IMHO, that move by the Predators goes quite far beyond the issue of NFL players kneeling for the anthem.
I do think that sports is or ought to be one of those few things that unites people by staying above the fray of politics or at least chooses not to explicitly support Team Red or Team Blue - but, as the author notes again, many people decry “politics in sports” but instantly support their teams or players wading into politics as long as it’s in favor of their cause.
Plus, athletes and other sports figures command a lot of public attention, just like any other celebrity. They too want to endorse their political cause of choice just like how every Hollywood celebrity has a political cause.
I think the team itself should stay out of politics, but I believe that to be true of all other entities which are made up of multiple people who are not joined together for specifically political goals, i.e. churches, corporations, educational institutions, etc. Athletes themselves, much like church goers, corporate employees, students, teachers, etc. can go crazy with politics for all i care.
A professional sports team is a business. It has the same interest as any other business in seeking to influence political events and decisions in a way that will favour its profitability, and the same concern as any other business that to close an affiliation with a particular politician or political organisation may alienate customers or potential customers.
An individual professional sportsman is a different matter. He’s an employee of a business, but in general your employer does not expect to control your political opinions or activities, and does not expect to enjoy public support if he is perceived to try and do so. So the individual sportsman may attempt to leverage his celebrity to advance a political cause that he supports, and his employer will generally be wary of attempting (at least publicly) to stop him from doing so. But if the cause is controversial or perceived as extremist, the sportsman may damage his own brand and, so, his employability and marketability.
An organization can’t have political views. Any political views that are attributed to the organization are really held by individuals within that organization.
Depends. Lots of international level sports competitions, especially between representative sides are full of political overtones, even if the players are not happy about it.
If I had my way, all organizations, corporations, unions, religious organizations, etc., would be banned from politics. When an organization expresses a political (or, for that matter, religious) view, it is not that of all its members, but only of one or two leaders, using a position created for one purpose to support another. Obviously, this wouldn’t apply to political parties themselves since that is the purpose they were created for.
When they stop playing the national anthem, having military jet flyovers and using public money to fund stadiums, then we can talk seriously about getting politics out of sports.
In a perfect, fair, and just world, then perhaps it would be better keeping itself away from politics. But in an unjust world, I’m in favor of any and everything that might help make society better, including sports figures advocating for just causes.
That’s what an organization is. It’s just people. There’s nothing else it can be. So I don’t understand why people who decide to organize can’t have political views. As far as I can tell, “the individuals within an organization have political views” is synonymous with “the organization has political views”. It’s a distinction without a difference.
No. An organization is indeed made up of people, but when that organization decides to express political views it is the views of the CEO or whatever decision maker makes the decision for the organization to get political. It’s possible that 100% of the people in the organization all agree with whatever the views are being voiced by the leadership of the organization, but most likely there are mix of different views among the members.
So an organization can express political views, but its really just the views of the person or entity that decided what that view is and made the decision to make it public. Not the expressed will of every single member of that organization.
I like football. I don’t give a rat’s ass how the players, coaches, and owners vote. I prefer not to know. Don’t care if they stand up, sit down, or jack off during the Anthem. Don’t care what they think about much of anything. Just play ball.
That’s true to a certain extent, but owners can fire CEOs if a majority disagrees with the corporate political policy, or can sell their shares and jump ship if they disagree with the majority of other owners. What often happens is that they don’t necessarily agree with the corporate political line, but they don’t disagree enough to do anything about it. Or they disagree but it’s good for their bottom line so they don’t do anything about it. But staying with the corporation is a measure of support for its views, even if it isn’t wholehearted support.
It’s at least as true that corporations can have political views as it is that entire nations can have political values. Or that there is such a thing as a “social contract” or “civic virtue”. Members of a corporation can opt out if they disagree with the organization’s politics, and they often do. Can’t say that for Joe Citizen. But ask anyone about “American values” and you’ll get an earful.
Would you say a church can’t have political views? What about religious views? I mean, it’s just a collection of individuals, right?
I don’t understand why a sports team would delve into politics even if it wanted to. No matter what stance you take, you have pissed off half of your fan base. Same goes with music artists and the like.
As far as the individuals, they certainly have every right to express their political opinions, but again see #1, however I don’t understand why the public cares. Let’s just take Tom Brady for example. The public either admires or hates him because of his abilities as a quarterback. If he wants to come out for or against Trump’s border wall, why does anyone care? He has no particular expertise on the matter. The media might as well interview any poster on this board about the wall.
I don’t see the national anthem or military jets as being political and it distresses me that in recent years, some have come to believe that they are political. I thought that if anything united Democrats and Republicans it was that we all loved our country, we just disagreed about the different ways to make the country better.
Pump the breaks. We hate him because he’s a cheating mediocre quarterback on a team owned by a powerful man and so somehow never gets more than a slap on the wrist for the shady crap they pull every year. He can also keep talent around him despite the cap because his team is in such a large market the probowl players taking cuts to stay figure they’ll make out on the back end.
We care because we are monkeys and monkeys are curious about what other monkeys that are nearer to the top in the troop hierarchy are doing. Why do people care enough about celebrity gossip to support an entire industry( or several )based on it? We care because it is in our DNA to care - curiosity, status-seeking/watching and petty tribalism got us off the savanna way back when and we’re not about to give it up just because we can now read and write Proust.