Re: Colin Kapernick suing the Nfl
As you cited, Millennials aren't as interested in live sports so the older demographic is clearly important. This could be viewed as a point in favor of the NFL needing to clamp down on protests as those over the age of 45 tend to be less tolerant of the protests. But, that isn't a very forward thinking way to look at it. The reality is that if you are reliant on older Americans and not drawing in younger viewers then you aren't going to be around for much longer. So, it would make sense to me for the NFL to focus more of its energy drawing younger viewers. Well, Millennials tend to be more supportive of the protest and are the most diverse generation in US history. It could and I would bet eventually would backfire on the NFL and individual teams to be seen as anti Kaepernick or protest.
So, even if it is against a teams short term interests to not sign Kaepenick and/or to stop players from kneeling I am not at all convinced it is in their long term interests to do so.
Are they wrong for acting in their best interests(assuming they are)? That depends on the definition of wrong. I disagree with it from a political and moral standpoint but if its wrong financially or not has yet to be determined.
Well, this not an easy question because there are a lot of factors here. First, we have to establish if there has been a significant backlash against the protests. We can't predict the future so it's hard to know what fans reactions would be when a team signed Kaepernick so I'll stick to the NFL as a whole. So, there isn't any real proof, that I know of at least, that reaction to the protests are the main or even a very significant cause of the NFL ratings decline (if someone has a source showing the opposite I'd like to see it). Part of the decline is likely from an overall decline in people who watch cable. Not to mention the NFL isn't the only professional sports league that is suffering from a ratings decrease. I believe both NASCAR and the NBA have seen ratings drops in recent years. So, I'm not entirely sure how legitimate the fan reaction concern is. While it has more than likely played a part I think it is fair to say that there is a larger issue(s) at play with the NFL and sports viewership decline.Fair enough. So I think we can both agree that if a team signs Kapernick it would cause harm to that team's fanbase. To what degree, and whether that would be offset by gains in fans due to fans who agree with Kapernick's message, I am unsure. But for the sake of this discussion, I am going to assume that there are more fans angered by his stance than fans gained by it. This is due to viewership demographics and the fact that the NFL has been in decline. The people who would likely be happy with his stance aren't really into football. Millennials just aren't really into NFL.
So given all of the above, and feel free to dispute my assumptions. Is it in the best interest for NFL owners to sign him? If it isn't, are they wrong for going against their best interest?
As you cited, Millennials aren't as interested in live sports so the older demographic is clearly important. This could be viewed as a point in favor of the NFL needing to clamp down on protests as those over the age of 45 tend to be less tolerant of the protests. But, that isn't a very forward thinking way to look at it. The reality is that if you are reliant on older Americans and not drawing in younger viewers then you aren't going to be around for much longer. So, it would make sense to me for the NFL to focus more of its energy drawing younger viewers. Well, Millennials tend to be more supportive of the protest and are the most diverse generation in US history. It could and I would bet eventually would backfire on the NFL and individual teams to be seen as anti Kaepernick or protest.
So, even if it is against a teams short term interests to not sign Kaepenick and/or to stop players from kneeling I am not at all convinced it is in their long term interests to do so.
Are they wrong for acting in their best interests(assuming they are)? That depends on the definition of wrong. I disagree with it from a political and moral standpoint but if its wrong financially or not has yet to be determined.