Skip to main content

Why I'm indifferent on the Colin Kaepernick-Nike relationship

I find the high octane bickering about former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick becoming the new face of Nike interesting, yet perplexing. While I've long supported Kaepernick and those like him using their first amendment rights to peacefully protest, I'd also be the first to point out Kaepernick is anything but the perfect role model for the cause. On the other side of the deal, Nike also doesn't have a perfect reputation when it comes to measures of equality.

I give Colin Kaepernick credit for trying to walk the talk after basically getting blackballed by the NFL. He's appeared to devote a great deal of his time doing charity events, volunteer work, and donating to charitable causes. However, his march for awareness and equality has been anything but a smooth ride. This bumpy road peaked, in my opinion, when he admitted to not voting in the 2016 presidential election. Look, I get it - there's more that can be done to implement change than to get involved in the political arena. However, it's also difficult to be a stalwart for change when we don't partake in one of our civic duties of electing leaders who are most likely to implement that change. So while I respect Kaepernick's fight and believe in his right to peacefully protest without repercussion, I also don't think he's the best role model for this cause.

All of that in conjunction with Nike's history leaves me feeling indifferent about this budding relationship. Those hailing praise on Nike or threatening to boycott the company/brand should probably take a step back, attempt to garner the full picture, and take this for what it is - an imperfect company teaming up with an imperfect representative, attempting to stir the pot; generate revenue; and bring awareness to social issues. I respect Nike for their decision, but am not going to be buying ten new pairs of Nike shoes as a result.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...