The XFL Coming Back In 2020

[Gustavus Adolphus]

OK - some people feel protests at sporting events are a good thing and others would prefer they are not held there. I personally don't even know if the protests are still happening because I don't tune in anymore until the kickoff. For all I know, people are buying tickets to go to the games just because they like the protests. We all are entitled to our opinions and choices.

So let's say you have a huge chunk of change invested into the new XFL startup. Do you 1) not allow the protests or 2) allow/promote the protests? What is best for the bottom line and viewership of the brand?

Let's say you chose #2. Would it make sense to expand on the protests? It seems discriminatory to me that only the people on the field get to utilize the large stage and TV for their protests. Shouldn't the fans who pay to enter the venue be allowed the same luxury as those being paid to be in the venue? Same with the workers at the venue. They might even have venue specific reasons to protest such as poor wages, discrimination, bad working conditions, etc. Let them all on the field to give them the same venue you are granting to the people already on the field. That only seems fair to me. If the protests are so positively viewed amongst the vast majority of the people, might they play into the favor of the new product?

You are the owner. What do you do?

As to the rest of your post: had the Kaepernick protest never happened, I truly believe most would continue to not notice the National Anthem being played in Week 9 of the NFL season, or Game #61 of the NBA/NHL season, or Game #102 during the MLB season.

So if you got rid of it all together, or just never showed it, would anyone really miss it?

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

I just want to correct one thing here. I don't think protests over anything are a particularly good thing, because I wish everyone shared the same opinions on things, such as: unarmed black teenagers should not be shot and killed by the police. That said, being able to protest is an important right in our society.

Ownership and the choice to choose what happens and doesn't happen (within the law) in a place you own and run is an important right also. I use the term "right" very loosely here.

 

[gpphat]

OK - some people feel protests at sporting events are a good thing and others would prefer they are not held there. I personally don't even know if the protests are still happening because I don't tune in anymore until the kickoff. For all I know, people are buying tickets to go to the games just because they like the protests. We all are entitled to our opinions and choices.

The ones who are disagreeing with you aren't saying that protesting at a sporting event is a good thing or a bad thing, but a thing that is within the players right to do so, which they are not breaking any law nor interfering with the actual game. The people who are buying tickets to go to a game are not paying to see the national anthem, anyone protesting during the national anthem, or what happens before or after the actual game. The group of people who are up in arms over the protests are the ones who are making the protests during the anthem effective. If no one cared or paid it much mind it would have dies out long ago, but because so many got pissed it made the protest a national debate.

So let's say you have a huge chunk of change invested into the new XFL startup. Do you 1) not allow the protests or 2) allow/promote the protests? What is best for the bottom line and viewership of the brand?

If players want to sit, take a knee, raise a fist, interlock arms, etc etc in a peaceful protest before the game actually begins during whatever pregame activities...they are within their rights to do so...if a player wants to go to midfield and drop a steaming dump in protest of child obesity, that is different. There is a line in every situation, but to take away a players right to protest during the time outside of the actual game play is wrong.

Let's say you chose #2. Would it make sense to expand on the protests? It seems discriminatory to me that only the people on the field get to utilize the large stage and TV for their protests. Shouldn't the fans who pay to enter the venue be allowed the same luxury as those being paid to be in the venue? Same with the workers at the venue. They might even have venue specific reasons to protest such as poor wages, discrimination, bad working conditions, etc. Let them all on the field to give them the same venue you are granting to the people already on the field. That only seems fair to me. If the protests are so positively viewed amongst the vast majority of the people, might they play into the favor of the new product?

You are the owner. What do you do?

Who is stopping the fans, janitors, vendors or anyone at the game from taking a knee during the anthem in the NFL today?

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

, but to take away a players right to protest during the time outside of the actual game play is wrong.

I don't entirely agree with this.

 

[Washington]

As to the rest of your post: had the Kaepernick protest never happened, I truly believe most would continue to not notice the National Anthem being played in Week 9 of the NFL season, or Game #61 of the NBA/NHL season, or Game #102 during the MLB season.

So if you got rid of it all together, or just never showed it, would anyone really miss it?

Now that people have found that the football venue garners huge attention, there might be other ways for the players to peacefully protest. They could hold up signs, kneel/jump/dance during the coin toss, etc to get attention. People are creative and they know it would get attention. So removing the Anthem may not be the cure-all.

So it you own the XFL, do you disallow peaceful protests on the field or allow them? If you allow them, do you promote them?

I agree with what Xuder posted.

Kudos to all you guys for having a civil conversation on a tough topic.

 

[Washington]

Who is stopping the fans, janitors, vendors or anyone at the game from taking a knee during the anthem in the NFL today?

Nobody is. My point is that they should be allowed on the field to get the same audience as those on the field. After all, the fans are paying to get in and if what they do is peaceful, why not allow them to have the same opportunities for their worthy causes? Wouldn't that only be fair? If you owned the XFL, would you promote these protests? How important is it to you to allow them the venue because you said they should have the right to do so outside the game. It is your money and your product. Would you put your values over the bottom line?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

The following two posts kind of go hand in hand, so I'd like to answer them together if it's possible.

Ownership and the choice to choose what happens and doesn't happen (within the law) in a place you own and run is an important right also. I use the term "right" very loosely here.

Now that people have found that the football venue garners huge attention, there might be other ways for the players to peacefully protest. They could hold up signs, kneel/jump/dance during the coin toss, etc. People are creative and they know it would get attention. So removing the Anthem may not be the cure-all.

So it you own the XFL, do you disallow peaceful protests on the field or allow them? If you allow them, do you promote them?

I agree with what Xuder posted.

Kudos to all you guys for having a civil conversation on a tough topic.

I don't think I've ever, from the start of any discussion we've had on CCS, said that an owner can't restrict players from kneeling during the Anthem. I believe that anytime I've discussed the owners side of this was the silly statements Jerry Jones was making that he would immediately cut a player. As if he'd actually cut Ezekiel Elliot or Dak Prescott if they took a knee.

But we're talking about two different ownership structures here. From what I understand, in the XFL Vince (Alpha Entertainment) will own all of the teams. So sure, if Vince wants all the players to stand, then you better stand. The NFL, is obviously different, in terms of ownership structure from the teams to the league. It's that kind of autonomy that frankly leads to some of these issues. (BTW, I keep hearing different versions of whether or not the players are actually supposed to stand for the Anthem, and people keep giving different interpretations of what are in the rules)

I agree that kneeling for the anthem before the game isn't exactly the greatest of protests (I actually feel likes it's more of a middle finger to Goodell than anything), but I certainly understand why the protesters feel that is where they should do it.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

The following two posts kind of go hand in hand, so I'd like to answer them together if it's possible.



I don't think I've ever, from the start of any discussion we've had on CCS, said that an owner can't restrict players from kneeling during the Anthem. I believe that anytime I've discussed the owners side of this was the silly statements Jerry Jones was making that he would immediately cut a player. As if he'd actually cut Ezekiel Elliot or Dak Prescott if they took a knee.

But we're talking about two different ownership structures here. From what I understand, in the XFL Vince (Alpha Entertainment) will own all of the teams. So sure, if Vince wants all the players to stand, then you better stand. The NFL, is obviously different, in terms of ownership structure from the teams to the league. It's that kind of autonomy that frankly leads to some of these issues. (BTW, I keep hearing different versions of whether or not the players are actually supposed to stand for the Anthem, and people keep giving different interpretations of what are in the rules)

I agree that kneeling for the anthem before the game isn't exactly the greatest of protests (I actually feel likes it's more of a middle finger to Goodell than anything), but I certainly understand why the protesters feel that is where they should do it.

Nobody said you did, just making a statement to go along with your statment on the right to protest.


I have nothing against what Kaep did. There were no rules or guidelines which he broke. And I understand that ownership in these leagues is different from league to league. My point is mainly that the important thing is not necessarily rights, but that everyone involved has a choice, and some choices trump others, such as ownership.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

I have to admit, as a young hockey fan, I actually enjoyed this:

[video=youtube;6pZ1brENIjw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pZ1brENIjw[/video]

 

[gpphat]

I don't entirely agree with this.

It's a slippery slope no matter which way you go...you allow them to protest then where is the line of too far, you say no protesting at all and you start the debate of the league taking away a players right. There is no perfect all encompassing answer to this. Saying no protesting is the easy answer but could have bigger ramifications down the road...allowing protests opens the door for players to protest just about everything which could also be damaging to the league

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

It's a slippery slope no matter which way you go...you allow them to protest then where is the line of too far, you say no protesting at all and you start the debate of the league taking away a players right. There is no perfect all encompassing answer to this. Saying no protesting is the easy answer but could have bigger ramifications down the road...allowing protests opens the door for players to protest just about everything which could also be damaging to the league

Yup, you make your choice at the risk of changing others' choices.

 

[gpphat]

Nobody is. My point is that they should be allowed on the field to get the same audience as those on the field. After all, the fans are paying to get in and if what they do is peaceful, why not allow them to have the same opportunities for their worthy causes? Wouldn't that only be fair? If you owned the XFL, would you promote these protests? How important is it to you to allow them the venue because you said they should have the right to do so outside the game. It is your money and your product. Would you put your values over the bottom line?

Fans are paying to watch the game from their seats, not to go on the field for any reason. So there is nothing unfair in not allowing the fans on the field for any reason...it's a security issue. If I was an owner of the XFL I wouldn't promote any of these protests...If I were the NFL I would stop televising the national anthem, this way you can still say it is a part of the game but you take away the national attention of it. No one really pays attention to the anthem anyways (talking about the viewers at home),the only reason why the protests gained so much steam was because Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN, NFL Network gave it so much TV time and televised the anthem and focused on the protesters.

 

[Xuder O'Clam]

The XFL should start every game with Fanfare for the Common Man, the 10 minute ELP version.