The NFL Will Tolerate Abuse, But Not Activism

Do you think it’s a good sign when the owners of a sports franchise must release a statement saying they are “aware and empathetic to the highly personal sentiments expressed about this decision,” after they trade for a player whom they are about to pay an amount of money that would make Scrooge McDuck blush? You don’t need to answer that. That’s the situation the Cleveland Browns found themselves in—or rather, put themselves in despite zero pressure to do so—in 2022 after trading for quarterback Deshaun Watson, who at the time had 22 allegations of sexual misconduct and assault from massage therapists around the Houston area, a number that eventually climbed to 27. Over four years later, after playing almost exclusively awful football, Watson began the 2026 season still occupying the starting quarterback position for the Browns. I think “occupy” is apt because he seems to be staging a protest against playing good football, as evidenced by the Browns’ 34-10 thrashing by the Jacksonville Jaguars in Week One.


From blog via This RSS Feed.

1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 4 points 1 month ago

Are we surprised? Act like Epstein’s Kraft and you’re good.

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/nfl@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    The NFL profits from abuse but loses capital from activism. Of course, the abuse is what solicits the activism, so they're in fact cause and effect.

    Just a corporate entity trying have its cake and eat it too.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The abuse is only in the news, and typically buried; its not in the game. Activism is in the game. Since so many people watch sports to get away from politics, they will watch something else and the NFL loses money.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/socialism@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Are we really surprised this is the case when the players work for the richest, mostly white, Americans?

  • source