6 ms·

The league did not ban Kaepernick, he just wasn't signed by anyone (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore). Some say owners colluded to blacklist hi

by efa 7y ago

The league did not ban Kaepernick, he just wasn't signed by anyone (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore). Some say owners colluded to blacklist him. I find that very hard to believe. Owners don't seem to have a problem signing players with all types of sins in their history if it will help them win. Of course if he's going to bring trouble and he's not that great anymore, then the might pass on him.

mlyle 7y ago
> (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore) Though in the first 2 years Kaepernick went unsigned, about 10-15 quarterbacks weaker than him were signed. One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor.
- ninth_ant 7y ago
  > One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor. I would assume that distraction for the team — regardless of reason for that distraction — was a major contributing factor. At a certain level their objective is to win games and focus on the player politics and non-sport activities would be disruptive, and likely negatively impact his overall value to prospective teams.
clairity 7y ago
right, i didn't mean literally banned, but he was effectively banned to make a political and economic point (also not suggesting that they necessarily did anything illegal).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
trophycase 7y ago
He was blackballed. The league even settled in court with him over his grievances. Please don't muddy the waters.
- efa 7y ago
  Yeah, they settled (the league wasn't found guilty). The lawyer for Kaepernick said "... the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party." So I'm not muddying the water, the water was never clear. There was never a clear public resolution. (Again, I'm not saying they didn't do it.)

by efa 7y ago

mlyle 7y ago

> (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore) Though in the first 2 years Kaepernick went unsigned, about 10-15 quarterbacks weaker than him were signed. One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor.

ninth_ant 7y ago
> One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor. I would assume that distraction for the team — regardless of reason for that distraction — was a major contributing factor. At a certain level their objective is to win games and focus on the player politics and non-sport activities would be disruptive, and likely negatively impact his overall value to prospective teams.

clairity 7y ago

right, i didn't mean literally banned, but he was effectively banned to make a political and economic point (also not suggesting that they necessarily did anything illegal).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

trophycase 7y ago

He was blackballed. The league even settled in court with him over his grievances. Please don't muddy the waters.

efa 7y ago
Yeah, they settled (the league wasn't found guilty). The lawyer for Kaepernick said "... the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party." So I'm not muddying the water, the water was never clear. There was never a clear public resolution. (Again, I'm not saying they didn't do it.)