Let's try a hypothetical. Let's say Bob McNair and some buddies start a professional table tennis league and it catches on like wildfire with huge tv contracts and fills 70,000-seat stadia.
Now to get the best players, McNair's new team hires a high percentage of Asian and notably Chinese players. So then the Chinese players begin demanding accommodations for themselves that outrage a certain percentage of the fan base. What is McNair to do?
He can hold firm on the existing rules and tell the players they will just have to live without certain things, causing unhappiness with the player ranks who may boycott or leave for other teams or just not try very hard.
Or he can give in to the player demands which piss off some of his fans who leave and hurt his bottom line.
It's the same dilemma each NFL owner faces. The only difference is they don't stick their foot in their mouths and declare the protests a "Chinese fire drill".
The smart business person will make some minor concessions that he does not think will hurt the bottom line but may reduce the animus of the players.
Right now, I think both sides exaggerate their positions in the extreme. Kneeling during the anthem is not the same as spitting on the flag or disrespecting our military but owners insisting on standing is not the same as the slave owner whipping and beating the slaves. This is the problem I so despise about our current mode of debate. Painting the other side in uberextremist terms does nothing but stifle constructive debate where a compromise can be reached.
|