Alleges that the owners are colluding to blackball him for his protests against racially based police brutality.
Should be an interesting one to watch, to see how his arguments play out in NLRB world.
And it’s not just the NFL that is the target; Trump is in the mix as well, at least to get media attention.
In the media release, his lawyer stated that athletes should not be denied a chance to play based on "partisan political provocation by the Executive Branch of our government. "
Vox says that the NFL punishing players for their protests is illegal:
This article is particularly interesting, because I had a thread where most people were against me, saying that the 1st amendment should protect workers’ political speech OFF DUTY. Some complained that this might mean employers couldn’t fire white supremacists.
But the very argument VOX is making, that NFL players can’t be punished because they are “banding together in their common interest”, would certainly apply to white supremacists ON THE JOB, as long as it was a group rather than an individual.
Now Kaepernick, there’s no collusion, that’s very doubtful. He’s not getting signed for a similar reason as Tim Tebow: their talents are not great enough to justify the drama. In Colin’s case, it’s the political stuff, in Tim’s case, it’s that wherever he plays the fans will pressure the coach to play him because he’s so damn popular.
Will be interesting to watch, but I wonder what proof he’s got that there was actual collusion. Do any of the articles linked to address that?
One key question is what’s allowed as evidence.
For example, suppose he can get some sports-math guy to introduce all sorts of numbers showing that anybody with his stats would have been signed up by now, does that amount to admissible evidence that the most likely explanation for his status is that he was colluded against? Or would he need some real evidence of actual collusion?
Not any kind of labor law expert, but I’m not clear that the political speech during the course of employment merits protection. Especially when the televised anthem is a commercially sponsored part of the broadcast. Vox’s arguments impress me as somewhat stretched.
That was my question to. If the NFL players have the right to spew hatred on the anthem and the flag and everything America stand for on company time on private property, can I walk up and down the hallway of the insurance company I work for on company time on private property and scream about how much I hate stale hot dog buns?
Can you let us know when that actually happens? 'Cause while that would suck, that’s not what’s going on right now.
So Kaepernick would have us believe that a league that has no problems with drunk-driving-killers and women-beaters playing is going to collude against someone protesting the National Anthem?
Sad part is he may be right. It’s all about the perception of the shield.
Its a silly lawsuit, he not really very good and made himself a toxic property that would cause a loss of fans.
If he was a top 25 talent at QB, he would have a job despite the fan dislike of him. As he is a borderline starter and not as good as many backups, why hire the headache that is him?
I mean Vick got jobs and was at least as disliked if not more so. But he had more talent by a good measure.
With 32 teams in the league, if he is one of the top 64 QBs then he should be employed. I think most football types think that he is, therefore he should be at least a backup somewhere. I think that makes a good case for collusion.
This argument would make more sense if there were players beating women or driving drunk on the sidelines during game-related proceedings. As it is, not much at all.
How could he possibly prove something like that? Nobody wants him. I know it’s probably a tough pill to swallow, but he’d bring an unwanted amount of attention to any team he joins. No coach or owner wants that circus. He needs to get on with his life and stop whining like a little toddler. Perhaps he should’ve thought about the possible repercussions of doing what he did before he did it. Lesson learned I suppose (or maybe not since he’s trying now to force someone to hire him). Maybe he’s out of money already.
Not true, the NFL is an entertainment business along with a sport. Being top 64 is not good enough if your a troublemaker, strongly dislike by a segment of the audience, etc.
As I said if he was top 25 this would be overlooked, but he might not even by top 50.
I say this as someone who has defended his stand to kneel.
Look to Michael Vick as a prime example where talent wins out over controversy and what Vick did was far worse without question I would think.
Why should he be, even if he is one of the best 64? Is it incumbent upon the owners that they should have to put up with his divisiveness? Do they have to take fewer profits because some of their fan base would stop buying his product if they were to bring him in? Why does anyone OWE him a job?
I disagree.
Care to expand? Kneeling during a National Athem is worse than Dog Fighting to you?
Because it strongly appears this is what you are saying?
I served in the Military to protect citizens’ legal right to protest, not to protect illegal dog fighting.
Regardless of the merits or non-merits of his case, isn’t it impossible to coerce an employer into hiring a job applicant this way? That is, even if the NFL is colluding, you can’t coerce any of the 32 team owners into signing Kaepernick.
Is he as good as if not better than most of the backups? Probably. Is he as good as or better than some of the lower starters, maybe.
Had he never become the face of the protest, he probably would be employed by now. But as was said, if he were a top talent, he would be employed, but since he is just better than a bunch of crappy options, I think most teams do not want the hassle.
He was hot a few years ago. I always felt he was too cocky. His ‘kiss his biceps’ move was silly. I also think Aaron Rogers ‘putting on the championship belt’ or Cam Newton’s ‘fake ripping open his shirt to expose his Superman logo’ are also silly. I get that athletes have their things, and like to taunt others, but quarterback should be a bit more dignified, IMHO.
Anyway, even before his taking a knee, he had been benched for Blaine Gabbert. Any one that has been benched for Blaine cannot claim to be a top shelf quarterback.
He might have been let go by the 9ers had he not voided his contract, but he chose to do so. To me, where his talent was last displayed, that was writing checks he could not cash.
RG3 is also out of the league, he had a great rookie season (OROY), but due to injuries and such, did not have a great season since. But because he never started a political movement, no one questions why he is not being signed. He has proven he is just as good as Colin and better than many of the backups that are on rosters, but just sometimes that is the way the cookie crumbles.
I doubt there is actual collusion, just no front office wants the blowback from a mediocre talent.
That’s what I’m saying.
Protesting is one thing. Saying you don’t respect your country is another.
People are called upon to sacrifice in the name of “country”. It’s a bond which confers obligations. Not just military (I don’t get why people think this is a military thing). People pay taxes to support or help other people because they’re citizens of the same country. People are forced to follow laws that don’t work for them personally in the name of benefiting the overall country. Saying that you can’t honor your country - that because of your objections to some aspect of the country’s politics or whatever, you regard the country as a net negative - undermines that bond and the rationale for others to make that type of sacrifice.
It’s far more damaging than a harming a few dogs.
If I would be running the world, people who did that sort of thing would be stripped of their citizenship and deported, giving them the option to find a country that they could respect. (I appreciate, of course, that this is not legal and constitutional under our system.)
Does he have to prove all 32 team owners colluded? Or, if there is an email chain between, say, three owners where they all agree not to sign him, is that enough collusion?
I kinda doubt he can prove they all got together and blacklisted him, but producing an email where a small number of owners say, “Yeah, I’ll never sign him!” seems more likely.