Why the NFL abandoned its policy on the anthem

NEW YORK – The NFL was really at the rendezvous this week in Lower Manhattan. The notation is through the roof! The games are historically close! Ratings are up! Concussions are falling! It was impossible to chat with a league official without remembering how bad things were, and is not that great?

As many other field reporters have noted, the contrast was clear compared to last year's rally, when the league and players disagreed with the events at the national anthem and the tension was palpable. . The issue of the anthem was again notable this year, but this time because of its absence.

The league had adopted a hymn policy in May, but froze it just under two months later. There is every reason to believe that the NFL is now content to let the matter settle on itself, without any specter of discipline – a position that should have been most evident at the time it developed the policy. For league players and those who are closely associated with it, this turnaround was an act of magnanimity, the product of a good consensus between the management and the workers. "Discussions in progress" tells me a league associate with an ironic smile, his way of correcting me when I say that the league allowed its unilaterally imposed policy to die without ever having implemented it. Commissioner Roger Goodell used the expression "respect and dialogue" to characterize the dynamics between the league and the players on the subject. I could almost swear that he came out of the podium in the colors of "Kumbaya".

On three occasions, Goodell mentioned the "listen and learn" tours that some homeowners had done with some homeowners. "We are all trying to work together to solve these problems," he said. What is "these questions" were is ignored. Goodell never referred to what prompted players to demonstrate – police brutality, mass incarceration, systemic racial injustice – which corresponds to his silence when the President of the United States used the league and his players as racialized accessories put an end to the campaign of resentment.

"We try to help players and our clubs solve problems in the communities that matter to them," Goodell said. And so the NFL has finished disinfecting the protests of players to make another thing that it could sell to fans.

The idea that the league "solves" its "hymn crisis" by some kind of delicate negotiation process, such as Sports IllustratedAlbert Breer has formulated it, ignores the reality of what brought the two parties to the table and what resulted from these discussions. At last year's fall meeting, when some owners and players attended a special session at league headquarters, both parties tried to turn it into a positive and productive session. But a recording of that meeting that was then leaked to the New York Times revealed that the discussions were much more tense than the two parties had let slip. One month after Time'Big scoop, the league has approved a hymn policy with zero entry of the players. It did not work well.

Why the league did this remains a mystery. The players had succeeded in making the public understand Why they were protesting (though a significant part of this audience will never see the cause of the players as legitimate). But at the end of last season, which ended with an exciting futuristic Super Bowl, fewer than 10 players in total – a fraction of a hundred – were still protesting. The league has basically revived the controversy that has settled, ensuring that supporters and media would keep an eye on the players who could still demonstrate this season. But the league has also upset the players. And on July 10, the NFLPA filed a grievance, a defensive maneuver that would also keep the issue under the spotlight, where it would likely provoke outrage.

On July 19, the Dolphins' potential discipline projects, including suspensions, were leaked to the Associated Press. And just a day after that, the league and the NFLPA issued a joint statement that the policy would be frozen, pending further discussions. The cause of the blocking of the league is obvious: the players have found a way to unite and create a hell. But when I asked a handful of owners and executives this week, they all discussed the problem, even when they were offered the opportunity to speak in the background or without attribution.

"Why would the league agree to freeze politics only two months after it was passed?" I asked several people. Almost everyone has reacted with a variation of the league's common commitment to working with its players. But an owner of the AFC told me that he had never been there was a real consensus between the owners of the policy itself, which had been approved with the consent of all but two of the owners (the 49 Jed York and the Raiders' Mark Davis he is abstained), yet without formal vote, according to Seth Wickersham of ESPN. In addition, said the owner, the presence of the policy on the agenda was known to some owners only a few days before the meeting in May, which surprised the owner of the AFC.

But who pushed for that?

"I do not know," says the owner. "People have tried to avoid putting their fingerprints on it." It was the same for anyone who pulled the trigger to freeze politics, with York telling me that he was unaware of these discussions.

Breer said the last official talks between the league and the union took place on Aug. 27 and that at that time, both parties had decided to proceed without applying the policy. But on September 5, one day before the start of the regular season, the Washington PostMark Maske said the "moderate owners" were still willing to forgo any punishment in exchange for the NFLPA's approval that all players should defend the anthem. In other words, at least until the eve of the season, the league was negotiating a pound of meat in exchange for abandoning the policy. I understand that the union was reluctant to do that. Then the season started and very few players – Albert Wilson and Kenny Stills of the Dolphins, Marshawn Lynch of the Raiders, Michael Bennett of the Eagles, Eric Reid of the Panthers – continued to demonstrate. Like a fart in the wind, Donald Trump tweeted about it just onceand not at all since the morning of the first Sunday of the matches.

The hymn was barely mentioned at this week's meetings – just "by the way" on Tuesday as part of a broader discussion of the league's finances, according to an AFC team official. The executive told me that the league's efforts to quell demonstrations were always a business consideration, rather than "moral" (the word of the executive, not mine). Breer said the league and the NFLPA had data indicating that it was better for the league to simply ignore Trump's tantrums. Business has been pretty good since. "We're just promoting," says a NFC team leader. "The problem is behind us," said Jerry Jones, owner of Cowboys. Flag, army, patriotism? Anyway, that sort of thing was always tied to the positioning of the brand. Show respect.

What is important is that the NFL did not act in a noble gesture by winning a policy that was never needed and never had the cooperation of the players. I can not help but think back to league meetings last fall, when the Giants' owner, John Mara, representative of the old league guard like everyone else, admitted that had prevented to understand the origin of the players. "I think when [the anthem protests] I think I probably had a little more toughness, said Mara. "But since I talked to the players and heard what they had to say and I tried to figure out what they were protesting, I think my position has, to be honest, evolved a bit. "

Collective action has not generally been a position of strength for NFL players. But they had the NFL blink on this one. Maybe they learn.