AFAICT, he wasn’t demanding anything at all.
He was simply saying that standing for the anthem is an expression of pride in the country, and he is unwilling to express pride in a country that he views so negatively.
It’s not at all comparable to a guy who says he’s going to do such-and-such until his demands are met. He was just saying he has no pride in his country and is not going to fake it.
Well, that’s your opinion; I have my own.
Updating this thread the situation has turned out somewhat differently than one might have expected:
I heard that since Nike and the NFL are partnered, they will be showing a commercial with Kaep in it on tonight’s game.
I respect the dude for standing for what he believed in. IF, a big if because I didn’t really think he was an NFL caliber QB going forward, his stance cost him his job, then kudos for him.
But kudos for the league also for standing for what they believe in. Both parties did what they wanted. As it should be.
This other bullshit about the NFL doing wrong because they black balled him… Pshaw Don’t use your bosses pulpit to promote an agenda or it has repercussions. In the end he got what he wanted, recognition, and now he has a sponsor (Nike). The NFL got what they wanted, standing players for the national anthem.
Win win
I don’t understand why someone would deliberately type something so obviously false.
Sorry, but it happens to be completely true.
Colin Kaepernick explains why he sat during national anthem
If you feel there’s some daylight between “show pride in a flag for a country” and “an expression of pride in the country”, feel free to weasel away. But I don’t think even that approach would get you to “so obviously false”.
He’s alleging collusion. That’s not allowed just because he’s promoting an agenda.
I have to admit I’m somewhat jealous of people who career-fail in an upward trajectory.
If the NFL chooses to compel their employees to engage in political speech, they have no one to blame if some of their employees choose to use it as an opportunity to engage in political speech.
Kaepernick isn’t blackballed so much as no NFL team adds that much drama for a guy whose highest possible upside is as a very good backup. If he had Michael Vick level talent, he’d be signed.
As for Nike, smart, ballsy business move. They know who their customers are and being willing to take a chance by taking sides is something not many businesses do. The one potential downside is that they are still on the left’s shitlist for their sweatshops and I doubt giving one guy a multi milion endorsement deal buys them a break in this regard.
In the short term it might help if the NFL (& other leagues) just stopped playing the anthem altogether - there’s no real reason they need to do this.
But I have a feeling that athletes who want to make attention-grabbing political protests will find some other way of doing it in game situations - this is their big stage and a big stage is exactly what they’re looking for in protests.
Never mind. What Fotheringay Phipps said
It all boils down to the fact that no owner wants divisive controversy in management, players, or fans. It affects the bottom line, is a big headache, is a media circus, and is a big distraction overall. Sure, Colin is better that some of the 2nd string quarterbacks out there now but, in the modern NFL, it is almost impossible to win without your front line quarterback anyway, so it’s not a big loss. Yes, I know, Philly did it with Foles when Wentz went down, but that is a rare exception to a pretty reliable rule. It just isn’t worth it for any team to deal with the controversy.
…it isn’t “weaseling” to state that “show pride in a flag for a country” means something completely different to “an expression of pride in the country”. If Kaepernick intended to say the latter then he would have chosen to do so. Thats how the english language works.
Mmmaybe? I have a higher estimate of Kap’s talents than you, I think.
Kap played 69 games, with 1.04 TD/g, 177.8 yds/g (7.3 yds/att), 0.43 INT/g, with 33 rushing yards/game.
Vick played 143 games, with .93 TD/g, 157 yds/g (7.0 yds/att), 0.62 INT/g, with 42.7 rushing yards/game.
(stats per https://www.pro-football-reference.com)
Now, I know that includes Vick’s later seasons (the less said about NYJ and Philly the better, I suppose), and I know that they played on very different teams with very different offensive styles. But perhaps offsetting that somewhat, only in the back half of his career did Vick have a better passing completion %age than Kap.
Was Vick a better all-around player than Kap? Maybe. Better rusher in his early career, possible a slightly better passer later in his career. But he was no Michael Jordan. And Kap’s numbers, to my mind, are not those of merely a good backup. They’re starting NFL QB numbers.
Your broader point, though? Yeah, I agree–the owners and league decided that the upside of Kap even being on a roster did not outweigh the downside. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t collusion, and I think you begged that question without all the facts. The lawsuit at hand is *intended to determine *if they colluded to blackball him. “He’s toxic,” no problem. “Hey everyone, he’s toxic so let’s all agree to exclude him” would be problem, and it’s going to be up to Kap’s legal team to provide sufficient evidence that actually happened.
(I find it personally really frustrating that Vick got to “pay his dues” and be forgiven; apparently owners and fans are more comfortable with animal torture than silent protest.)
Who exactly are their customers? My impression that Nike shoes are so expensive that kids can’t afford to buy them for themselves and thus the parents are putting up the money–and a lot of parents consider this guy to be unpatriotic.
… and a lot of them consider him patriotic.
Although I don’t have the statistics to back me up, I suspect that high end sneaker purchases are more common in urban environments than in rural ones, and that these consumers are going to be more more in the pro-Kaepernick than pro-Trump voting blocks. I’m quite sure that Nike did extensive market research before this decision and reached the conclusion that having their brand associated with bold edgy choices and given masses of free advertising from the the media as a result of the controversy will outweigh any negative hit on sales they take from turning off customers on the right.
I’ve often wondered this. I buy cheap “Made in China” crap shoes from WalMart. I really don’t know how they are different from expensive “Made in China” crap Nike’s. 
Exactly. I actively avoid Nike for precisely that reason.
My issue with their sponsorship of Kaepernick - whose comments I’ve found reasonable and well-thought out - is that they’re monetizing his principles. Given that he’s not earning money as a football player, I understand why he signed the contract. But linking his protest to Nike’s corporate behemoth leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
…You rang, Master? 
This June 2017 Forbes op-ed agrees with you:
In fact, they would actually be failing in their fiduciary duty to their shareholders if they didn’t do that. “To hell with profits, let’s just run this ad campaign because it’s the right thing to do” is not a phrase that has (or ought to have) any traction in corporate boardrooms.