I didn’t say it’s political, I just said it distracts from the game.
I can maybe see it being allowed if all players have the same marking (e.g. an LGBT awareness week), but if each player can have something different, then that needs to be policed, which means someone needs to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. Any time that happens, you get stupid issues like this where they’ll allow one form of speech and disallow another, and the whole thing gets political.
So instead of making a list of things that are allowed, just have a policy of no speech on uniforms and sticks. That’s simple and keeps focus on the game instead of whatever cause a player believes in.
If they allow rainbow flags for expression, they should probably also allow political and commercial expression as well.
I just don’t understand where you’re going with this. How is a rainbow, an expression of support for a range of identities of people, equally unacceptable in a sports environment as a literal “Vote [name] for President!” sticker or a political party flag?
It just feels like you’re viewing the existence of certain people as “political.”
I also said players shouldn’t have symbols of other things as well. I named politics and companies, but the same fits for religions, philosophies, etc.
If you’re playing a professional sport, acting in a play, etc, you should wear your uniform or costume, and then focus on the performance. If it’s not related to the game, players shouldn’t do it during the game.
I’m completely fine with players wearing rainbow flags or wherever during interviews and other appearances, that’s completely fine. I just think the game should be all about the game, not about individual players’ beliefs.
I think you’re missing one important thing about the NHL and Pro sports in general, it’s never been about the game. It’s entertainment to make money, that’s all it’s ever been. There is no “purity” or “for the love of the gave” just business.
Those are two different types of political, one is about government policy, and the other is about drama in some group. I’m saying that if there are rules to what kinds of speech are allowed, then the choice of what types of speech is allowed becomes political. So if they allow pink for breast cancer awareness but not rainbows for LGBT awareness, we end up with this type of conflict.
It’s better to just not allow expression like that during games.
it’s never been about the game. It’s entertainment to make money
True, but it’s entertainment where the game is front and center. It’s not like comedy where I’m there specifically for the jokes and social commentary. I’m there to watch the game and my favorite players perform, not see/hear their political, social, religious, etc views. If I want that, I can watch interviews with them, read books by/about them, or engage with whatever charities/causes they endorse.
Why are you so insistent that no focus be taken away from the game? Would a few players having differently-colored sticks or a little patch on their uniform really take your attention from the game?
Like, they’re not out there doing a Broadway on ice performance, they’re just putting some tape on sticks. The game doesn’t change because of some tape. If you have trouble focusing on the game because the rainbow tape is distracting, that’s probably a you issue. If you don’t like what you see on your screen, you can either ignore it, or change the channel. Easy as that.
It’s not the differently colored sticks themselves that’s the problem, it’s the commentary and whatnot surrounding it. What if all players except one put rainbow flags on their sticks? The commentators will just talk about that one player all game instead of highlights about the game itself. Perhaps it’ll devolve into a weird contest about who can put the most ridiculous thing on their stick and get away with it. IDK, I just don’t see how any of that adds to the experience.
I just don’t want any of that nonsense involved in sports. It’s already commercialized like crazy, I’d really rather not have any more distractions from what I’m they’re to watch: high level play in a sport I enjoy watching.
That’s it. I don’t care if they’re advertising cute kittens or world peace, it’s just not relevant to the game.
That said, if the NFL or their team has a special night for some cause and all players wear it, I’m absolutely fine with that. That can be rainbow flags, pink tape, etc, provided all players have it or none of them do. But if you allow advertising by players of various causes, that’s going to get political (not political policy, just drama within the league).
What if all players except one put rainbow flags on their sticks?
So what? Ignore it.
The commentators will just talk about that one player all game instead of highlights about the game itself.
Doubt it. And even if they do, so what? Ignore it, or mute it. It’s the game that matters, right, not the commentary?
Perhaps it’ll devolve into a weird contest about who can put the most ridiculous thing on their stick and get away with it.
What an absolutely insane take. These guys are professional athletes, some of the most competitive people in the entire world. They’re not going to introduce a “weird contest” sideshow into their sport just because.
I just don’t want any of that nonsense involved in sports. It’s already commercialized like crazy, I’d really rather not have any more distractions from what I’m they’re to watch: high level play in a sport I enjoy watching.
Another insane take. You’ve repeatedly compared voicing concern for a cause and commercialism. But those things aren’t remotely comparable. They’re not advertising gay pride, they’re showing support for a marginalized group. The fact that you’re lumping that into the same category of aggravations as commercials is saying a lot about you.
That’s it. I don’t care if they’re advertising cute kittens or world peace, it’s just not relevant to the game.
Then just ignore it. If you really, truly, actually do not care, it shouldn’t be hard to simply ignore it.
provided all players have it or none of them do.
Another insane take you keep bringing up. Why are you ok with players being forced to represent a certain thing on certain days? Would you wear a pride shirt on your company’s mandated pride celebration day, and then get mad if someone wears a pride shirt on another day? Something you could very easily just ignore? If so, then again, that’s saying a lot about you. It says you’re “willing” to “allow” people to “voice their support”, but only in ways that are unobtrusive and approved by you. At best, that’s selfish, and at worst, it’s authoritarian.
The league will continue to look closely at any third-party logos, as last season saw everything from nonapproved movie cover artwork to podcast logos to charity organization icons sneak onto the hardwood.
As you said, they’re competitive professionals, so there’s going to be a lot of rule bending and breaking. Things have to be approved by the league, so it’s likely going to get political as to what’s allowed and what’s not allowed.
Would you wear a pride shirt on your company’s mandates pride celebration day, and then get mad if someone wears a pride shirt on another day?
If they’re customer facing and intended to be in a uniform that represents the company, yes. If you’re working the front desk or something, you need to be wearing something company approved. If they’re not customer facing, I honestly don’t care what they wear, unless it’s a day when the higher ups are visiting or something.
Athletes represent the league and team they play for, and thus should wear an approved uniform. During practice or warmups is a different story, and they should be free to be more expressive. But once the game starts, they need to abide a more strict policy.
you’re “willing” to “allow”
I’m not in any kind of position of authority here, so I’m not allowing or disallowing anything. I’m merely expressing what I think should and should not be policy of a sports organization. In my opinion, professional sports leagues should be all about the game, and that’s it. I would also prefer to eliminate all forms of advertising during the game, and only allow it before or after the game (or perhaps during halftime or period change breaks or whatever).
at worst, it’s authoritarian
The NHL isn’t a government, it’s a sports league. If players don’t like the rules, they can leave, nobody is compelling anyone with force to do anything.
I don’t care about the existing NBA rules - we’re talking about why you personally have an issue with athletes representing causes during games.
Things have to be approved by the league, so it’s likely going to get political as to what’s allowed and what’s not allowed.
You’re making a huge leap here. Why would it get political? From my view, sports leagues have it very easy when it comes to defining what a player can wear during play: as long as it doesn’t cause a safety risk, affect your competitive advantage or the integrity of the game, or cause the opponent visible confusion, it should be fair game. Does this require some official to make a judgement call? Sure. But that’s literally what officiated sports revolve around - a bunch of judgement calls.
If you’re working the front desk or something, you need to be wearing something company approved. If they’re not customer facing, I honestly don’t care what they wear, unless it’s a day when the higher ups are visiting or something.
The pride shirt in my example is provided and approved by the company. If the company says it’s ok to show your pride support on a specific day, why is it not ok to show that support on non-designated days? And don’t you see the unfair treatment you’re suggesting here? I’m just so baffled at why you care so much what other people wear? It seems like this is a hill you’re willing to die on, even though you’ve mentioned you’re willing to have your “opinion challenged” a few times. For someone trying to come off as open mined you seem like you have your heels dug in, and you haven’t really given any reasons why, aside from weak platitudes.
I’m not in any kind of position of authority here, so I’m not allowing or disallowing anything.
C’mon, now you’re just being pedantic. You approve of some authority being able to control the appearance of the people they have authority over, that’s obviously the intent of that phrase, I just didn’t want to type it all out because it’s overly wordy. You’re not discussing the point anymore at this point, you’re disingenuously attacking a turn of phrase.
I’m merely expressing what I think should and should not be policy of a sports organization.
And I’m trying to get you to answer the simple question, why? Why do you think this, other than because of your own perceived personal inconvenience?
In my opinion, professional sports leagues should be all about the game, and that’s it.
I’m sorry to inform you that sports have never, and will never, be that. Almost all entertainment has always had an opinion, some sort of slant, or a message they’re trying to get across. If people didn’t like the message, they ignored it or stopped consuming that entertainment. That’s still an option you can exercise today.
The NHL isn’t a government, it’s a sports league.
Pedantry, again, and disingenuously putting words in my mouth.
If players don’t like the rules, they can leave, nobody is compelling anyone with force to do anything.
This has to be irony, right? Please tell me you’re being ironic right now. Because if you’re not being ironic, wow, what a hypocrite you are.
Because there’s a ton of money on the line. You have advertisers for the league, teams themselves may have agreements in place as well, and cities will have their own preferences. As soon as you start picking and choosing what is and isn’t allowed, you end up having to deal with all of those separate parties. Then you get player to player drama as well, like maybe there’s a hidden meaning behind the styles chosen for the players shoes or stick tape or whatever. All of that distracts from the sport itself.
It’s a lot easier to just enforce a uniform standard.
If the company says it’s ok to show your pride support on a specific day, why is it not ok to show that support on non-designated days? And don’t you see the unfair treatment you’re suggesting here?
Let’s say a store wants employees to wear a Christmas-related uniform only around Christmas time, and thinks wearing it in March is inappropriate. The company should absolutely be able to provide Christmas-themed clothes to be worn only from Thanksgiving to New Year’s, and not allow it before or after. It’s all part of their branding.
I don’t think it’s a big leap to apply the same logic to non-holiday themed attire, like breast cancer awareness, LGBT issues, black lives matter, etc. It makes sense for organizations to limit support to certain months or events where they want to send a coordinate message. And the rest of the time.
Whether leagues want to force players to wear support for certain causes is completely up to them and how much drama they want to risk from players choosing to sit out that game. But I think it should be up to the league what they allow and don’t allow, and in general, more strict standards is a lot simpler and reduces drama long-term.
As soon as you start picking and choosing what is and isn’t allowed, you end up having to deal with all of those separate parties.
That’s basically your whole responsibility if you decide to form and run a professional sports league (or be an employer in general) - define rules for your employees to follow, and deal with the edge cases in a fair manner. I think employers have an ethical responsibility to create a set of rules for their employees that don’t infringe on their employees’ basic rights. Preventing an employee form expressing an opinion (outside of an arbitrary employer-mandated time window) infringes on an employee’s basic rights.
All of that distracts from the sport itself.
You. All of that distracts you from the sport. There’s always going to be player to player drama, whether that’s because of something someone said during a press conference, or what cleats someone wore during a game. That’s one entertainment aspect of sports, player to player interactions. If you don’t like that aspect, that’s ok. Ignore it, or watch something else.
The company should absolutely be able to provide Christmas-themed clothes to be worn only from Thanksgiving to New Year’s, and not allow it before or after. It’s all part of their branding.
And I think that level of micromanagement and control is downright oppressive. I recognize that companies have the ability to put those restrictions on their employees, but I don’t think it’s right. As long as an employee isn’t hurting the business, causing harm, or breaking any laws, they should be allowed to wear whatever they want whenever they want, including a Christmas sweater in March, or a pride shirt in February. Unless you can give me a concrete downside to allowing employees to express themselves how they wish, as long as it falls within the loose bounds I’ve described above, I’m not going to be convinced otherwise.
It makes sense for organizations to limit support to certain months or events where they want to send a coordinate message.
For the organization, sure. At the organization level, you need to organize campaigns, social media posts, etc for that sort of thing. It makes sense to put time boxes on those things at the organization level. An individual employee is not “the organization” though. Individual employees, whether employers like it or not, have thoughts and ideas outside of the organization’s time boxes sometimes. And again, as long as those ideas don’t hurt the business, don’t break the law, and don’t harm others, and especially if those thoughts and ideas are held by the organization at some point in the year, employees should be free to express those ideas on whatever schedule they wish. And if an employer is an actual supporter of causes like pride, or cancer awareness, or BLM, or whatever else, they should encourage their employees to show their support for those same causes whenever they want, not just the company mandated support month. What’s the harm? Honestly, what harm will come if a person who works for an organization that supports breast cancer awareness, wears their breast cancer awareness shirt in April, and then again along with everyone else in October?
more strict standards is a lot simpler and reduces drama long-term.
You say “reduces drama”, I say “encourages and enables employers to be thought police”.
I didn’t say it’s political, I just said it distracts from the game.
I can maybe see it being allowed if all players have the same marking (e.g. an LGBT awareness week), but if each player can have something different, then that needs to be policed, which means someone needs to decide what is allowed and what isn’t. Any time that happens, you get stupid issues like this where they’ll allow one form of speech and disallow another, and the whole thing gets political.
So instead of making a list of things that are allowed, just have a policy of no speech on uniforms and sticks. That’s simple and keeps focus on the game instead of whatever cause a player believes in.
I just don’t understand where you’re going with this. How is a rainbow, an expression of support for a range of identities of people, equally unacceptable in a sports environment as a literal “Vote [name] for President!” sticker or a political party flag?
It just feels like you’re viewing the existence of certain people as “political.”
I also said players shouldn’t have symbols of other things as well. I named politics and companies, but the same fits for religions, philosophies, etc.
If you’re playing a professional sport, acting in a play, etc, you should wear your uniform or costume, and then focus on the performance. If it’s not related to the game, players shouldn’t do it during the game.
I’m completely fine with players wearing rainbow flags or wherever during interviews and other appearances, that’s completely fine. I just think the game should be all about the game, not about individual players’ beliefs.
Is it political or not chief lol?
I think you’re missing one important thing about the NHL and Pro sports in general, it’s never been about the game. It’s entertainment to make money, that’s all it’s ever been. There is no “purity” or “for the love of the gave” just business.
Those are two different types of political, one is about government policy, and the other is about drama in some group. I’m saying that if there are rules to what kinds of speech are allowed, then the choice of what types of speech is allowed becomes political. So if they allow pink for breast cancer awareness but not rainbows for LGBT awareness, we end up with this type of conflict.
It’s better to just not allow expression like that during games.
True, but it’s entertainment where the game is front and center. It’s not like comedy where I’m there specifically for the jokes and social commentary. I’m there to watch the game and my favorite players perform, not see/hear their political, social, religious, etc views. If I want that, I can watch interviews with them, read books by/about them, or engage with whatever charities/causes they endorse.
Why are you so insistent that no focus be taken away from the game? Would a few players having differently-colored sticks or a little patch on their uniform really take your attention from the game?
Like, they’re not out there doing a Broadway on ice performance, they’re just putting some tape on sticks. The game doesn’t change because of some tape. If you have trouble focusing on the game because the rainbow tape is distracting, that’s probably a you issue. If you don’t like what you see on your screen, you can either ignore it, or change the channel. Easy as that.
It’s not the differently colored sticks themselves that’s the problem, it’s the commentary and whatnot surrounding it. What if all players except one put rainbow flags on their sticks? The commentators will just talk about that one player all game instead of highlights about the game itself. Perhaps it’ll devolve into a weird contest about who can put the most ridiculous thing on their stick and get away with it. IDK, I just don’t see how any of that adds to the experience.
I just don’t want any of that nonsense involved in sports. It’s already commercialized like crazy, I’d really rather not have any more distractions from what I’m they’re to watch: high level play in a sport I enjoy watching.
That’s it. I don’t care if they’re advertising cute kittens or world peace, it’s just not relevant to the game.
That said, if the NFL or their team has a special night for some cause and all players wear it, I’m absolutely fine with that. That can be rainbow flags, pink tape, etc, provided all players have it or none of them do. But if you allow advertising by players of various causes, that’s going to get political (not political policy, just drama within the league).
So what? Ignore it.
Doubt it. And even if they do, so what? Ignore it, or mute it. It’s the game that matters, right, not the commentary?
What an absolutely insane take. These guys are professional athletes, some of the most competitive people in the entire world. They’re not going to introduce a “weird contest” sideshow into their sport just because.
Another insane take. You’ve repeatedly compared voicing concern for a cause and commercialism. But those things aren’t remotely comparable. They’re not advertising gay pride, they’re showing support for a marginalized group. The fact that you’re lumping that into the same category of aggravations as commercials is saying a lot about you.
Then just ignore it. If you really, truly, actually do not care, it shouldn’t be hard to simply ignore it.
Another insane take you keep bringing up. Why are you ok with players being forced to represent a certain thing on certain days? Would you wear a pride shirt on your company’s mandated pride celebration day, and then get mad if someone wears a pride shirt on another day? Something you could very easily just ignore? If so, then again, that’s saying a lot about you. It says you’re “willing” to “allow” people to “voice their support”, but only in ways that are unobtrusive and approved by you. At best, that’s selfish, and at worst, it’s authoritarian.
Until recently, the NBA had very strict rules on on shoe color. The NBA still has a restriction on third party logos:
As you said, they’re competitive professionals, so there’s going to be a lot of rule bending and breaking. Things have to be approved by the league, so it’s likely going to get political as to what’s allowed and what’s not allowed.
If they’re customer facing and intended to be in a uniform that represents the company, yes. If you’re working the front desk or something, you need to be wearing something company approved. If they’re not customer facing, I honestly don’t care what they wear, unless it’s a day when the higher ups are visiting or something.
Athletes represent the league and team they play for, and thus should wear an approved uniform. During practice or warmups is a different story, and they should be free to be more expressive. But once the game starts, they need to abide a more strict policy.
I’m not in any kind of position of authority here, so I’m not allowing or disallowing anything. I’m merely expressing what I think should and should not be policy of a sports organization. In my opinion, professional sports leagues should be all about the game, and that’s it. I would also prefer to eliminate all forms of advertising during the game, and only allow it before or after the game (or perhaps during halftime or period change breaks or whatever).
The NHL isn’t a government, it’s a sports league. If players don’t like the rules, they can leave, nobody is compelling anyone with force to do anything.
I don’t care about the existing NBA rules - we’re talking about why you personally have an issue with athletes representing causes during games.
You’re making a huge leap here. Why would it get political? From my view, sports leagues have it very easy when it comes to defining what a player can wear during play: as long as it doesn’t cause a safety risk, affect your competitive advantage or the integrity of the game, or cause the opponent visible confusion, it should be fair game. Does this require some official to make a judgement call? Sure. But that’s literally what officiated sports revolve around - a bunch of judgement calls.
The pride shirt in my example is provided and approved by the company. If the company says it’s ok to show your pride support on a specific day, why is it not ok to show that support on non-designated days? And don’t you see the unfair treatment you’re suggesting here? I’m just so baffled at why you care so much what other people wear? It seems like this is a hill you’re willing to die on, even though you’ve mentioned you’re willing to have your “opinion challenged” a few times. For someone trying to come off as open mined you seem like you have your heels dug in, and you haven’t really given any reasons why, aside from weak platitudes.
C’mon, now you’re just being pedantic. You approve of some authority being able to control the appearance of the people they have authority over, that’s obviously the intent of that phrase, I just didn’t want to type it all out because it’s overly wordy. You’re not discussing the point anymore at this point, you’re disingenuously attacking a turn of phrase.
And I’m trying to get you to answer the simple question, why? Why do you think this, other than because of your own perceived personal inconvenience?
I’m sorry to inform you that sports have never, and will never, be that. Almost all entertainment has always had an opinion, some sort of slant, or a message they’re trying to get across. If people didn’t like the message, they ignored it or stopped consuming that entertainment. That’s still an option you can exercise today.
Pedantry, again, and disingenuously putting words in my mouth.
This has to be irony, right? Please tell me you’re being ironic right now. Because if you’re not being ironic, wow, what a hypocrite you are.
Because there’s a ton of money on the line. You have advertisers for the league, teams themselves may have agreements in place as well, and cities will have their own preferences. As soon as you start picking and choosing what is and isn’t allowed, you end up having to deal with all of those separate parties. Then you get player to player drama as well, like maybe there’s a hidden meaning behind the styles chosen for the players shoes or stick tape or whatever. All of that distracts from the sport itself.
It’s a lot easier to just enforce a uniform standard.
Let’s say a store wants employees to wear a Christmas-related uniform only around Christmas time, and thinks wearing it in March is inappropriate. The company should absolutely be able to provide Christmas-themed clothes to be worn only from Thanksgiving to New Year’s, and not allow it before or after. It’s all part of their branding.
I don’t think it’s a big leap to apply the same logic to non-holiday themed attire, like breast cancer awareness, LGBT issues, black lives matter, etc. It makes sense for organizations to limit support to certain months or events where they want to send a coordinate message. And the rest of the time.
Whether leagues want to force players to wear support for certain causes is completely up to them and how much drama they want to risk from players choosing to sit out that game. But I think it should be up to the league what they allow and don’t allow, and in general, more strict standards is a lot simpler and reduces drama long-term.
That’s basically your whole responsibility if you decide to form and run a professional sports league (or be an employer in general) - define rules for your employees to follow, and deal with the edge cases in a fair manner. I think employers have an ethical responsibility to create a set of rules for their employees that don’t infringe on their employees’ basic rights. Preventing an employee form expressing an opinion (outside of an arbitrary employer-mandated time window) infringes on an employee’s basic rights.
You. All of that distracts you from the sport. There’s always going to be player to player drama, whether that’s because of something someone said during a press conference, or what cleats someone wore during a game. That’s one entertainment aspect of sports, player to player interactions. If you don’t like that aspect, that’s ok. Ignore it, or watch something else.
And I think that level of micromanagement and control is downright oppressive. I recognize that companies have the ability to put those restrictions on their employees, but I don’t think it’s right. As long as an employee isn’t hurting the business, causing harm, or breaking any laws, they should be allowed to wear whatever they want whenever they want, including a Christmas sweater in March, or a pride shirt in February. Unless you can give me a concrete downside to allowing employees to express themselves how they wish, as long as it falls within the loose bounds I’ve described above, I’m not going to be convinced otherwise.
For the organization, sure. At the organization level, you need to organize campaigns, social media posts, etc for that sort of thing. It makes sense to put time boxes on those things at the organization level. An individual employee is not “the organization” though. Individual employees, whether employers like it or not, have thoughts and ideas outside of the organization’s time boxes sometimes. And again, as long as those ideas don’t hurt the business, don’t break the law, and don’t harm others, and especially if those thoughts and ideas are held by the organization at some point in the year, employees should be free to express those ideas on whatever schedule they wish. And if an employer is an actual supporter of causes like pride, or cancer awareness, or BLM, or whatever else, they should encourage their employees to show their support for those same causes whenever they want, not just the company mandated support month. What’s the harm? Honestly, what harm will come if a person who works for an organization that supports breast cancer awareness, wears their breast cancer awareness shirt in April, and then again along with everyone else in October?
You say “reduces drama”, I say “encourages and enables employers to be thought police”.