In recent years, the NFL has become extremely controversial in how it handles its players actions. This varies from players wearing decals honoring fallen police officers, players wearing green cleats to advocate for mental health awareness, protesting the national anthem, and so much more. This issue has nothing to do with anybody’s personal beliefs on any of the speech being said, it is purely an issue as to whether or not they have the right to say what they do. Though it may make some people unhappy, speech is something that has to be protected regardless of whether it is agreed on or not. This begs the question, is what NFL players say or do on the field speech that needs to be protected. Given the circumstances, speech of NFL players cannot be suppressed due to our country’s commitment to protecting free speech, the fact that the government can’t suppress speech that isn’t in and of itself harmful, the unionization of NFL players and what the NFL Players Association has to do with it, the fact that NFL owners are by law obligated to honor the contracts between them and their players, and because of the subsidies the NFL receives, forcing them to honor its players constitutional rights.

The right to free speech for NFL players is part of the free speech that makes our country what it is. The United States of America is the greatest nation on this earth largely because of  just how committed we are to protecting our citizens right to free speech. One form of speech that has been especially controversial recently within the NFL are players protesting the national anthem, which is played before every game in order to honor America and all those who serve and have served in our nation’s armed forces. Even some veterans have agreed with this, one even coming out to remind people of what makes America stand out and how our country has made a firm stance in our constitution about a person’s right to protest. In his own words, “what separates our republic from North Korea is that our Constitution forbids forced displays of patriotism.” (Williams.) Part of this quote reminds of not just who we are as a nation, but also who we aren’t. We are not a country where patriotism starts at the command of our government, but at the center of our hearts. Williams goes on to talk about how he does stand for the anthem, and this is because we live in a country where he has the option to do so, or to not. Though Williams doesn’t touch on any other forms of speech within the NFL, his words still apply. They apply because the type of freedom he wishes for anthem protestors to have naturally has to apply to all players who wish to express free speech that isn’t harmful in and of itself. A society like ours cannot continue to call itself a free one if we begin to suppress the speech of anyone based on how popular or unpopular it may be.

Despite how disliked certain speech may be in the NFL, it does not fall under speech that can be suppressed by the government. Though it may not make sense at first glimpse, there are some forms of speech that have been deemed unworthy of 1st amendment protection. So, in order to accurately decipher as to whether or not the speech of NFL players is worthy of 1st amendment protection, one must look into whether or not the speech of NFL players is speech that is worth protecting. Throughout our nation’s history, there have been countless supreme court cases that pertain to the extent of the 1st amendment. The first supreme court case that established that different types of speech could be valued differently was Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. (Redish.) This particular case has been the precedence for the court deeming some forms of speech unprotectable. However, this doesn’t give the government the right to suppress any speech that it feels is convenient. Any speech that can be censored has to meet set standards, one of which is that it poses a threat in and of itself. (Redish.) This suggests that while NFL players can’t go out on the field and just say whatever they want or express themselves however, the same standards that the rest of society is held to are the standards that have to be applied to NFL players. This means that they can express their freedom of speech to the extent that an ordinary citizen can, without the government putting any restrictions on it. It’s one thing if the players were preforming actions that were obscene. In that case there would be no problem in suppressing their speech, because it would be speech that could be suppressed throughout society. However, for the most part, the controversial speech that is seen in the NFL is not worthy of being suppressed because it is not harmful in and of itself.

One of the most recent forms of controversial speech within the NFL has been over a player’s right to protest the national anthem. This particular situation has brought up a factor that plays into all types of speech in the NFL. This is the fact that the NFL players are unionized. (Frank.) This plays into the rights that these players gain due to the fact that they are unionized. The NFL Players Association(NFLPA) has been extremely clear that the terms of their unionization give them the right to protest, and they also suggested that they have the right to other forms of free speech. Even the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, has said that he understands that he needs to honor the unionization of the players of the NFL, and that their unionization is one that protects their right to protest the national anthem, and he also suggested that this unionization also applies to other forms of free speech. The NFLPA has been at the front line of this, making sure the NFL doesn’t violate the rights that their players have, and that the NFL doesn’t violate the Constitution of these United States in doing what it does. The unionization of the NFL players clearly protects their right to free speech, free of censorship.

Though some may look at this issue from the perspective of the owners and their rights, it must be remembered that these owners also agreed to the legally binding contracts that the players play under, making it that they must honor them. This means that NFL owners and the players have already come to terms with what the players can and can’t do. NFL owners are legally obligated to honor the contracts of their players, which collectively do not put substantial threats to the free speech of NFL players. To understand this, a decent understanding of our legal system in regards to two party contracts is required. Our society is one that has an extremely reliable legal system, especially in regards to how it deals with legal contracts. It’s one of the things our government does so well. Part of what our legal system does so well is just how well we enforce contracts between parties. That is, when two mutual parties have a legally binding contract, the government acts as a third party in order to ensure that neither party breaks said contract. This also works in the NFL as it does in other private contracts. NFL players are employees that work under contract, which both the players and the owners must honor. Under most standard contracts that NFL players play under, there are not provisions that significantly suppress the speech of its players. Though this argument makes it so that different types of speech are judged differently (it would be based on how each form of speech worked in relation to the contract.) However, in general NFL contracts, there are no clear parts that give the owners the ability to suppress the speech of its players. (Edelman.) If there were places in a particular player’s contract that specifically allowed NFL owners to suppress speech, that would negate this particular argument. However that is not an extremely prevalent aspect of a significant amount of players contracts. Therefore, it can be said in good conscience that the contracts of most, if not all NFL players does not allow for NFL owners to suppress the speech of its players. There are no instances in society where either party of a legally binding contract can break the terms and conditions of said contract. So, in good conscience, one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that NFL contracts must work the same way. NFL owners must honor the legally binding contracts that they have agreed to, and these contracts put very few restrictions on the speech of its players.

Perhaps the most convincing argument as to why the speech of NFL players can be censored is not on the grounds that it can censored by the government, but by the NFL itself. The argument suggests that since the NFL is a private corporation, it has the right to suppress free speech. Though this makes sense, this leaves out a crucial factor that must be considered when analyzing this argument. Government subsidies. According to Jarrett Stepman of the Daily Signal, the NFL has received roughly $7 billion in government subsidies over the past two decades. This has come in various forms, such as stadium renovations, tax-exempt municipal bonds, and others. Setting aside the fact that these subsidies don’t have enough positive externalities to make the subsidy worth it, it also goes to show that the NFL is not just another private corporation. It is a corporation that relies heavily on government subsidies. If the NFL did not take in all these subsidies it does, then this portion of the argument would be completely negligent. These subsidies change everything about the way that we are able to look at the NFL in this context. This brings the question of whether this compels the NFL to protect free speech or not to the Supreme Court itself, since it is the branch of our federal government that enforces the rule of law. It has been largely concluded in the Supreme Court that when a corporation receives a subsidy, they can do what they want in regards to free speech outside of the subsidy. (Rhodes.) This plays a large factor in determining whether or not the NFL’s subsidies force them to honor their players first amendment rights. What they spend their subsidies on is largely the reason that their players are able to play, suggesting that these subsidies are not separate from the issue of free speech of the players. Another factor to consider, as mentioned by the FederalistSociety is the fact that the NFL willingly accepts these subsidies. They are not forced to accept these subsidies, and they could exercise their right to deny their subsidies at any given time. It would be one thing if they were forced to take this money. However, that is not the case in this scenario. In the hypothetical case that they were forced to take this money, they wouldn’t be forced to honor first amendment rights, but that’s not the case in this scenario. They willingly accept this, and since what they do with the subsidies is closely related to what the NFL is trying to do in regards to free speech, they must honor first amendment rights. Preferential treatment is something else that needs to be considered regarding whether or not the NFL can suppress the free speech of its players. According to Lionel Sobel, the government cannot give any company preferential treatment based on the subsidy that is given out to them. Disregarding the issue of how this questions how ethical the NFL receiving subsidies is, one must consider whether or not the government allowing the NFL to suppress speech is the government indirectly giving preferential treatment to them. The standards for what NFL can do in regards to free speech has clearly been laid out, and the evidence has suggested that given their subsidies they can’t suppress the speech of their players. If the government were to allow the NFL to suppress the speech of its players, then they would be going against the standards that have been set. Sobel’s argument is based on the constitution and not just personal opinion. He argues that the constitution doesn’t have a double standard, and that what applies to some must also apply to all. If the government were to go against this standard, they would be giving the NFL preferential treatment, which would clearly be unethical as well as against the principles in the constitution. Since the there are standards as to how subsidized corporations must deal with speech and the NFL clearly meets the criteria for a corporation that should be held to this standard, the NFL clearly should be forced to honor the 1st amendment rights of its players.

If we are to remain a free society, freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. The freedom of speech that must be protected is all encompassing, even for speech that is largely disagreed with. Especially for opinions we disagree with. This extends to the controversy surrounding the NFL. Despite the controversy surrounding the National Football League in recent years, the evidence clearly shows that the 1st amendment rights of its players should be protected. This is not considering personal opinion on any of the actual speech being said, but is purely on the basis of the players right to say what they do. This needs to be heavily emphasized, largely because far too often people only put this argument in the context of speech they disagree with, rather than recognizing the fact that this argument applies that they agree with or disagree with. The First Amendment was protected primarily to protect our right to say things that people disagreed with. The First Amendment is not needed when one has regular conversation, or when someone buys milk from the grocery store, but it is needed when we have people fighting for what they believe in and yet are having their speech shut down. Our county’s commitment to protecting free speech, the lack of harm in most of the speech that is seen as controversial, the unionization of NFL players and the say that the NFL Players Association has on the matter, the owners obligation to honor their contracts which are legally binding, and the subsidies that the NFL receives go to show that the 1st amendment rights of NFL players must be protected. Though it may seem to some as an unpopular opinion to some, it is what must be done in order protect the freedoms in our society that we appreciate so greatly. In the words of Oscar Wilde, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” The free speech of NFL players must be protected at all costs, no matter the opposition.
