It’s time for fans to start quitting the NFL

[rhinobean]

I suppose the modern day version of the Roman gladiatuors are what we enjoy seeing so much! Perhaps we need to take a second look at ourselves. Just saying.

 

[BadCompany]

for my own part...i can admit that i struggle with the moral question posed by football, and moreso with each passing season, as we find out new and ever more grim facts about the toll football takes on the young men that we pay to play it (and ultimately, fans do pay them, whether directly or indirectly). do we not bear some responsibility, then, for the terrible fate that awaits an apparently growing number of they people when football has no more use for them? speaking for myself, i find this an inescapable conclusion; i'm encouraging people to bruise their brains repeatedly for my entertainment.

yes, yes, i know...we're not forcing them to do it. and that's true, as far as it goes. no one forces them. but how realistic is it to expect a young person, who in many cases would otherwise struggle to get by in today's economy, to walk away from the fabulous riches that could be theirs if they only sign a contract and play a game...a game that, besides making them fabulously wealthy, will make them famous to boot? and honestly, without fans eager to consume the NFL product, they wouldn't even be out there doing it in the first place because there wouldn't even be an NFL. try as i might to rationalize thinngs, i can't help struggling with it, because i don't think i can effectively explain away some sense of responsibility for the fate awaiting many of these guys.

as the author says, the game will, at some point, have to make changes to address the debilitating brain injuries that, as we have just learned, going to strike at least 3 out of every 10 players. much as i might like to keep everything the way it is, i know changes will come, and hope that an acceptable balance can be found between safety and entertainment.

I think that if football is to diminish in importance (it will never go away) it will be because of this. And not so much because of moral outrage from the paying public shocked - SHOCKED I say! - that large men travelling at high speeds with no other purpose other than to crash into each other actually causes damage to said men. No, I think it will start to decline because parents are going to stop putting their kids in the sport. Already there are signs that this is happening.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...rops-nfl-concussion-crisis-seen-causal-factor

If there are fewer kids joining, then there will be fewer organizations, fewer fans, less money, less publicity, ever fewer fans, and the downward spiral will continue. Like I said, I don't think football will go away, but to think that it will always remain as huge is pure ego on the part of those running the sport. Kids will play soccer, which is a much more international sport (and arguably bigger than football even) and if parents think it is "safer" then that is where they will put them. And once THAT generation, the soccer-playing generation, gets old enough to have it's own kids... well, doesn't take a genius to figure out how its going to go.

 

[Thordaddy]

Misinformation is ruining the game,there is proof that the NFL does not have a culture of abuse running amok, in fact it has less than the general population but some people are comfortable with expecting the league to be held to a higher standard than the fans, because of their financial success and FWIW I find and call that bigotry no less than the infamous "let them eat cake " bigotry of the royal court of France .
My problem has always been with the individuals who are perps , the legal system, then the league,that is the natural hierarchy of functional placement of outrage .

The league is an easy target we have SUCH a CULTURE of class envy in this country monetary success makes anyone who achieves it a target without the sympathy rightfully accruing to anyone subjected to bigotry,so that hierarchy gets turned on it's head and muckrakers like this author get published and people take him seriously , F HIM.

I won't live to see the day this game becomes extinct ,I accept NO BLAME for what consenting adults do to entertain me nor what they do in their bedrooms ,as I sit in judgement of this game I view it in an overall positive light and realize it is a human endeavor no more flawed than all our other efforts, passtimes, and diversions.

Can it lose some popularity if it doesn't yield to some of the patent intellectual dishonesty it is subjected to ?yes , but it isn't going away and I'm glad .

 

[-X-]

To be honest i don't care about all of that stuff too much. I care about the product on the field and right now it's a micromanaged penalty fest and it's not fun to watch. That's on Goodell.

This was my gripe as soon as preseason started, and I'm right there with you. Instead of anticipating a big play and getting excited about it after it happens, my first instinct is to temper my enthusiasm until I see no flag has been thrown. And that's not very freaking often anymore.

Nice sig.

 

[-X-]

I don't think you guys paid ANY ATTENTION to this article. At all.

Boxing used to be as much if not much more popular on a percentage basis than Football. Other than the Super Bowl, big fights would shut the country down as they were on the radio and Friday night was "fight night" all across the country.

The point is that things CAN change. Heck, in the 20s through the 70s, baseball was the predominant sport. Basketball became the most popular sport by the mid 80s and 90s, then football took over.

The NFL's current dominance is by no means guaranteed. It's a relatively new phenomenon and the sheer VOLUME of things that are building that could drive groups of people away is growing. Will it drive hardcore fans away? No. Then again, hardcore fight fans never left boxing, baseball or basketball, either. It's the fringe, casual and other groups that coalesce around a sport that are tributaries into a confluence that becomes a mighty river of momentum that is a popular domination of popular culture and consciousness.

When those tributaries dry up, the mighty river ain't a river any more. It's a shallow river and in places a glorified creek.

It's never been all about the hardcore fan. If it were, no commissioner would ever try to appeal to any fan beyond the hardcore. The money is in all the rest of the fans who exponentially outnumber the hardcore fans, usually 5 or 10 to 1.

If the NFL loses the non-hardcore fans, the current financial model of the NFL completely collapses. The sponsors will bail because they follow the fans and the behavior of NFL players (or more accurately, the public's willingness to tolerate the bad behavior) has gotten so out of control that these fans find this avocation to be an untenable way to spend their time and money, especially if it violates their personal principles.

Is the NFL in that spot now? Only at the very fringes..., but the problem is that people are asking this question, "is it moral to be a fan of the NFL" in major, mainstream publications and the answers aren't straightforward.

That's a MASSIVE problem for the NFL because only a few years ago, such a question would have been laughable, even though there would have been plenty of evidence that such a question were legitimate (we all know the domestic violence problem with the NFL has been running amok for ages, for example, and there are legions of examples of Domestic assaults being essentially unpunished by the league). Well, it's not laughable, anymore.

As dedicated fans, we are different. We spend TIME on a specific team and the NFL in general. We're likely to take the NFL, worts and all for quite awhile. It would take a lot for many of us to walk away.

But that's not what the article said. And it's important for us to take note of that. Because just like we pay attention to salary caps and all that... if this becomes the year of a "fan awakening" where fans are just inundated with player misconduct stories from Ray Rice to Ray McDonald to Greg Hardy to Adrian Peterson and the list just keeps growing each week and bouncing from "breaking news" to "breaking news"... non-dedicated fans will leave and the sponsors trying to reach THOSE fans will leave also. And that will affect the bottom line of the NFL in ways we can't predict.

The one thing that's NOT going to happen is that the press isn't going to stop looking for these stories now because they generate clicks and they are of interest.

If the NFL and the various teams don't get out in front of this, this problem will create its own solutions and they won't be good for the NFL.

But Mack, how is that *my* problem? I have no control over how some of these players act, and I have no control over how the league deals with them. That said, I think the league is taking measures accordingly, and there is no moral standard in place that the league can use to uniformly dish out justice. This whole thing is a works in progress and I seriously doubt the league is taking these individual situations lightly.

This is a situation where individual fans are going to have to make their own determination about how much money or time they want to dedicate to a sport that violates their personal moral standard. Conversely, you might find other fans that have significantly less morality and who will leave the sport if the league continues to crack down on everything because THAT doesn't mesh with their personal moral standards either.

"Look at all these thugs. I'm not watching this anymore. It's offensive."
"Look at all the players who are being suspended. I'm not watching this anymore. It's stupid."

I think the league cares about its image, and they're going to err on the side of the moral person and advertiser. If fans want to leave (even in droves) over something that they have no control over, then it is what it is. But I think it's disingenuous for casual fans to think a sport as violent as this is comprised of players who have no tendency to *be* violent. There is, IMO, no way the league fails to continue to gain popularity over the actions of a few players. There will be no grass-roots movements to boycott football. But the media will continue to shine a bright light on the blemishes in an attempt to indict the league as a whole. Of that I am absolutely certain. A lot of us are already immune to that ploy, and simply aren't biting.

 

[fearsomefour]

perceptive, and very nicely put.

for my own part...i can admit that i struggle with the moral question posed by football, and moreso with each passing season, as we find out new and ever more grim facts about the toll football takes on the young men that we pay to play it (and ultimately, fans do pay them, whether directly or indirectly). do we not bear some responsibility, then, for the terrible fate that awaits an apparently growing number of they people when football has no more use for them? speaking for myself, i find this an inescapable conclusion; i'm encouraging people to bruise their brains repeatedly for my entertainment.

yes, yes, i know...we're not forcing them to do it. and that's true, as far as it goes. no one forces them. but how realistic is it to expect a young person, who in many cases would otherwise struggle to get by in today's economy, to walk away from the fabulous riches that could be theirs if they only sign a contract and play a game...a game that, besides making them fabulously wealthy, will make them famous to boot? and honestly, without fans eager to consume the NFL product, they wouldn't even be out there doing it in the first place because there wouldn't even be an NFL. try as i might to rationalize thinngs, i can't help struggling with it, because i don't think i can effectively explain away some sense of responsibility for the fate awaiting many of these guys.

as the author says, the game will, at some point, have to make changes to address the debilitating brain injuries that, as we have just learned, going to strike at least 3 out of every 10 players. much as i might like to keep everything the way it is, i know changes will come, and hope that an acceptable balance can be found between safety and entertainment.

So, the question then becomes (to me anyway) not how the game changes at the pro level, but, how it changes at the amateur levels. This past weekend I watched a youth game coached by a friend (12-14 years old) where there were two helmet to helmet hits and kids came off holding their head. I watched a portion of a high school game where a boy was knocked unconscious....on a clean hit. When my son played he suffered at least two concussions. As much as I love football it did not break my heart when he moved onto baseball full time after his second year of high school.
If the game is profoundly changed that change with trickle upwards to college ranks and eventually the NFL. Of course, the NFL is paying people to play with a known risk factor. As stated before by another poster there are much more dangerous jobs. That of course does not make brain injury "ok". I just dont know how the NFL would continue to thrive if there were massive and profound changes to the game. Watching glorified scrimmages or 7 on 7 passing flag football does not hold much interest.
The other issues is despite rules changes ect. the evolution of athletic development and training will mean bigger, faster players impacting each other with higher velocity.
There is not an easy answer for football going forward.

 

[DaveFan'51]

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/09/15/time-fans-start-quitting-nfl/15667897/
After decades of soaring popularity and profits, professional football is at a moral crossroads. For decades, the NFL’s entire business model has been predicated on presenting an athletic spectacle so thrilling that fans were willing to ignore the dark side of the game — its extreme and inherent violence, its antiquated gender roles and its nihilistic greed, which places profits above all else, even the health of its players.

But the past few days have provided more evidence of football’s heinous underbelly than fans can ignore.

With the NFL already reeling from the Ray Rice scandal, news spread Friday that Vikings running back Adrian Peterson had been indicted on a charge of felony child abuse for allegedly beating his 4-year-old son with a tree branch. A few hours later, an even bigger bombshell: The NFL admitted in federal court documents that nearly one-third of retired players will develop long-term cognitive problems and at “notably younger ages” than the rest of the population.

A day that began with media wags asking whether Commissioner Roger Goodell would survive his mishandling of the Rice imbroglio ended with stark questions about how the league itself would survive.

At this point in any other season, our focus would be on the games. Instead, media members and fans are discussing football not as a form of escapist entertainment but as a troubled moral undertaking. Major cracks are starting to form in the foundation of the NFL empire. We are witnessing a long-overdue reckoning.

Various corruptions of the NFL forced me to turn off the games forever, after 40 years as a devoted fan, and compelled me to write a book about my change of heart, “Against Football.” Now I am hearing from fans every day who are questioning their loyalty to the game, or who have abandoned it altogether. Even a few sports reporters and columnists are following suit. We’re witnessing a cultural sea change.

Hard-core fans will surely cry foul. The conventional wisdom is that football is too big to fail, too deeply entrenched in our national culture. There’s truth to that — the league’s revenue approached $10 billion last year, and sponsors have been sitting tight. But, ultimately, the flow of that revenue depends on fan loyalty. While the league has done a remarkable job of growing its fan base over the past decade, particularly among women, many of these fans are relatively casual and new to football. It may not take much for them to turn away from the game.

Even jock pundits who serve as de facto promoters of the NFL have been unable to ignore the ill omens. And political leaders are entering the fray, too. Last week, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., suggested that lawmakers might revisit the “broad anti-trust exemptions granted (to the league) by Congress, and hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer benefit.” Thanks to deals cut with Congress in the 1960s, the NFL enjoys tax-exempt status as a “business league” and operates as a legal monopoly.

Just as worrying is the fact that major sponsors such as Marriott and FedEx have felt impelled to announce that they are monitoring the league’s conduct in the Rice matter. The disturbing details emerging about Peterson’s savage punishment of his son will no doubt induce further jitters in corporate boardrooms across the country. Having your brand associated with alleged wife and child beaters isn’t good business. And the prevalence of cognitive damage to former players is potentially a much more damaging story. In what other workplace would it be acceptable for 30 percent (or even 10 percent) of all employees to suffer permanent brain damage?

It’s worth bearing in mind a little history here. More than a century ago, boxing was among the nation’s most popular sports. Eventually, the masses rejected its overt savagery. The Sweet Science didn’t disappear, but it became a fringe sport. Football itself nearly disappeared in 1905, after 18 young men were killed on the gridiron. Schools banned the game, and editorialists called for its abolition. Instead, at the urging of President Theodore Roosevelt, the game underwent major reforms, which included legalizing the forward pass, a rule change that quickly led to a more wide-open, and therefore less dangerous, game.

Given the NFL’s own admission of the horrifying health risks posed to its players, the time has come for President Obama to stop serving as the nation’s fan-in-chief and to initiate a discussion about how to reduce the game’s violence, as well as its perverse and outsize role in our educational system. It’s time for fans to take a stand, too. Given the vast reach and resources of the NFL, and the slavish loyalty of its media enablers, fans tend to forget that they hold the power in this equation. The future of football will be determined not by a mass boycott or a government crackdown but by individual fans who confront the brutal realities of their favorite sport and act as their own consciences recommend.

Almond, a former sports reporter, is the author of “Against Football.” This column was published origianlly in The Washington Post.

I just wonder how many letters ( this attention seeker) got after this post telling him to "KMA!"

 

[DaveFan'51]

But the media will continue to shine a bright light on the blemishes in an attempt to indict the league as a whole

MORE ATTENTION SEEKERS!!

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/16/nfl-hires-new-d-c-based-lobbyist/

NFL hires new D.C.-based lobbyist
Posted by Mike Florio on September 16, 2014

At a time of unprecedented public scrutiny that will serve only to attract further interest of the folks who have a habit of looking for causes to support that will score points with the public, the NFL has hired a new lobbyist.

The press release doesn’t describe former Deputy Assistant to the President and Counsel to the Vice President of the United States Cynthia Hogan as a lobbyist. But that’s what she’ll be. And lobbyists work their contacts aggressively within the political universe to advance the causes of their clients. (Officially, Hogan is the NFL’s Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Government Affairs.)

As further evidence of the siege mentality currently engulfing the precipice of the NFL’s organizational chart, the announcement was made not by Commissioner Roger Goodell, but by executive V.P. of communications and public affairs Paul Hicks.

“We are pleased to welcome Cynthia to our leadership team,” Hicks said. “Cynthia’s broad experience on a wide-range of public policy issues will help advance our initiatives in Washington and around the country.”

On some issues, such as ensuring that the league’s sensitivity to concussions will trickle down to all lower levels of the sport, that’s a good thing. On other issues, such as getting Senator Rockefeller off the NFL’s back on the question of domestic violence or pushing back against the effort to scuttle the blackout policy or the effort to change the name of the Washington franchise or a potential assault on the league’s tax-exempt status or the ever-present threat that Congress will decide that the NFL no longer should enjoy a broadcast exemption for the antitrust rules, Hogan will be serving the self-interests of 31 billionaires and a publicly-owned (sort of) billion-dollar corporation.

Given the current sense of gloom that has transformed 345 Park Avenue into 1313 Mockingbird Lane, some will assume that Hogan’s job directly will entail improving the NFL’s handling of issues of domestic abuse and other misconduct. The truth is that she’ll be in charge of making sure that the political fallout from such scandals won’t be as bad as it otherwise could be.

Last week, Politico reported that the NFL was moving toward hiring a new chief lobbyist, explaining the complex issues that the eventual hire will confront. While the seas may eventually calm for the league, Hogan definitely will be earning her salary in the first several weeks she’s on the job.

 

[69superbowl]

Penalties, injuries, criminal charges, cheating, favoritism, twitter, oppressive advertising, coordinators, rule changing, ridiculous pricing, $30 parking, selfish asshat owners, idiot fans. It's all pathetic.

And I still love the sport and my team. Go figure.

 

[AnarchyRam]

My mother was a nurse for many years. All that walking, standing and even holding patients tore her body up, and for much less than an NFL player. I've never been a fan of group blame. The NFL isn't really to blame when guys break the law, or assault someone. The reasons for assaulting people goes very far back into our childhood.

I like the X's and O's of football more than anything.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Keep Don King of of the NFL.
Also, keep the NFL out of Mexico.

I watched Whitaker beat Chavez in Mexico. The fight was handed to Chavez out of fear of a riot.
I gave up boxing after that.

 

[-X-]

That's the fancy name for Twitter Watcher.

 

[ShaneFalco]

This is such a joke. NIKE just removed peterson gear from their stores. You know Nike, that same business that uses children to make shoes for 10cents in China. They really care about children.

 

[Prime Time]

This is such a joke. NIKE just removed peterson gear from their stores. You know Nike, that same business that uses children to make shoes for 10cents in China. They really care about children.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...peterson-merchandise-from-twin-cities-stores/

Nike pulls Adrian Peterson merchandise from Twin Cities stores
Posted by Darin Gantt on September 16, 2014

It’s one thing for government leaders and the media to bang on the Vikings for reinstating Adrian Petersonafter a paid weekend off.

But now the guys with the money are starting to chime in.

According to the Associated Press, Nike has removed all of its Peterson merchandise from their stores in the Twin Cities.

They’re still willing to sell it to you online, but removing the most visible Viking from the shelves makes some degree of a statement.

It might not have the direct economic impact of Radisson pulling its sponsorship from the team, but it’s another clear sign that there are plenty of people unhappy with the way the team has handled this behind the mask of “due process.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

Anheuser-Busch disappointed, concerned, dissatisfied with NFL
Posted by Michael David Smith on September 16, 2014

Getty Images

A major NFL sponsor has had enough with the misbehavior of NFL players and the response of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners he works for.

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardyand Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

If Goodell can’t get the job done, the owners will find a commissioner who can.

 

[LesBaker]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...peterson-merchandise-from-twin-cities-stores/

Nike pulls Adrian Peterson merchandise from Twin Cities stores
Posted by Darin Gantt on September 16, 2014

It’s one thing for government leaders and the media to bang on the Vikings for reinstating Adrian Petersonafter a paid weekend off.

But now the guys with the money are starting to chime in.

According to the Associated Press, Nike has removed all of its Peterson merchandise from their stores in the Twin Cities.

They’re still willing to sell it to you online, but removing the most visible Viking from the shelves makes some degree of a statement.

It might not have the direct economic impact of Radisson pulling its sponsorship from the team, but it’s another clear sign that there are plenty of people unhappy with the way the team has handled this behind the mask of “due process.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...disappointed-concerned-dissatisfied-with-nfl/

Anheuser-Busch disappointed, concerned, dissatisfied with NFL
Posted by Michael David Smith on September 16, 2014

Getty Images

A major NFL sponsor has had enough with the misbehavior of NFL players and the response of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners he works for.

Anheuser-Busch, the beer maker that spends a fortune on NFL advertising and sponsorship, has released a strongly worded statement in response to the controversies that have unfolded over the last week regarding Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardyand Ray McDonald.

“We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league,” the statement said.

Previous statements from the NFL’s corporate partners have generally shown confidence in the NFL’s ability to get a handle on the events that have contributed to the ugliest week in NFL history. The statement from Anheuser-Busch shows no such confidence. If the NFL can’t satisfy Anheuser-Busch, the NFL is at risk losing one of its most lucrative partners.

Which means Roger Goodell is at risk of losing his job. Make no mistake, the reason the NFL’s owners are supportive of Goodell is that the NFL’s owners have made a lot of money while Goodell has run the league. The day Goodell’s mismanagement of this issue costs the owners money is the day Goodell loses the support of the owners. Goodell has already mismanaged the Rice case. He had better figure out the right way to handle the cases of Peterson, Hardy and McDonald.

If Goodell can’t get the job done, the owners will find a commissioner who can.

Uh-oh......AB is pissed, that will for sure get everyone's attention since they have a billion dollar deal in place with the NFL.


Shit just got real.

 

[-X-]

Uh-oh......AB is pissed, that will for sure get everyone's attention since they have a billion dollar deal in place with the NFL.


crap just got real.

I wonder if MillerCoors would be willing to fill the void.

 

[LesBaker]

I wonder if MillerCoors would be willing to fill the void.

According to the article I read from the search I did to find out how much AB spends with the NFL Coors walked away when the price tag hit 40 million a year and released a statement saying the money would be better spent elsewhere.

IMO if Goodell doesn't get in front of this some sponsors are going to make some noise........they may not cancel contracts but I'd guess in order to get in front of it themselves they would issue some similar statements. I know if I was a CEO of a major sponsor I'd have called the league and expressed my concerns and I would have issued a statement like AB did.

I hate to say it but the PR is tooooooooo critical with these two issues.

The other shoe will drop pretty soon I would think. Unless Goodell makes a bold move or two the negative press is going to be really harsh and he may end up being the sacrificial sheep for the owners, who of course for the most part have ignored when their players have done really bad things. This may end up being a PR opportunity they are forced to take even if they don't want to.

I'm probably wrong about that last part but only propably, it could happen. It will only take ONE owner to say "he should step down" to start that train rolling.........Irsay anyone?

 

[ShaneFalco]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...peterson-merchandise-from-twin-cities-stores/

Nike pulls Adrian Peterson merchandise from Twin Cities stores
Posted by Darin Gantt on September 16, 2014

.

Which is absurd. Like NIKE can take the high ground on Child Abuse. What an upside down world we live in.