sycasey said:
LMK5 said:
sycasey said:
LMK5 said:
What's the difference between squeezing your employer for a higher salary or for political speech? When you negotiate a salary it is a one-on-one negotiation. It is an expected part of the business. The player only has his agent to communicate his message. No matter what decision the team makes, they are not being forced to open themselves up to public scrutiny for taking a stand on a highly-charged issue. The player comes to the table alone. He doesn't use the team's assets, TV time, or stadium to enhance his own stance publicly.
Seriously? You've never seen players agitating for higher salaries or trades in the media? It happens all the time, and those players are definitely using their own celebrity to put external pressure on the team to do what they want.
This argument seems laughably naive to me. Players definitely use these things to improve their negotiating position and have been for a long time.
Yes, I see players advocating for higher salaries in the media. They do it one-on-one sy. They don't stand on the field on gameday, in front of the cameras, and hold up a sign that tells the fans they want more money and they'd like the fans to help. They don't hijack the team's time and assets on gameday to bolster their own monetary aims.
This seems like a pretty narrow distinction then. They do it in front of cameras, but not on gameday. They implicitly ask the fans to put pressure on ownership to pay them more, but it doesn't specifically happen on the field so that's okay. The only reason they are able to do this is because of the platform they get as players for famous teams in a famous league.
It seems like so narrow a distinction so as to only make Colin Kaepernick the bad guy.
I don't think Kaepernick or those who may have done the same thing are bad guys. I just think what they did was unfair to their employer and teammates. I understand where you're coming from with regards to a player implicitly putting pressure on his team when he talks to the media about his salary. But the distinction, in my mind, is very important. When you put the uniform on and take the field with your teammates, you are now working for the team that pays you to play and only play. It's the team's time; the owner's time. When you get back to the locker room and strip off the uniform and don civilian clothes, you can do whatever you want as long as it is within the confines of the contract you willingly signed.
All of our employers have limits that we as employees must adhere to. Do you ever notice how, like all coaches, Justin Wilcox always wears Cal gear when he's being interviewed? He is representing the team--his employer--when he wears that Cal logo. I guarantee you that there are limits as to what he can say or do while he is representing Cal.
The truth lies somewhere between CNN and Fox.
