extrajudicial killings, police brutality, or racial profiling, do not transcend sports” (Gill 408). No matter how influential professional athletes are, professional sports fans are not going to change their political views because athletes are protesting. Fans, especially adults, have political views that have stuck with them for years, and attempting to change those views with one protest is a difficult task. Although these protests are insignificant in swaying fans, the protest still poses a threat. The protest has people wondering whether or not the athletes who are protesting support their country.
Although Trump’s poor choice of words sparked backlash from players and media, there was nothing wrong with the meaning behind his words. As the President of a nation founded on patriotism, Trump is supposed to defend and salute the American flag whenever he feels an individual, or group of individuals, is being disrespectful. According to popular belief among American citizens, the American flag is a national symbol that “provide[s] an outward representation for a collective, its history, and its achievements…[to] help reify the nation and the nation-state” (Kemmelmeier, Winter 860). Professional athletes in the NFL are paid handsomely, and given platform to showcase their skills in front of fans. As subtle as their silent protest may be, they are not paid to express their displeasure towards political issues. Everyone who chooses to take the field and stand below the American flag is “subject to its perview. Those who do not do so are marked as foe” (Shanafelt 16). If they want to express their feelings, they should use social media, as famous athletes tend to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of followers. By rebelling on the field in front of fans, they are mistaken as individuals who disrespect the American flag. Therefore, they are mistaken as individuals who disrespect the nation and everything it stands for as a whole. For the time being, the fallout must be cleaned up by team owners. They have been forced to answer for the actions of their players. As a result, their focus has been taken away from trying to make the league better, to addressing political issues. NFL owners have been thrown into a lose-lose situation. If they decide to support their players’ actions of protest, then they risk losing the support of fans. If they choose to encourage their athletes to stand during the national anthem, then they risk the support of their own players, potentially prompting them to speak out against their own team. Due to this situation, owners will have to tread carefully when speaking publicly about the protest.
The same problem has spread into other professional sports outside of the NFL. Most notably, the protest has spread into the National Basketball Association (NBA). After Kaepernick’s initial protest, “the usual basketball clichés that dominate media [including injury and free agency reports] gave way to serious talk about social injustice and violence in communities, with players wanting to be involved in finding solutions but acknowledging they don't know yet how” (Mahoney). Most players expressed their agreement with Kaepernick’s stance, but no NBA athletes felt passionate enough to protest during the entire 2016 season, suggesting they did not conclude that social injustice was an urgent problem in the United States. Others expressed their lack of understanding behind the protest, or did not want to upset fans. Hassan Whiteside of the Miami Heat, during a media day interview in 2016, told reports “There’s not really one way to fix the problem. It’s been going on for a while. People are sick of it” (qtd. in Mahoney). It is no secret that racism has been a problem in the United States since its independence, and as a country we should continue to work towards a solution. However, Whiteside suggests that using a professional sports venue for protests is not the correct route to move forward. The problem with the protest is that it creates unnecessary attention. In 2016, the protest was not taking place in the NBA, but reporters were flooding NBA players with questions regarding the protests prior to the start of their season. Instead of being concerned about the success of their teams, NBA athletes are now concerned about the state of their country.
The protest has also made headlines within Major League Baseball (MLB). During the 2017 season, Bruce Maxwell, catcher for the Oakland Athletics, became the first and only person to kneel during the national anthem. As baseball has a reputation as “America’s Sport,” Maxwell’s actions seem to be more disrespectful than they would have been if they had occurred in the NFL or NBA. No other MLB players decided to follow suit with Maxwell, as they do not feel there is a need to protest. Since there is a large time gap between the start of the NFL’s protests and Maxwell’s protest, athletes in the MLB seem to have taken into account the controversy brought forth from fans and the media in other organizations, and have continued to stay standing. Derek Jeter, current partial owner of the Miami Marlins and former player for the New York Yankees, stated, “You have a right to voice your opinion, as long as it's a peaceful protest” (qtd. in Makrides). As arguably the most popular and one of the most accomplished players in MLB history, Jeter is well aware of the consequences of Maxwell’s actions. If he were to support the protests, he risks receiving negative responses from fans and a negative portrayal from the media. If MLB players want to protest in the future, they should not follow the actions of athletes in other organizations. They should handle their personal business and opinions in the place they have up until this point: off the field.
In addition, the protests in professional sports have influenced younger individuals to protest. For example, before a football game at Kennesaw State University, “As the opening bars of the national anthem rang out and the crowd rose, five…cheerleaders knelt, siding with National Football League players in a gesture intended to draw attention to police brutality and racism that has drawn the ire of President Donald Trump” (Stirgus, Lutz). As a result, the students who chose to kneel were asked by the head of the school and the sheriff to stay off the field and out of sight during the national anthem for future home games. Once again, there are individuals protesting against Donald Trump, rather than protesting for social injustice in general. Although the protest at Kennesaw State was peaceful, the aftermath was far different. As a conservative town in Georgia, Kennesaw residents were outraged and felt betrayed by the actions of the cheerleaders. However, some residents supported their actions, questioning their own beliefs. While change is sometimes good, the problem is that Kennesaw now includes tension dividing those who support and those who object the actions of the cheerleaders. Michaelyn Wright, one of the cheerleading involved in the protest, stated “It was the scariest thing I’ve ever done” (Stirgus, Lutz). This statement emphasizes why NFL players should not continue to protest. They are influencing young adults to put themselves into harmful situations that can have a negative effect on their futures. As the first collegiate protestors to get the attention of the national media, they will most likely face the heaviest consequences, similar to Kaepernick, as he was the first to protest in the professional sports world.
Another example of young individuals trying to promote social change occurred when, in 2015, football players at the University of Missouri protested against the executives of the school. The players felt they were falling victim to racial discrimination by the president of the school, resulting in the entire football team participating in a boycott. Although the protest proved to have some success, resulting in the resignation of the president of the University of Missouri, and an increasing number of supporters, the protest proved to also have devastating consequences. Similar to the cheerleaders of Kennesaw State, the athletes of the University of Missouri were not supported by the faculty. In addition, the protest has led to dropping enrollment and severe cutbacks at the University of Missouri. There will most likely be strict punishments for any students who choose to follow in the footsteps of the football team. In the future, changes need to be made, since universities “don’t generally lose to individuals…Instead they reload, retrench, and get back to the status quo, wiser and better able to thwart revolts” (Brooks 21). Student athletes, like professional athletes, need to find an alternative way to express their opinions to avoid collateral damage that effects individuals who choose not to be involved. The protest in 2015 tarnished the reputation of the University of Missouri. Students who did not even participate in the protest will now have to deal with those consequences and may even move to other institutions to finish their college education. Protestors should look to spread their message on their own platform where everyone involved is a supporter, not in a public area where people are disturbed by the unwanted attention.
Although athletes should not be using their professional platform to protest, there are a large number of people who believe the protests are essential in moving forward to achieve social change. Those who support the national anthem protest do so because it remains peaceful, and believe a peaceful protest cannot hurt anyone. Although some peaceful protests have proven to create social change in the past (i.e. The Salt March, Suffrage Parade, etc.), it is possible for the national anthem protest to lead to violence. There is a direct connection between the national anthem protests and the Black Power Movement. A few, not all, African American athletes who have chosen to protest in the NFL choose to stand, or kneel, while raising their fist in the air. The act of raising a fist is a reference to the Black Power Movement. The Black Power Movement was a protest that gained national attention in the 1960s, which “re-emphasized [an African American’s] right to self-defense and publicly vowed to repel racist attacks with armed force…[while] betray[ing] the integrationist and non-violent vision of earlier activism… ultimately fail[ing] to achieve is unrealistic goals” (Wendt 553). By raising a fist in the air, NFL athletes, possibly inadvertently, are showing support towards a social movement that was known for inspiring violence. The Black Power Movement was unsuccessful at creating social justice and equality. Change did not occur until the introduction of The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP) because this movement addressed all the flaws present within the Black Power Movement and moved towards a peaceful rebellion. Even though the revised movement was considered peaceful, it still sparked riots across the country. Among Americans, there is a fear that the national anthems protest can also turn violent. For now, the national anthem protest remains on the field before NFL games. However, it is not hard to imagine fans fighting outside the stadium because of their conflicting viewpoints, especially when fights have previously broken out in parking lots outside each stadium simply due to trash talking between fans supporting opposing teams. If fans resort to violence over the national anthem protest, it will prove once again that peaceful protests do not always have peaceful outcomes.
Even though the national anthem protest in the NFL is a recent occurrence, protests in the NFL date back to times of segregation. In fact, Kaepernick’s protest is “part of a long tradition of the American mainstream condemning African American athletes who challenge the racial social order” (Boyce 23). For example, in 1965, when the NFL was known as the American Football League (AFL), there was a group of twenty-one African American athletes who chose to boycott the AFL by choosing not to participate in the All-Star Game in New Orleans. One of the leaders of the boycott was Clem Daniels, former running back for the Oakland Raiders. In an interview with TIME, Daniels expressed his feelings about the national anthem protest, stating “I would have told Colin Kaepernick a long time ago that his approach right now may not be the most sensible approach to the problem that we have…You get with your leaders within your community, the black community, and discuss the most apt way to approach the protest and do it from a collective stand point” (qtd. in Waxman). The motives for protest are completely different between Kaepernick and Daniels. Daniels felt the need to protests because he was facing racial discrimination everywhere. In the 1960s, Daniels chose to protest because he was unable to interact with white people. He felt that if white people did not want to be around him off the field, then he would not play with them on the field. Today, he disagrees with Kaepernick’s intentions, as the integration of white and black people living in the same society has made tremendous progress. African American athletes are now paid equally as white athletes. In addition, there is an equal chance of spotting a sports fan wearing the jersey of either an African American athlete or a white athlete. Although there is still hints of racism in American society, most notably, police brutality, the NFL protests seem to suggest that no progress had been made towards achieving complete equality. Based on how much society has changed, by becoming more diverse, over the last half-century, the vast majority of people are already aware that racism is a pressing issue, negating the need for a national anthem protest.
No matter how large the national anthem protests grows in professional sports, it is nothing more than a distraction. Professional athletes are payed handsome salaries to perform in front of a crowd and help their team succeed. There is no need for athletes to use their sport of employment as a platform to persuade fans to join their cause. It will benefit all parties if athletes choose to create social change outside of work and out of the sight of sports fans. Up to this point, the national anthem protest has not succeeded in creating social change, but it has succeeded in dividing the nation. A large number of spectators have expressed their concern with the protest, and rather than discussing all the great things that happen on the field at a football game, they are discussing the newest team to be involved with the national anthem protest. Athletes involved in the protest are setting a bad example to younger individuals by demonstrating the wrong time to promote social change. Social change has occurred throughout the entire history of human existence, and it will continue to happen as humanity strives towards perfection. Although African Americans do, at times, still fall victim to discrimination, the protest exaggerates the state of racial injustice. Over the past few decades, the United States has made a grand leap towards achieving equality, and that should continue until all parties are satisfied. The bottom line is, all protesting against the national anthem, the song that represents this great nation, should take place outside the stadium.