The league already used this tactic over something far less consequential (the MLK holiday in AZ). I believe this is the big civil rights fight of pur time. I’m sure Goddell wants to be on the right side of history.
The two things (superbowls and SSM) don’t seem particularly related. I feel like if you use that threat for every state action you disagree with you A) devalue the threat and B) come off like a tool. And I’m saying this as a strong proponent of SSM.
Hell no.
That’s putting politics into something where politics don’t belong and all it would succeed in is making a scene.
They did make this kind of threat with regard to Arizona’s controversial ‘show your papers’ law, but they might not have done so until after the issue was pretty much decided. Goodell can’t do this on his own, and I am not sure the NFL owners would support it. It would buy them some goodwill in the national press, but I’m not sure where the NFL’s fan base is on this issue.
It’s probably worth pointing out that the LA ruling was a federal court decision, meaning that neither the state of Louisiana nor its citizens had anything to do with the ruling or the judge who made it, so the OP is effectively proposing to punish the state of Louisiana for something that they didn’t do and have no control over.
That makes no sense. What you are suggesting is to punish New Orleans for what is essentially a single Federal Judge’s opinion. Plenty of other states have been defending anti-gay marriage laws, but their only difference is that judges have been ruling in favor of SSM.
You could backtrack and state that pulling the SB from New Orleans is based on the state law, but then you have the problem of why specifically Louisiana and not the numerous other states that have anti-SSM laws.
Nice thought; totally impractical unless you are willing to make the same statement against half the country.
From a practical standpoint: there won’t be another Super Bowl in New Orleans until at least 2019, and the Supreme Court is likely to resolve this issue long before that. I still expect them to hear the case this fall and make a ruling by next spring, but I guess it could take until next fall.
As an aside, why is Roger Goodell’s name so often spelled wrong? ISTM it’s written just the way it sounds.
Smapti-You’re of course correct it was a federal decision.
Marley-Didn’t realize NO was so far out in the rotation.
Furt-Glad it took 7 replies before my bad spelling was noticed.
Don’t feel bad; I see it spelled wrongly a lot. You probably picked it up somewhere else. It’s one of those errors that get reinforced, and in another century we’ll all spell it that way …
He actually did help pressure Arizona Governor Brewer to veto a “religious freedom” bill last year that was pretty much a license to discriminate against gays.
The issue will be back in front of the Supreme Court within a year or two anyway. You can can’t have a situation where people are married in one state and not another or married for federal income tax status but not for state tax.
If the NFL players were as overwhelmingly gay as they are overwhelmingly African-American, Goodell might feel compelled to make the kind of threats the OP wants to see.
But it isn’t going to happen.
Not true. There WASN’T any state law in Arizona prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gays, so the bill on Brewer’s desk would have changed absolutely NOTHING in practical terms. Even now, a hypothetical baker in Tucson is free to say he doesn’t want to make a wedding cake for gay weddings.
Vetoing the bill had mostly symbolic value.
I agree with the general sentiment here. I support SSM and I enjoy football, but I don’t want to see the NFL get involved in it. Why can’t football just be football? To some extent, I could understand why they might have gotten involved with the MLK holiday, since race has been an issue in the NFL even recently, though I still think they should stay out of it if it’s not directly related to things going on.
The other issue here is, they just won’t. There’s nothing for the NFL to gain, but potentially some loss there. Look at the drafting of Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be drafted. It seems to me that there did tend to be more positive press than negative, but the negative response wasn’t exactly small. Chances are supporting gay marriage won’t get people who aren’t interested in football to start watching it, but it might cause a non-trivial number of fans who are opponents of SSM to stop attending or watching games or stop buying merchandise. So I see a monetary incentive to just stay out of the issue.
And beyond that, I don’t think it would do anything to change anyone’s mind. In general, people opposed to SSM aren’t going to change their minds for monetary reason. Most oppose it because of religious, moral, or they think it’s icky. How many people who have a strong enough religious conviction to want to pass laws banning SSM or prevent laws from passing that would legalize it, would reconsider because they’re denied a Super Bowl? If anything, I’m inclined to think they interpret it as persecution for their religious beliefs and just dig in their heels more.
Because sports are part of society and reflect society. People sometimes say otherwise, but in my experience they’re ignorant and/or kidding themselves.
The NFL, like all the major pro sports unless I’ve forgotten something, used to ban black people entirely. As a matter of fact the last team to enact that ban was the same team whose name is at the center of an active racial controversy. The NFL is also watching its first openly gay player try to make a team. So… to me it seems related to things that are going on. That said, this wouldn’t work and would not make sense in response to this decision. But even if those weren’t issues, I don’t think NFL owners would not support even a more targeted response. Let’s be honest here: these days the NFL is finding more advocates on the right than on the left, and I think the league would rather not alienate them.
Plus you’d be punishing relatively tolerant New Orleans for the position of the more hardass rest of the state.