I can respect that. I think letting a different company entirely handle social injustice is a great way to integrate it with the NFL. It forces the NFL to go in that direction without having to make decisions using the ambiguous lingo they've adopted from jump.
So you posted a quote, said it's sad it has to be explained, I wrote the basic gist of the quote, and you're mad at me?
Who's trying to separate them or claim that there is no link? I clearly stated earlier I think Kap should 100% have a seat at the table. I just also disagree with these crabs who think the deal shouldn't exist because Kap wasn't physically a part of it from jump. It's sad that something that should be viewed as a positive thing is being torn down before we even see what's what.
To force teams to sign him should've been part of the compensation?So you posted a quote, said it's sad it has to be explained, I wrote the basic gist of the quote, and you're mad at me?
My point was, if they wanted the ability to protest while playing in the NFL, that needed to be a key part of the compensation in any settlement. If it was just about the money, cool...but don't stop other nikkas from making socially aware business moves with the NFL after you got your check.
No, to force regulations that prevent players from being punished for legally protesting.
That deal would have to happen during the next CBA with the NFLPA.
Yeah, but they could've legally guaranteed that deal (if they haven't done so already)
