Colin Kaepernick Succeeded

Kaepernick was the starting quarterback for San Francisco in the Super Bowl back in 2013 against Baltimore. (Wikimedia Commons)

Like it or not, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick succeeded when he started taking a knee during the national anthem. He also shed some light on the NFL’s clear lack of a moral compass.

It has been almost two years since the start of the controversial protest. In that time, the meaning, message and significance of Kaepernick’s actions have become part of national news and debate. That alone means he has accomplished a lot.

Kaepernick has explicitly stated his protest is about police brutality and racial inequality, two major issues that face our country today. Regardless of which side of the conversation you stand on, you cannot deny that the conversation is happening.

Without trying to get too political here, I want to focus more on the overall impact of Kaepernick’s protest. It has raised awareness across the country about important issues. It is because of him that these conversations are being had. Washington Post writer Kent Babb quoted an NFL owner in September of 2017 as saying, “The thing that he’s done probably more effectively than any team community relations staff or owner or coach could do for other players is [point out] that they do have the ability to affect the national dialogue.”

National dialogue has certainly been impacted. A small group of players across the NFL joined in with the protest. Fans boycotted the league because it could not curb the behavior. The president tweeted about it regularly, attacking commissioner Roger Goodell for not stopping the behavior.

Several other NFL players formed the Players Coalition, working for social change. They credited Kaepernick for starting a movement. Back in May, that group partnered with the NFL to dedicate about $90 million to battling social inequality.

For Kaepernick, it is more than just a protest. In 2017, he donated $1 million to various charities across the country. Greg Bishop and Ben Baskin do an excellent job profiling the choices he made in making these contributions and break down where the money went.

Then of course there is the Nike ad. The fact that Nike was willing to take this risk says a lot about the state of the NFL right now. The league had no idea this campaign was coming and it is meant to inspire. It has sparked protest from those who view any association with Kaepernick as disrespectful to the military, but the message from the ad is actually quite inspiring, encouraging kids to chase their dreams.

Kaepernick has thrown for 72 touchdowns and 30 interceptions in 69 career games. (Wikimedia Commons).

There are still drawbacks. The message is often times misconstrued and the debate can quickly turn into personal attacks of someone’s character. Many feel that Kaepernick is ignorant in his action, especially with the Nike ad slogan, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” Perhaps that mantra is a little too on the nose when one of the main critiques of his protest is that it disrespects the military, people who genuinely sacrifice their lives for our freedom. In my opinion, Nike probably went a bit too far. Kaepernick sacrificed his NFL career for his protest, but the idea of “sacrificing everything” is better-suited to describe members of the armed forces.

At the same time, Kaepernick has sacrificed a lot of his own personal gains in order to continue this protest. Without the controversy that surrounds him, he would certainly be on an NFL roster, making several millions of dollars. And yes, he would be on an NFL roster if he had never knelled during the national anthem. Robert Griffin III is currently a member of the Baltimore Ravens. The last time the two of them played in the regular season, Kaepernick put up far better numbers, throwing 16 touchdowns to just 4 interceptions in 12 games. Griffin managed a meager two touchdowns and three interceptions in five appearances. Kaepernick also had more passing yards and rushing yards per game and the two had identical completion percentages. Simply stated, Kaep was the better player. Yet, it is RG3 who finds himself on an NFL roster.

Robert Griffin III
Griffin is currently the third quarterback on the Ravens’ roster.

I’m not saying Kaepernick should be starting anywhere, but he is good enough to be a backup quarterback. He has plenty of experience and was on a team that reached the Super Bowl in 2013. I mean Nathan Peterman has a job! That guy has thrown two touchdown and seven interceptions, and owns a career completion percentage of 43! The point is, Kaepernick would most certainly be on an NFL roster if not for the anthem protest.

You can dispute how much of a sacrifice this really is, but when you look at the number of NFL players that hold out or complain about not being paid enough money, Kaepernick is holding himself to a higher standard.

The fact he isn’t on a roster, but Mychal Kendricks has a roster spot is possibly the most disappointing part of this whole issue. Kendricks was indicted and charged with insider trading at the beginning of this month. He now faces 25 years in prison for his crimes. After the news broke regarding the charges, the Cleveland Browns released him. Just a few weeks later, he is now starting for the Seattle Seahawks.

Kendricks’ presence juxtaposed to Kaepernick’s absence illustrates the hypocrisy of the NFL. The fact that a convicted criminal is on a roster ahead of a man standing up for social change is disgusting. You might not like what Kaepernick kneels for or the message he is promoting, but he is not a criminal. He is acting upon a constitutional right to peacefully protest. The willingness of NFL owners to sign players who are criminals just reminds everyone the league is a business and willing to look the other way as long as the negative publicity does not effect the bottom line. It also underlines the reality that off-the-field issues can be over looked, though it continues to prevent Kaepernick from being in an NFL jersey.

Editor’s note: Since I first published this, there were signs that this controversy is no longer going to bar players from being in the league. Former 49ers safety Eric Reid signed with the Carolina Panthers on Thursday. Reid was the first player to join Kaepernick in taking a knee during the national anthem back in 2016. This does not solve everything, but it is progress. Reid, much like Kaepernick, deserves to be on an NFL roster.

People on both sides of the issue have been offended or hurt by the words spoken and actions taken. Unfortunately, that is often how change comes about. It requires patience and perseverance.

And Kaepernick has proven that he will be patient in his pursuit of change. Two years later, he still does not have an NFL contract. He rarely makes public appearances. He continues to embark on philanthropic missions.

Love him or hate him, Kaepernick has started a movement, he has sparked a conversation and he has forever changed how athletes will view their platform. On those grounds, his protest has definitely been a success.

Who is really at fault?

This was initially written as an essay but I have decided to post it anyways because I think it helps people understand the model the media is meant to follow and it places some long overdue blame on Nike for failing to act.

Media outlets have enormous power in American society. They have the ability to influence the thinking of a democratic people and change its perspective on any given topic. The media is meant to set the public’s agenda as well as transmit values. Each medium, ranging from newspapers to social media, is responsible for filling this role for news consumers. A recent situation involving the NFL and domestic violence presented the perfect opportunity for journalism to showcase its abilities. It could have pressed for new values and readjusted the American agenda to enact a leadership change in the NFL while engaging its readership about a major social issue in child abuse. The mishandling of a child abuse scandal involving NFL superstar Adrian Peterson brought reporters, publishers and bloggers alike up to bat. It would have been so easy for them to get it right but they struck out. The media should have promoted the idea that a major league sponsor Nike pull its sponsorship of the NFL for the league’s poor handling of domestic violence discipline and then rebuked Nike when it failed to properly sever ties.

First off, the relationship between these two mega corporations holds the potential to be a make or break one in the fate of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Goodell received intense pressure to step down for his leniency with Peterson but retained his position. The reason that Nike represents the perfect company to war with the NFL is two-fold. To start, it is the premier, multinational sports apparel company and holds a lot of sway in the general sporting community. The second aspect is Nike is the provider and sponsor of every NFL jersey made and worn by players and fans. In most news stories published about the scandal, Nike has been framed as neutral and taking the appropriate steps to react to the events of Peterson as they came to light.

Unfortunately, Nike did only what was predictable. On September 16, Nike suspended its endorsement contract with Adrian Peterson following his suspension from the NFL. ESPN first reported the news via Twitter[1] and Nike stated that the company “‘in no way condones child abuse or domestic violence of any kind and has shared [its] concerns with the NFL.’”[2] This was a simplistic step and did not take any guts for the company to distance itself from the messy situation claiming it made its displeasure clear to the league. Nike should have taken more progressive actions to send the NFL a powerful message. The largest sports apparel company in the world should have terminated its sponsorship of the league. The Globe and Mail reported Manish Tripathi, a professor at Emory University, went on record saying, “‘It’s such a no-risk thing [for corporations] to come out against domestic violence, waving their finger but not pulling any money.’”[3] Tripathi makes a compelling argument essentially undermining everything Nike had done. Looking closer, Nike’s motivation might have stemmed from somewhere else.

Now, Nike certainly took the proper precautions in suspending Peterson. Even after Peterson’s suspended, it is hard for Nike to completely disassociate itself from him. TMZ reported that Peterson, the day after being accused, emerged from his house decked out in Nike gear. [4] This was before Nike had officially suspended his endorsement but this still connected Nike to Peterson in consumers’ minds. So logically, it made sense in regard to Nike’s public image to leave Peterson in the dust. That still does not justify continuing to sponsor NFL however, the answer can be found in the numbers. According to The Wall Street Journal, when Nike took over as the official jersey provider for the league, the company it replaced, Reebok, lost an estimated $250 – $275 million in revenue.[5] Nike would likely lose that amount in cutting the NFL loose. It is unfortunate these are the correct economical steps because it allows Nike to be conceded. Yet, there should have been an upside because the media could have exploited Nike’s selfish nature to force the company to take further steps.

However, this is exactly where news outlets fell down on the job. Nike did not pressure the NFL enough, which is where the media should have picked up the slack. After missing the first chance to drive Roger Goodell out, Nike gave publications another opportunity. All they had to do was emphasize the self-centered actions Nike had taken while appearing as though it was disapproving of domestic violence when in reality it was only protecting itself. Yet, mass media dropped the ball a second time, failing to identify a pressure point that could have started a movement. The United States’ media missed fulfilling its niche in a socially responsible model of journalism. Instead, the media suffers some serious blame. While this does not absolve Roger Goodell or Nike from the mistakes they have made, it does continue the cycle of unfulfilled responsibilities. Goodell should have put a stop to all of this taking the appropriate approach in punishing Peterson. Once Goodell did not act, the duty shifted to Nike, who should have shamed the NFL and created an impact by yanking their financial support. When Nike missed the opportunity, the responsibility landed with the media to spark controversy and enact change. Yet the media did not frame its articles as needed and thus, the burden then fell to the usual news consumers. Thankfully, the American people picked up some of the slack utilizing social media as a method for spreading the message.

To elaborate, Twitter exploded with demands for Goodell’s resignation and featured calls for sponsors to take the lead. A tweet from @shall1432 on September 16 said, “We need more #NFLsponsors to stand up and challenge the #NFL on their stance with #DomesticViolence. #ChildAbuse.”[6] This is a clear call for NFL sponsors to quit taking the easy way out and find a way to use their leverage against the NFL in a beneficial way. Then a tweet from September 17 by @tedotte read, “The sad truth is that brands pulling sponsorship $$ will be the reason @nfl @nflcommish are forced to address issues.”[7] Another tweet from the following day by @RamfusBrock had some harsh words for sponsors, “Tell #NFLsponsors that until they drop the @NFL,they’re part of its #DomesticViolence problem! #GoodellMustGo.”[8] This perpetuates the idea that these sponsors need to be held accountable and now they are being linked to the problem of domestic violence.

In summation, the media, across all platforms, insufficiently served its most important role. It inadequately addressed the reactions to a child abuse investigation from Roger Goodell and Nike respectively. The facts were continually presented that Peterson had abused his son yet few in the media could seem to make an impactful statement; they just kept repeating the mantra that domestic violence was wrong and Peterson should be punished. The opportunity laid out in front of media outlets all over the nation and the majority disappointed in their coverage. There are only so many times where a social issue explodes into a nationwide drama where the media has the opportunity to shift the public’s attention in a way that makes a significant difference. They could have used the power they so knowingly wield to punish Goodell for his offenses and blatant disregard for basic civic rights. Instead the media missed their cue and still no one seems to have discovered that they blew a huge chance to solidify their spot in a true socially responsible journalistic system.
[1] The Associated Press. (2014, September 18). PepsiCo CEO voices concern about NFL, but gives support to Goodell. The Globe and Mail, Sports. Retrieved from
[2] Rovell, D. (2014, September 17). Nike suspends Adrian Peterson deal. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from website:
[3] The Associated Press. (2014, September 18). PepsiCo CEO voices concern about NFL, but gives support to Goodell. The Globe and Mail, Sports. Retrieved from
[4] TMZ Staff. (2014, September 16). Adrian Peterson…hey Nike…we’re still cool, right? Retrieved October 7, 2014, from
[5] Kell, J. (2012, April 4). Nike show NFL gear. The Wall Street Journal, Business. Retrieved from [6] @shall1432. (2014, September 16). @shall1432: We need more #NFLsponsors to stand up and challenge the #NFL on their stance with #DomesticViolence. #ChildAbuse [Tweet]. Retrieved from
[7] @tedotte. (n.d.). [Tweet]. Retrieved from
[8] @RamfusBrock. (2014, September 18). @RamfusBrock: Tell #NFLsponsors that until they drop the @NFL,they’re part of its #DomesticViolence problem! #GoodellMustGo [Tweet]. Retrieved from