Should US National Team Players Be Required To Stand For The National Anthem?

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by GiallorossiYank, Mar 5, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
?

Should National Team Players Be Required To Stand For The National Anthem?

Poll closed Mar 15, 2017.
  1. Yes

    55 vote(s)
    63.2%
  2. No

    29 vote(s)
    33.3%
  3. I don't know

    3 vote(s)
    3.4%
  1. jond

    jond Member+

    Sep 28, 2010
    Club:
    Levski Sofia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I believe you've misread. I'm suggesting the opposite. Essentially, because the US has it better than many place, the cries of suffering here fall amiss as the plights of others, elsewhere who truly have it worse are ignored.

    So in regards to Rapinoe, her outrage over comments from her team's owner are far less significant in a global context compared to places where the LGBT crowd is under the threat of execution simply for being LGBT, which she apparently has no comment on. And if the cause is her root concern, ignoring the global context comes off as insincere IMO.

    I'm not sure whose or what privileges you're referring to. My Czech ancestors had to fight for every ounce of respect and success they achieved while my Native American side was the victim of opposing Indian and British onslaughts, never mind my wife's people were held in slavery by the Turks for 500 years and she moved all the way to CA for a better life. I'm unaware of what privileges of ours are coming to an end nor does anyone here care about her cause, not that I expect it.

    I presented what my family has been thru as an example of my personal perspective and perspectives many may have whom you disagree with. Yet I also immediately followed with that I respect the rights of those who want to protest against the flag my family members have died for, just not when representing the country in unison.

    If you want to burn 10 American flags in your backyard, film it and spread it to millions, more power to you. If you want to do it at my office when I'm working on a project, or when I'm sitting down to watch the NT represent our nation, I'll have a problem with it.
     
  2. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    The other way also works. It's interesting how people who consider "hate speech" as something that should be protected by the Constitution, have issue with players expressing their protest respectfully during the anthem.
     
  3. Jazzy Altidore

    Jazzy Altidore Member+

    Sep 2, 2009
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You going to come back in here with your weak citations to caselaw? Reminds me of a law student whose never practiced a day in his life.
     
  4. Jazzy Altidore

    Jazzy Altidore Member+

    Sep 2, 2009
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One issue deals with the governments authority to imprison you for expressing an idea that the government disagrees with. The other issue deals with an employers ability to regulate speech and conduct of an on the clock employee, in the context of a contractual relationship. Completely distinguishable.
     
  5. freisland

    freisland Member+

    Jan 31, 2001
    Yep. That is the guide. What anyone does after that is up to them, within the law. I think they should regulate as little as necessary/possible. You disagree. C'est la vie, as they say in Russian.

    But don't pretend like there is a clear, obvious standard. There isn't.
     
  6. don gagliardi

    don gagliardi Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    Feb 28, 2004
    san jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    If you think the First Amendment only restrains Congress, you need to repeat Kindergarten.
     
  7. puttputtfc

    puttputtfc Member+

    Sep 7, 1999
    I thought her protest was support of Kapernick. When did LGBQ become her issue?
     
  8. LouisianaViking07/09

    Aug 15, 2009
    I think she stated something like "I support his struggle as I know what it is like to face discrimination".
     
  9. PhillyandBCEagles

    Jul 9, 2012
    NC
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Fixed.

    If Rapinoe wants to purchase a ticket to a game or attend some other free event where the anthem is played and and kneel, she's well within her rights to do so.

    But when she's under the employ of the USSF she is subject to their rules, and given that the USSF oversees national teams that represent the country it is perfectly legitimate for them to expect players to stand during the anthem. For that matter her club would also be perfectly within its rights to discipline her for doing so, although if I were a fan of that club I would not expect them to do so the way I expect the USSF to do so as a fan of the US team.

    Bottom line, when you accept the callup and the fat paycheck that accompanies it, you accept the USSF's rules. Don't want to stand for the anthem, turn down the callup. Playing for a soccer team is not a Constitutional right.
     
  10. don gagliardi

    don gagliardi Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    Feb 28, 2004
    san jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    It is not given "that the USSF oversees national teams that represent the country." The USSF is a private corporation, so by definition its teams do not represent any country. USSF's argument that it has the right to command respect for the anthem because it "represents this country" is built on a faulty premise.

    The notion that USSF, and by extension each of its players, represents the United States of America is a pure fiction -- unless of course the federal government has authorized or ratified the representation, in which case the federal Constitution necessarily governs, and disallows USSF's anthem policy.
     
    MPNumber9 and LouisianaViking07/09 repped this.
  11. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    That's a different issue: up to what point can a private organization which receives public funding go against the US Constitution?

    Whether it's the USSF stopping their employees from public demonstrations of protest, like Rapinoe kneeling during the anthem, or public universities denying the right to distribute pamphlets to the KKK, up to what point can they curtail the right to free speech without losing their funding from our taxes?
     
  12. jaxonmills

    jaxonmills Member+

    Aug 26, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To what extent does the USSF receive direct public funding?
     
  13. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    Good luck finding that information. They're not under obligation to make it public. The way it works is that they become co-investors with an association which is the one that gets the public funding in order to make something work, like youth programs or training camps.

    As Steve Goff noted, back in 2014: the truncated budget documents run hundreds of pages:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soccer-insider/wp/2014/01/23/ussf-budget-details-surface/

    He could obtain a copy of the full budget proposal back in 2011 (604 pages), but he doesn't mention (couldn't, in an article) the itemized projects they take with other associations, federation, groups, or any other form of "limited responsibility" organization.

    At any rate, I'd be surprised if they ever got money directly from the federal government. That's not how things are done since the 80s. Now, everything is through third parties.
     
  14. SUDano

    SUDano Member+

    Jan 18, 2003
    Rochester, NY
    You think the federal government budget provides payments to US Soccer through 3rd parties?
    Now that's some InfoWars stuff right there.
     
  15. SUDano

    SUDano Member+

    Jan 18, 2003
    Rochester, NY
    I was debating you about a week ago and you said USSF is "representing" the US so they are bound by the Constitutional Free Speech and now you say the USSF does not represent any country and the "representing" of the US is pure fiction. Do you find that to be an issue with your argument? Or just a natural change in opinion?
     
  16. don gagliardi

    don gagliardi Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    Feb 28, 2004
    san jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    No. My position has been consistent. If USSF is merely a private corporation, and nothing more, it cannot represent the United States. If, however, as it purports to, USSF is not merely a private corporation but an authorized representative of the United States, with the imprimatur of the federal government, then the Constitution necessarily applies.

    Everyone keeps saying Megan Rapinoe cannot have it both ways, flaunting the rules of USSF while representing her country. But, in fact, it is the quite the opposite. USSF cannot have it both ways, pretending it is purely private when issuing arbitrary edicts while presuming to represent the country in all its public promotion.
     
  17. don gagliardi

    don gagliardi Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    Feb 28, 2004
    san jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

    18 U.S. Code § 912

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912
     
  18. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    No, it's the way things are done now. Even the solar energy companies getting funding from the federal government, if you check their budgets, they don't have anything like that. They have join ventures with consortia that are the ones bringing in the public funding.

    Even if you don't want to get into the intricacies of how that works, just look into the funding of the stadiums the USSF uses for its events.
     
  19. SUDano

    SUDano Member+

    Jan 18, 2003
    Rochester, NY
    A little clearer. Just a jump to connect USSF with direct federal funding because a local municipality may have used some federal development funds for a portion of their stadium.
     
  20. jaxonmills

    jaxonmills Member+

    Aug 26, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So that makes it even hazier, from a free speech vs. workplace policy standpoint, than the already contentious debate about free speech on college campuses. And even then, it's purely speculative as to whether they receive govt funding.

    And to use your other example, I am skeptical that an energy company would face any legal repercussions if they chose to discipline an employee who violated their workplace behavioral policies, even those restricting what can be said in the workplace, especially if funds don't come directly from the federal government.

    And if the federal government wants to stop funding USSF (if they actually are), by all means, please do so. I don't think it's an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars to begin with.
     
  21. PhillyandBCEagles

    Jul 9, 2012
    NC
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    It has the right to ban anthem protests on its time because it's a private employer. A club team has the same right. It has reason to do so, beyond its right, because the team represents the country.
     
  22. don gagliardi

    don gagliardi Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    Feb 28, 2004
    san jose
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    The fact that US Soccer is a private employer is not the end of the inquiry, as I've pointed out before. The First Amendment applies to private as well as public entities under certain circumstances. It is not only limited to Congress, as one poster wrongly suggested.

    As for the assertion that the US Soccer "team represents the country," that is not true insofar as US Soccer is merely a private employer. Thus, your argument is internally inconsistent.
     
  23. Jazzy Altidore

    Jazzy Altidore Member+

    Sep 2, 2009
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #373 Jazzy Altidore, Mar 21, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
    LOL at this legal analysis. Reads like a slip and fall attorney attempting to sit at the grown up table.

    You are correct when you say that USSF being a private entity is not the end of the inquiry. But the First Amendment only restricts private entities where the government itself has substantially contributed to the speech restriction implemented by the private entity.

    The fact that a private entity styles itself as a representative of America (which is something more than the government) does not render it a government actor. For example, Bank of America may style itself as America's bank, but it is nevertheless a private entity unconstrained by the limitations of the constitution (not withstanding the 13th amendment).

    A better example: The NCAA itself is not a state actor, despite the fact that many of its public university constituents stand as state actors. NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988).

    The USSF is in no way imbued with state influence similar to the NCAA, so your argument is even more far afield than that of Tarkanian.
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.
  24. Jazzy Altidore

    Jazzy Altidore Member+

    Sep 2, 2009
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The relevant inquiry is what I've posted above: the United States government must directly contribute to implementing the policy in question. The mere receipt of US funds is not enough.

    Also note that even the United States government is free to regulate the speech of its employees during the discharge of the employee's duties. For example, the government can prevent a police officer from protesting during an official police department ceremony. The post officer can't voice political protest on duty. Thus, even if Rapinoe was a government employee, when she's on government time, she must comply with government employee conduct restrictions.
     
  25. jaxonmills

    jaxonmills Member+

    Aug 26, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #375 jaxonmills, Mar 22, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
    I highly doubt that there are actual legal problems with this policy. I trust USSF's attorneys' ability to do their due diligence before going public with this policy more than I trust BigSoccer posters arguing otherwise. Maybe I'll eventually be proven otherwise, but let's assume for a moment (at least for the sake of argument) that the policy is legally sound.

    The more relevant debate, in my opinion, is a moral one. Not whether USSF can institute this policy, but whether they should.

    Should players be banned from making political statements during the national anthem? And if you don't think they should be, are you willing to preemptively defend players' speech at all times and in all cases? One poster has said that they would not ban a player for making a Nazi salute or literally burning the flag during the anthem, but I don't think most are willing to go that far. Where should the line be drawn?

    Furthermore, is it hypocritical to protest your country during a game in which you're being paid to represent it? I think it is. So I am morally objected to the anthem protest in the context of international competition.

    And if Rapinoe does drop to a knee during the next national anthem, I think USSF is well within their grounds to decide not to play her. They don't even need to give a reason. Players are dropped all the time (e.g. LD & the WC (should we sue?)). I'm not saying she should be thrown in jail. Her protest wouldn't be illegal, of course, just outside of USSF policy. And God bless her for sticking to her principles if she does, even if I disagree.
     

Share This Page