If you've been following the controversy over a growing number of NFL players who have chosen to 'fight for social justice' by choosing to disrespect the National Anthem, you've been treated to a host of reasons why such insulting behavior is justified.
But if you're a casual football fan or no fan of the game at all, what you probably don't know is that the same National Football League officials who now claim they are 'powerless' to stop player protests are not being honest with you.
Does a league that has played the National Anthem and, in recent years, featured military fly-overs and themes, now no longer value the one song that embodies American cultural traditions?
Does a league that allegedly forbids its players and employees from conducting themselves in a way that does not promote "the values upon which the League is based" no longer have those values — or no longer enforces them?
Which is it? Because it cannot be both. Either the NFL does or does not stand for the very same traditional values it supposedly embodied just three weeks ago when the current season began and when new protests broke out.
So now the league is a political entity, and no longer a sports franchise, right? Has the league exchanged its traditional values for political ideology? Is that why player protests are allowed and why, say, actions like a player who emulates urinating like a dog after a touchdown, aren't?
After all, the player, New York Giants wide receiver Odell Beckham, said he did it in response to what the president said about the league and its protesting players on Friday.
The fact is, the league hierarchy — coaches, owners, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell — could make protesting the anthem against the rules simply by enforcing existing conduct policies that forbid them from undermining the "integrity and reputation" of clubs and the organization.
If disrespecting the nation's flag, the National Anthem, and a majority of Americans doesn't qualify as sullying the league's reputation, then nothing does.