Some NFL stadiums appear empth, is the boycott working?

[Freewill]

It has nothing to do with the Constitution and you damn well know it. So what does that make you?

Of course it does. It’s their Constitutional right to protest the government by not standing for the National Anthem. That’s what our armed forces fight to defend. So why do you hate the Constitution?

How hilarious, apparently you along with the majority of NFL players don't know why they are protesting. No protest before Trump commented, so what exactly is the protest? What the government is doing or Trump? (hint: it's Trump)

Even the left wing propaganda arm disagrees with you.

There is no constitutional right to take a knee while you're at work (opinion) - CNN

Can the players be benched or fired for their protest? Certainly can, thus it is not a right.

That you don’t know they were protesting before trump opened his pie hole only served to expose you don’t know what you’re talking about.

And no one loses their Constitutional rights when they go to work. But private companies have rights too and can fire employees if their rights are violated. Regarding firing NFL players for not standing during the National Anthem is not so clear cut since players have contracts and standing for the National Anthem is not a written requirement.

The only thing I can think I s that you have never gone to work, that is the only logical answer. As soon as you walk through the doors at work you kiss your rights goodbye. They can drug test you for no reason. You can't protest and get away with it. You can't carry a gun.

Sad when presented with the information from CNN you still lie on, really sad. I now say lie because you for sure know the truth but still say otherwise, that is lying in anyone's book.

You certainly do not "kiss your rights goodbye." You continue to enjoy all of your rights when at your place of employment. The right to protest, to use the current example, simply does not mean the right to protest at your place of employment during work hours.

Your argument is like telling the police office that you have the right to go through green lights, which doesn't go away because it is a red light.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The wife and I are holding firm. It would appear that in some city the same can be said. I am not sure how performers can piss off their core audience and then expect loyalty. Or maybe these team just suck and no one wants to pay 300 dollars to see them play.

NFL HELL: Several Stadiums Nearly Empty As Anthem Protest Backlash Rolls Into Week 7 (PHOTOS)

Still supporting the Confederates though, aren't they?

 

[JoeB131]

roll joe here though,he ignores pesky facts like this and waht you mentioned since it does not go along with his babble.hee hee.

Uh, guy, by your own admission in your ramble, you admit that the attendance problem long predates the Anthem protests.

and the chart posted by Sonny Boy shows that attendance really isn't down. It's actually up a bit for teams participating in the protests.

 

[Faun]

It has nothing to do with the Constitution and you damn well know it. So what does that make you?

Of course it does. It’s their Constitutional right to protest the government by not standing for the National Anthem. That’s what our armed forces fight to defend. So why do you hate the Constitution?

Whether someone agrees with the basis for the NFL protestors does not have anything to do with the Constitution. Very few people, if any, have claimed that the players do not have a legal right to protest. Instead, those who are boycotting and angry about the protests seem to be saying they think it is the wrong way to go about it, the wrong venue, or a false narrative; things of that nature.

I tend to see the outrage over the few protesting players as a sign of extremely questionable standards: boycott over peaceful protests, but not over the various cheaters, drug users, and criminals in the NFL? I don't think it speaks well of a person to get so upset by a protest about racial inequality that one has to boycott, but not bat an eye when a convicted dog ring runner gets to come back after prison to be a starter, or a player like Pacman Jones, who has been arrested seemingly a dozen times, and even was drafted while on probation.

That said, trying to make this out to be a Constitutional issue is disingenuous at best. Players have the right to protest, as do all US citizens. That does not mean that anyone has to watch, nor does it mean that deciding not to watch is in any way a violation of the players' Constitutional rights or a wish for the players to be denied those rights. Having a right to protest in no way requires others to accept the validity of the protestors' opinions or message.

The KKK has the Constitutional right to gather and protest, let's say school integration. Does that mean if you denounce the KKK and their protest, that you hate the Constitution? Of course not.

And just to make a quick comment about whether players could be suspended for the protests, I think the NFL would have a pretty good argument that they can be, based on the relevant portion of the NFL Game Operations Manual. They don't appear to be following that path, though. Perhaps after the season standing during the anthem will become mandatory, who knows?

What you talkin' about Willis, most people know they DON'T have the right to protest at a private business. But people like fawn want to take the easiest argument and they just lie about it being a right.

That varies on the state and the employer and the right.

Politics in the Workplace: Do NFL Players Have Freedom of Speech to Protest at Games? | JD Supra

Even your link points out some states give employees broader rights. It also points out that the NFL is respecting the players to express their rights in this case. Your article agreed with what I said. Thanks for the corroboration.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course it does. It’s their Constitutional right to protest the government by not standing for the National Anthem. That’s what our armed forces fight to defend. So why do you hate the Constitution?

How hilarious, apparently you along with the majority of NFL players don't know why they are protesting. No protest before Trump commented, so what exactly is the protest? What the government is doing or Trump? (hint: it's Trump)

Even the left wing propaganda arm disagrees with you.

There is no constitutional right to take a knee while you're at work (opinion) - CNN

Can the players be benched or fired for their protest? Certainly can, thus it is not a right.

That you don’t know they were protesting before trump opened his pie hole only served to expose you don’t know what you’re talking about.

And no one loses their Constitutional rights when they go to work. But private companies have rights too and can fire employees if their rights are violated. Regarding firing NFL players for not standing during the National Anthem is not so clear cut since players have contracts and standing for the National Anthem is not a written requirement.

The only thing I can think I s that you have never gone to work, that is the only logical answer. As soon as you walk through the doors at work you kiss your rights goodbye. They can drug test you for no reason. You can't protest and get away with it. You can't carry a gun.

Sad when presented with the information from CNN you still lie on, really sad. I now say lie because you for sure know the truth but still say otherwise, that is lying in anyone's book.

You certainly do not "kiss your rights goodbye." You continue to enjoy all of your rights when at your place of employment. The right to protest, to use the current example, simply does not mean the right to protest at your place of employment during work hours.

Your argument is like telling the police office that you have the right to go through green lights, which doesn't go away because it is a red light.

No, it is not. To try to use your analogy, my argument would be that having to stop at a red light does not mean a person has lost the right to drive through intersections, it just means that there is no right to drive through an intersection while the traffic light is red.

There is no right to protest on someone else's property, so if an employer tells you you cannot protest on their property, you are not losing a right; the right to protest at that location never existed.

If you still disagree, feel free to show where the Constitution says that a person's rights are stripped when they enter their place of employment, or the SCOTUS rulings that say the same. People aren't losing their rights when they go to work.

 

[Montrovant]

It has nothing to do with the Constitution and you damn well know it. So what does that make you?

Of course it does. It’s their Constitutional right to protest the government by not standing for the National Anthem. That’s what our armed forces fight to defend. So why do you hate the Constitution?

Whether someone agrees with the basis for the NFL protestors does not have anything to do with the Constitution. Very few people, if any, have claimed that the players do not have a legal right to protest. Instead, those who are boycotting and angry about the protests seem to be saying they think it is the wrong way to go about it, the wrong venue, or a false narrative; things of that nature.

I tend to see the outrage over the few protesting players as a sign of extremely questionable standards: boycott over peaceful protests, but not over the various cheaters, drug users, and criminals in the NFL? I don't think it speaks well of a person to get so upset by a protest about racial inequality that one has to boycott, but not bat an eye when a convicted dog ring runner gets to come back after prison to be a starter, or a player like Pacman Jones, who has been arrested seemingly a dozen times, and even was drafted while on probation.

That said, trying to make this out to be a Constitutional issue is disingenuous at best. Players have the right to protest, as do all US citizens. That does not mean that anyone has to watch, nor does it mean that deciding not to watch is in any way a violation of the players' Constitutional rights or a wish for the players to be denied those rights. Having a right to protest in no way requires others to accept the validity of the protestors' opinions or message.

The KKK has the Constitutional right to gather and protest, let's say school integration. Does that mean if you denounce the KKK and their protest, that you hate the Constitution? Of course not.

And just to make a quick comment about whether players could be suspended for the protests, I think the NFL would have a pretty good argument that they can be, based on the relevant portion of the NFL Game Operations Manual. They don't appear to be following that path, though. Perhaps after the season standing during the anthem will become mandatory, who knows?

Merely denouncing someone’s protest does not, in itself, demonstrate contempt for the Constitution; however, trying to suppress someone’s ability to exercise their Constitutional rights absolutely does. Which is what many on the right are trying to do by boycotting the NFL over this issue.

To borrow your analogy of the KKK...

You point out that denouncing them and their protest does not demonstrate hatred for the Constitution and you are 100% correct since such an approach still recognizes the KKK’s Constitutional rights.

However, to apply the approach by many on the right who are trying to coerce the NFL to squash the players’ Constitutional rights would be akin to trying to prevent the KKK from speaking at all, thus denying the KKK their Constitutional rights; and at the peril of themselves disrespecting the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but you are entirely incorrect here. No NFL player will be prevented from speaking or protesting because of a boycott. The most that could happen is that the NFL players might be prevented from using the NFL as a way to protest, and that is in no way a Constitutional right. You are conflating the right to speak or protest with the right to do so as part of an NFL game. Boycotting a product is not in any way a suppression of anyone's Constitutional rights. No one has a Constitutional right for their product to be purchased, nor does anyone have a Constitutional responsibility to purchase a particular product. No one is guaranteed the right to protest during an NFL game as a member of an NFL team.

A more apt analogy would be if there were a popular television show, and members of the KKK were given the opportunity to speak about their cause on the show. If viewers decided to stop watching the show and stop buying products based on the show, it would in no way be preventing the KKK members from speaking; at most, it would end up with the KKK members no longer being provided that particular venue to broadcast their speech.

Not exactly. The players, for the most part, are able to express their right to protest in the fashion they are. There are folks who are using a boycott to pressure the NFL to squash that right.

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

 

[Faun]

Of course it does. It’s their Constitutional right to protest the government by not standing for the National Anthem. That’s what our armed forces fight to defend. So why do you hate the Constitution?

Whether someone agrees with the basis for the NFL protestors does not have anything to do with the Constitution. Very few people, if any, have claimed that the players do not have a legal right to protest. Instead, those who are boycotting and angry about the protests seem to be saying they think it is the wrong way to go about it, the wrong venue, or a false narrative; things of that nature.

I tend to see the outrage over the few protesting players as a sign of extremely questionable standards: boycott over peaceful protests, but not over the various cheaters, drug users, and criminals in the NFL? I don't think it speaks well of a person to get so upset by a protest about racial inequality that one has to boycott, but not bat an eye when a convicted dog ring runner gets to come back after prison to be a starter, or a player like Pacman Jones, who has been arrested seemingly a dozen times, and even was drafted while on probation.

That said, trying to make this out to be a Constitutional issue is disingenuous at best. Players have the right to protest, as do all US citizens. That does not mean that anyone has to watch, nor does it mean that deciding not to watch is in any way a violation of the players' Constitutional rights or a wish for the players to be denied those rights. Having a right to protest in no way requires others to accept the validity of the protestors' opinions or message.

The KKK has the Constitutional right to gather and protest, let's say school integration. Does that mean if you denounce the KKK and their protest, that you hate the Constitution? Of course not.

And just to make a quick comment about whether players could be suspended for the protests, I think the NFL would have a pretty good argument that they can be, based on the relevant portion of the NFL Game Operations Manual. They don't appear to be following that path, though. Perhaps after the season standing during the anthem will become mandatory, who knows?

Merely denouncing someone’s protest does not, in itself, demonstrate contempt for the Constitution; however, trying to suppress someone’s ability to exercise their Constitutional rights absolutely does. Which is what many on the right are trying to do by boycotting the NFL over this issue.

To borrow your analogy of the KKK...

You point out that denouncing them and their protest does not demonstrate hatred for the Constitution and you are 100% correct since such an approach still recognizes the KKK’s Constitutional rights.

However, to apply the approach by many on the right who are trying to coerce the NFL to squash the players’ Constitutional rights would be akin to trying to prevent the KKK from speaking at all, thus denying the KKK their Constitutional rights; and at the peril of themselves disrespecting the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but you are entirely incorrect here. No NFL player will be prevented from speaking or protesting because of a boycott. The most that could happen is that the NFL players might be prevented from using the NFL as a way to protest, and that is in no way a Constitutional right. You are conflating the right to speak or protest with the right to do so as part of an NFL game. Boycotting a product is not in any way a suppression of anyone's Constitutional rights. No one has a Constitutional right for their product to be purchased, nor does anyone have a Constitutional responsibility to purchase a particular product. No one is guaranteed the right to protest during an NFL game as a member of an NFL team.

A more apt analogy would be if there were a popular television show, and members of the KKK were given the opportunity to speak about their cause on the show. If viewers decided to stop watching the show and stop buying products based on the show, it would in no way be preventing the KKK members from speaking; at most, it would end up with the KKK members no longer being provided that particular venue to broadcast their speech.

Not exactly. The players, for the most part, are able to express their right to protest in the fashion they are. There are folks who are using a boycott to pressure the NFL to squash that right.

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

 

[Montrovant]

Whether someone agrees with the basis for the NFL protestors does not have anything to do with the Constitution. Very few people, if any, have claimed that the players do not have a legal right to protest. Instead, those who are boycotting and angry about the protests seem to be saying they think it is the wrong way to go about it, the wrong venue, or a false narrative; things of that nature.

I tend to see the outrage over the few protesting players as a sign of extremely questionable standards: boycott over peaceful protests, but not over the various cheaters, drug users, and criminals in the NFL? I don't think it speaks well of a person to get so upset by a protest about racial inequality that one has to boycott, but not bat an eye when a convicted dog ring runner gets to come back after prison to be a starter, or a player like Pacman Jones, who has been arrested seemingly a dozen times, and even was drafted while on probation.

That said, trying to make this out to be a Constitutional issue is disingenuous at best. Players have the right to protest, as do all US citizens. That does not mean that anyone has to watch, nor does it mean that deciding not to watch is in any way a violation of the players' Constitutional rights or a wish for the players to be denied those rights. Having a right to protest in no way requires others to accept the validity of the protestors' opinions or message.

The KKK has the Constitutional right to gather and protest, let's say school integration. Does that mean if you denounce the KKK and their protest, that you hate the Constitution? Of course not.

And just to make a quick comment about whether players could be suspended for the protests, I think the NFL would have a pretty good argument that they can be, based on the relevant portion of the NFL Game Operations Manual. They don't appear to be following that path, though. Perhaps after the season standing during the anthem will become mandatory, who knows?

Merely denouncing someone’s protest does not, in itself, demonstrate contempt for the Constitution; however, trying to suppress someone’s ability to exercise their Constitutional rights absolutely does. Which is what many on the right are trying to do by boycotting the NFL over this issue.

To borrow your analogy of the KKK...

You point out that denouncing them and their protest does not demonstrate hatred for the Constitution and you are 100% correct since such an approach still recognizes the KKK’s Constitutional rights.

However, to apply the approach by many on the right who are trying to coerce the NFL to squash the players’ Constitutional rights would be akin to trying to prevent the KKK from speaking at all, thus denying the KKK their Constitutional rights; and at the peril of themselves disrespecting the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but you are entirely incorrect here. No NFL player will be prevented from speaking or protesting because of a boycott. The most that could happen is that the NFL players might be prevented from using the NFL as a way to protest, and that is in no way a Constitutional right. You are conflating the right to speak or protest with the right to do so as part of an NFL game. Boycotting a product is not in any way a suppression of anyone's Constitutional rights. No one has a Constitutional right for their product to be purchased, nor does anyone have a Constitutional responsibility to purchase a particular product. No one is guaranteed the right to protest during an NFL game as a member of an NFL team.

A more apt analogy would be if there were a popular television show, and members of the KKK were given the opportunity to speak about their cause on the show. If viewers decided to stop watching the show and stop buying products based on the show, it would in no way be preventing the KKK members from speaking; at most, it would end up with the KKK members no longer being provided that particular venue to broadcast their speech.

Not exactly. The players, for the most part, are able to express their right to protest in the fashion they are. There are folks who are using a boycott to pressure the NFL to squash that right.

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

I agree that some people want to deny them the chance to protest as players on the sidelines during NFL games. My point is that the players do not have a Constitutional right to protest in that manner, and they lose no rights by being denied that specific venue for protest. The right to protest is not the right to protest as an NFL player at an NFL game.

 

[GHook93]

Here are some stats, some teams up, some down. Overall it looks like the attendance is down maybe 4-5 percent.

2017 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League - ESPN

What that link shows is the average attendance in the NFL during the years 2006-2016 is:

68,319

While so far in 2017, the average attendance has been:

68,957

Tickets are generally purchased before the season began and hence prior to the protests. The secondary market and TV ratings are the better judge and both are hurting big time


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Faun]

Merely denouncing someone’s protest does not, in itself, demonstrate contempt for the Constitution; however, trying to suppress someone’s ability to exercise their Constitutional rights absolutely does. Which is what many on the right are trying to do by boycotting the NFL over this issue.

To borrow your analogy of the KKK...

You point out that denouncing them and their protest does not demonstrate hatred for the Constitution and you are 100% correct since such an approach still recognizes the KKK’s Constitutional rights.

However, to apply the approach by many on the right who are trying to coerce the NFL to squash the players’ Constitutional rights would be akin to trying to prevent the KKK from speaking at all, thus denying the KKK their Constitutional rights; and at the peril of themselves disrespecting the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but you are entirely incorrect here. No NFL player will be prevented from speaking or protesting because of a boycott. The most that could happen is that the NFL players might be prevented from using the NFL as a way to protest, and that is in no way a Constitutional right. You are conflating the right to speak or protest with the right to do so as part of an NFL game. Boycotting a product is not in any way a suppression of anyone's Constitutional rights. No one has a Constitutional right for their product to be purchased, nor does anyone have a Constitutional responsibility to purchase a particular product. No one is guaranteed the right to protest during an NFL game as a member of an NFL team.

A more apt analogy would be if there were a popular television show, and members of the KKK were given the opportunity to speak about their cause on the show. If viewers decided to stop watching the show and stop buying products based on the show, it would in no way be preventing the KKK members from speaking; at most, it would end up with the KKK members no longer being provided that particular venue to broadcast their speech.

Not exactly. The players, for the most part, are able to express their right to protest in the fashion they are. There are folks who are using a boycott to pressure the NFL to squash that right.

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

I agree that some people want to deny them the chance to protest as players on the sidelines during NFL games. My point is that the players do not have a Constitutional right to protest in that manner, and they lose no rights by being denied that specific venue for protest. The right to protest is not the right to protest as an NFL player at an NFL game.

That’s not exactly true. They can exercise those rights on the job if an employer allows it; which is the case here. And they have the right to protest in any fashion they want as long as it’s a) peaceful; b) lawful; and c) permissible. They choose the method they are engaging in, which meets all three of those criteria, because it is high profile and gets the attention they seek. Many on the right are boycotting the NFL, the only body other than the players themselves capable of stopping them, to coerce the NFL to stop them.

 

[Faun]

Here are some stats, some teams up, some down. Overall it looks like the attendance is down maybe 4-5 percent.

2017 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League - ESPN

What that link shows is the average attendance in the NFL during the years 2006-2016 is:

68,319

While so far in 2017, the average attendance has been:

68,957

Tickets are generally purchased before the season began and hence prior to the protests. The secondary market and TV ratings are the better judge and both are hurting big time


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So? Fans are still flocking to games. I contacted my local team hoping I could get decent season tickets and has been the case forever, there are none available.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm sorry, but you are entirely incorrect here. No NFL player will be prevented from speaking or protesting because of a boycott. The most that could happen is that the NFL players might be prevented from using the NFL as a way to protest, and that is in no way a Constitutional right. You are conflating the right to speak or protest with the right to do so as part of an NFL game. Boycotting a product is not in any way a suppression of anyone's Constitutional rights. No one has a Constitutional right for their product to be purchased, nor does anyone have a Constitutional responsibility to purchase a particular product. No one is guaranteed the right to protest during an NFL game as a member of an NFL team.

A more apt analogy would be if there were a popular television show, and members of the KKK were given the opportunity to speak about their cause on the show. If viewers decided to stop watching the show and stop buying products based on the show, it would in no way be preventing the KKK members from speaking; at most, it would end up with the KKK members no longer being provided that particular venue to broadcast their speech.

Not exactly. The players, for the most part, are able to express their right to protest in the fashion they are. There are folks who are using a boycott to pressure the NFL to squash that right.

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

I agree that some people want to deny them the chance to protest as players on the sidelines during NFL games. My point is that the players do not have a Constitutional right to protest in that manner, and they lose no rights by being denied that specific venue for protest. The right to protest is not the right to protest as an NFL player at an NFL game.

That’s not exactly true. They can exercise those rights on the job if an employer allows it; which is the case here. And they have the right to protest in any fashion they want as long as it’s a) peaceful; b) lawful; and c) permissible. They choose the method they are engaging in, which meets all three of those criteria, because it is high profile and gets the attention they seek. Many on the right are boycotting the NFL, the only body other than the players themselves capable of stopping them, to coerce the NFL to stop them.

That they can protest on the job does not mean that protesting on the job is a right. There are innumerable things that a person can do legally that are not Constitutional rights. Protesting on the sidelines of an NFL game is not a Constitutional right. Being employed by the NFL is not a Constitutional right. The NFL having people watch their product or pay for their merchandise is not a Constitutional right. Because those things are all true, people boycotting the NFL in no way infringes upon the Constitutional rights of the players. Will the players lose their right of protest if people stop watching the NFL? No. Whether people do or do not watch football has no affect on the right to protest of NFL players, it only has an affect on whether those people pay attention to the protests or perhaps on whether the NFL decides to change its policy regarding player conduct during the playing of the anthem.

Again, it is not the rights of the protesting players that is affected by any boycott. They maintain exactly the same rights whether they are NFL players or not, whether the NFL allows the protests to continue on the sidelines or not, whether the NFL even exists or not.

 

[Montrovant]

Here are some stats, some teams up, some down. Overall it looks like the attendance is down maybe 4-5 percent.

2017 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League - ESPN

What that link shows is the average attendance in the NFL during the years 2006-2016 is:

68,319

While so far in 2017, the average attendance has been:

68,957

Tickets are generally purchased before the season began and hence prior to the protests. The secondary market and TV ratings are the better judge and both are hurting big time


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What? Do you have anything to back that up? I've never bought a ticket before the season started to watch a game in any sport. I haven't been to a huge amount of games, but none of the tickets were purchased prior to the season, nor were those of anyone I've seen a game with.

 

[otto105]

The wife and I are holding firm. It would appear that in some city the same can be said. I am not sure how performers can piss off their core audience and then expect loyalty. Or maybe these team just suck and no one wants to pay 300 dollars to see them play.

NFL HELL: Several Stadiums Nearly Empty As Anthem Protest Backlash Rolls Into Week 7 (PHOTOS)

All losing teams and the NFL doesn't need bigots.

 

[otto105]

Probably the latter... a lot of these teams suck and no one wants to pay $300 to see them.

But you keep pretending that these protests that have you soooo upset are the reason.

Let's see they were full last year , not so much this year..what changed Einstein?

The Browns were full last year? the 3-13 Bears with the Cubs in WS?

Take the altwhite propaganda and the jackass you rode in on away.

 

[Montrovant]

Not exactly. The players, for the most part, are able to express their right to protest in the fashion they are. There are folks who are using a boycott to pressure the NFL to squash that right.

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

I agree that some people want to deny them the chance to protest as players on the sidelines during NFL games. My point is that the players do not have a Constitutional right to protest in that manner, and they lose no rights by being denied that specific venue for protest. The right to protest is not the right to protest as an NFL player at an NFL game.

That’s not exactly true. They can exercise those rights on the job if an employer allows it; which is the case here. And they have the right to protest in any fashion they want as long as it’s a) peaceful; b) lawful; and c) permissible. They choose the method they are engaging in, which meets all three of those criteria, because it is high profile and gets the attention they seek. Many on the right are boycotting the NFL, the only body other than the players themselves capable of stopping them, to coerce the NFL to stop them.

That they can protest on the job does not mean that protesting on the job is a right. There are innumerable things that a person can do legally that are not Constitutional rights. Protesting on the sidelines of an NFL game is not a Constitutional right. Being employed by the NFL is not a Constitutional right. The NFL having people watch their product or pay for their merchandise is not a Constitutional right. Because those things are all true, people boycotting the NFL in no way infringes upon the Constitutional rights of the players. Will the players lose their right of protest if people stop watching the NFL? No. Whether people do or do not watch football has no affect on the right to protest of NFL players, it only has an affect on whether those people pay attention to the protests or perhaps on whether the NFL decides to change its policy regarding player conduct during the playing of the anthem.

Again, it is not the rights of the protesting players that is affected by any boycott. They maintain exactly the same rights whether they are NFL players or not, whether the NFL allows the protests to continue on the sidelines or not, whether the NFL even exists or not.

Let me bring up two further points.

First, a boycott is a form of protest. If you oppose people boycotting the NFL, are you not trying to suppress their right to protest as much as they are doing with NFL players?

Second, a hypothetical: Let's imagine I go to a friend's house to watch a football game. During the playing of the national anthem, I take a knee. After the game, the friend tells me I am no longer welcome at his home to watch games. Have my rights been taken away?

 

[Tax Man]

I do not see empty stadiums once play has begun. Well except for 49ers games but they have a real reason as the stadium sucks.

 

[Faun]

Again, any boycott will not "squash that right," because the players do not have a right to boycott at NFL games, nor a right to be NFL players. If there is a right to boycott at NFL games, then I could not be prevented from entering any NFL game I want to, going onto the field, and taking a knee during the anthem. The reality, of course, is that I can do no such thing.

If boycotts were to shut down the entire NFL, no NFL player would have lost their right to protest. Not a single one. The right to protest is not predicated on the location of the protest; there is no right to protest at your place of employment, no right to protest on someone else's private property, no right to have your protest broadcast on television.

People boycotting the NFL certainly seem to want the protests to stop, but stopping them does not violate anyone's Constitutional rights, and this is not a Constitutional issue.

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

I agree that some people want to deny them the chance to protest as players on the sidelines during NFL games. My point is that the players do not have a Constitutional right to protest in that manner, and they lose no rights by being denied that specific venue for protest. The right to protest is not the right to protest as an NFL player at an NFL game.

That’s not exactly true. They can exercise those rights on the job if an employer allows it; which is the case here. And they have the right to protest in any fashion they want as long as it’s a) peaceful; b) lawful; and c) permissible. They choose the method they are engaging in, which meets all three of those criteria, because it is high profile and gets the attention they seek. Many on the right are boycotting the NFL, the only body other than the players themselves capable of stopping them, to coerce the NFL to stop them.

That they can protest on the job does not mean that protesting on the job is a right. There are innumerable things that a person can do legally that are not Constitutional rights. Protesting on the sidelines of an NFL game is not a Constitutional right. Being employed by the NFL is not a Constitutional right. The NFL having people watch their product or pay for their merchandise is not a Constitutional right. Because those things are all true, people boycotting the NFL in no way infringes upon the Constitutional rights of the players. Will the players lose their right of protest if people stop watching the NFL? No. Whether people do or do not watch football has no affect on the right to protest of NFL players, it only has an affect on whether those people pay attention to the protests or perhaps on whether the NFL decides to change its policy regarding player conduct during the playing of the anthem.

Again, it is not the rights of the protesting players that is affected by any boycott. They maintain exactly the same rights whether they are NFL players or not, whether the NFL allows the protests to continue on the sidelines or not, whether the NFL even exists or not.

Let me bring up two further points.

First, a boycott is a form of protest. If you oppose people boycotting the NFL, are you not trying to suppress their right to protest as much as they are doing with NFL players?

Second, a hypothetical: Let's imagine I go to a friend's house to watch a football game. During the playing of the national anthem, I take a knee. After the game, the friend tells me I am no longer welcome at his home to watch games. Have my rights been taken away?

The difference, of course, is I’m not taking any action to prevent them from exercising their rights; whereas they are.

 

[Montrovant]

How can a fired player protest by kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem? I get that they still have the right to protest in other manners, but their choice is to protest as they are as long as the NFL permits. Some folks are trying to deny them of that.

I agree that some people want to deny them the chance to protest as players on the sidelines during NFL games. My point is that the players do not have a Constitutional right to protest in that manner, and they lose no rights by being denied that specific venue for protest. The right to protest is not the right to protest as an NFL player at an NFL game.

That’s not exactly true. They can exercise those rights on the job if an employer allows it; which is the case here. And they have the right to protest in any fashion they want as long as it’s a) peaceful; b) lawful; and c) permissible. They choose the method they are engaging in, which meets all three of those criteria, because it is high profile and gets the attention they seek. Many on the right are boycotting the NFL, the only body other than the players themselves capable of stopping them, to coerce the NFL to stop them.

That they can protest on the job does not mean that protesting on the job is a right. There are innumerable things that a person can do legally that are not Constitutional rights. Protesting on the sidelines of an NFL game is not a Constitutional right. Being employed by the NFL is not a Constitutional right. The NFL having people watch their product or pay for their merchandise is not a Constitutional right. Because those things are all true, people boycotting the NFL in no way infringes upon the Constitutional rights of the players. Will the players lose their right of protest if people stop watching the NFL? No. Whether people do or do not watch football has no affect on the right to protest of NFL players, it only has an affect on whether those people pay attention to the protests or perhaps on whether the NFL decides to change its policy regarding player conduct during the playing of the anthem.

Again, it is not the rights of the protesting players that is affected by any boycott. They maintain exactly the same rights whether they are NFL players or not, whether the NFL allows the protests to continue on the sidelines or not, whether the NFL even exists or not.

Let me bring up two further points.

First, a boycott is a form of protest. If you oppose people boycotting the NFL, are you not trying to suppress their right to protest as much as they are doing with NFL players?

Second, a hypothetical: Let's imagine I go to a friend's house to watch a football game. During the playing of the national anthem, I take a knee. After the game, the friend tells me I am no longer welcome at his home to watch games. Have my rights been taken away?

The difference, of course, is I’m not taking any action to prevent them from exercising their rights; whereas they are.

Except that they are not, as a boycott will not prevent NFL players from protesting. NFL players would not lose the ability to protest if the NFL ceased to exist as an organization. That being true, how is a boycott taking an action to prevent protesting players from exercising their rights? You are still equating protests on NFL sidelines with the right to protest in general, but they are not equivalent. As I tried to point out with my hypothetical, having a particular venue made off limits for protest does not mean a person's right to protest is being taken away; that someone might not allow me to kneel during the anthem while in their home does not mean they are trying to prevent me from exercising my rights, instead they are preventing me from using their property as a venue for exercising my right. That is a perhaps small, but very important, distinction.

Let me try another hypothetical example. If a television sitcom decided to have two characters get involved in a homosexual relationship, and viewers decided to boycott that show, would those viewers being trying to prevent the show writers/actors/directors from exercising their free speech rights? Or perhaps it would be better to ask if they would be taking away those rights?

 

[Freewill]

The wife and I are holding firm. It would appear that in some city the same can be said. I am not sure how performers can piss off their core audience and then expect loyalty. Or maybe these team just suck and no one wants to pay 300 dollars to see them play.

NFL HELL: Several Stadiums Nearly Empty As Anthem Protest Backlash Rolls Into Week 7 (PHOTOS)

All losing teams and the NFL doesn't need bigots.

I seriously doubt you know the definition of bigot so I will supply it here:

big·ot
[ˈbiɡət]
chauvinist · partisan · sectarian · racist · sexist · homophobe · dogmatist · jingoist

Now, using that definition, isn't it YOU who are acting as the bigot?