NFL owners just voted to fine people of color for protesting injustice against people of color.
The ruling was decided by a group of wealthy white owners and imposed on a league that is nearly 70% black. If the NFL wanted to stop the controversy surrounding on-field social justice protests, this decision will only bring more attention to the issue.
On May 23, the NFL announced the new ruling, which states:
“All team and league personnel on the field shall stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem. The Game Operations Manual will be revised to remove the requirement that all players be on the field for the Anthem. Personnel who choose not to stand for the Anthem may stay in the locker room or in a similar location off the field until after the Anthem has been performed.”
In addition, teams can be fined for any personnel who “do not show proper respect for the flag and Anthem.”
According to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, the ruling was to reverse the incorrect perceptions that the league and its players are unpatriotic while keeping the focus on the game:
“The policy adopted today was approved in concert with the NFL’s ongoing commitment to local communities and our country — one that is extraordinary in its scope, resources, and alignment with our players. We are dedicated to continuing our collaboration with players to advance the goals of justice and fairness in all corners of our society. The efforts by many of our players sparked awareness and action around issues of social justice that must be addressed. The platform that we have created together is certainly unique in professional sports and quite likely in American business. We are honored to work with our players to drive progress. It was unfortunate that on-field protests created a false perception among many that thousands of NFL players were unpatriotic. This is not and was never the case. This season, all league and team personnel shall stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem. Personnel who choose not to stand for the Anthem may stay in the locker room until after the Anthem has been performed. We believe today’s decision will keep our focus on the game and the extraordinary athletes who play it — and on our fans who enjoy it.”
However, the NFL Players Association believes player protests are a sign of patriotism and vows to fight the decision:
The NFL chose to not consult the union in the development of this new ‘policy.’ NFL players have shown their patriotism through their social activism, their community service, in support of our military and law enforcement and yes, through their protests to raise awareness about the issues they care about.
The vote by NFL club CEOs today contradicts the statements made to our player leadership by Commissioner Roger Goodell and the Chairman of the NFL’s Management Council John Mara about the principles, values and patriotism of our League.
Our union will review the new ‘policy’ and challenge any aspect of it that is inconsistent with the collective bargaining agreement.
If the league thought that player protests would magically go away by hiding them in locker rooms, it’s dead wrong. The media and the public will now shift their attention from who’s kneeling peacefully to who’s protesting in the locker room.
Plus, players who stand on the sidelines will still find ways to protest.
I wonder what happens if the NFL players figure out a way to protest while standing up. pic.twitter.com/tXLZisJ5qO
— Neuro Polarbear (@NeuroPolarbear) May 23, 2018
The ruling supports the right-wing, authoritarian narrative that suggests player protests are somehow unpatriotic or anti-military, even though numerous players who protested have publicly stated their support for the military and the belief that protesting injustice is actually a display of patriotism.
In banning protests during the anthem, the league also sided with President Trump over its own players. At a September 2017 rally in Alabama, the president referred to a protesting player as a “son of a bitch.”
President Trump has denied being "preoccupied with the NFL." But that's not what these star athletes think. pic.twitter.com/jSBTWdUwsf
— AJ+ (@ajplus) September 26, 2017
The immediate reaction to the NFL’s decision has been resoundingly negative on Twitter:
We live in day and age where two world class athletes have been effectively banned from the NFL over a peaceful demonstration.
— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) May 23, 2018
It's hard to know the time in history that you are living in when you are in it, but we are living in a truly disturbing time. https://t.co/FIZadIOtci
The NFL players’ protests have never been about the military or the flag. They’re about police brutality and white supremacy. Failing to protest injustice in America is not patriotic, it’s dangerous. #TakeAKnee
— ACLU (@ACLU) May 23, 2018
The NFL is 80% black. Imagine if they all sat out a Sunday or two...
— Travon Free (@Travon) May 23, 2018
The NFL Owners: We want this protest conversation thing to die off and focus on football.
— Benjamin Allbright (@AllbrightNFL) May 23, 2018
The NFL Owners, as intellectuals: I wonder what happens if we pour kerosene on these smoldering embers...
Beat your wife, drive drunk, rape a woman, hit your kid with a stick and you get a multi-million dollar contract, take a knee and the NFL will take a stand! #TakeAKnee
— donaldtrumpnewstoday (@irishrygirl) May 23, 2018
BLACK players: you make up over 70% of the @NFL. Please band together, revolt, resist,
— Such (@such) May 23, 2018
and fight this racist assault on free speech and democracy.
BLACK people: this is what it looks like when white men think they own our lives for their entertainment. Boycott the NFL. https://t.co/iYEvrpbPsm
By the way, the NFL can shove it’s compulsory patriotism up its red, white and blue ass! Count me out as a fan!
— Senator Blutarsky (@senjbblutarsky) May 23, 2018
The NFL is Top 10 at making an issue 100 times worse than it would be if they just left it alone
— lindsey ok (@lindseyyok) May 23, 2018
As someone that served in the military, I am disgusted with the @NFL rule that just came out. I proudly served so that people have the right to protest, especially when it was a peaceful protest. #1stAmendment pic.twitter.com/ie2XZp2Yxf
— Benny (@BennyDNielsen) May 23, 2018
After the anthem they should play the video of Eric Garner being choked to death for selling a loose cigarette and all the NFL owners should have to stand for it.
— Guy Endore-Kaiser (@GuyEndoreKaiser) May 23, 2018
The NFL is giving a master class in institutionalized racism! Their collusion against Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) & Eric Reid (@E_Reid35); their new fines for kneeling... The @NFL does not care about BLACK People! #NFL #NFLCollusion #NFLBoycott #ColinKaepernick #EricReid
— Jawn Murray (@JawnMurray) May 23, 2018
At this point, and frankly many before this, you can’t call yourself a progressive and support the @NFL.
— Jarrett Hill (@JarrettHill) May 23, 2018
Not if you support women. Black people. The constitution. The poor. Our cities...
You just can’t.
The NFL wants to punish black people who protest the unfair punishment of black people. https://t.co/kXcYdk7tS9
— Dominic Holden (@dominicholden) May 23, 2018
The United States is a patriotic and religious country that (rightly!) loves its damn sports, especially football, baseball, and basketball. Enforcing that love through coerced rituals and Pentagon product placements is not a projection of strength; it's an expression of weakness
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) May 23, 2018
Saying "How high?" when a president says "Jump!" is behavior suitable for a royal subject, not an American citizen. Rewarding politicians for playing fan bases off of one another—unless it's Sox–Yankees, in which case Iran-Iraq rules apply—isn't cheeky-clever, it's creepy-vulgar
— Matt Welch (@MattWelch) May 23, 2018
A woman makes a list on her cell phone on the sidewalkCanva 
A smiling woman types on her phoneCanva 
Representative Image: The emotional damage of racism is hard to overstate. 
Representative Image: She helped deliver her baby brother. Photo credit: Canva 
Representative Image: Every birth story is unique.Photo credit: Canva 
Gif of Emma Stone crying via 
A woman comforts an older manCanva
A pair of feet being soaked in hot waterCanva
A smiling woman stretches at her desk at workCanva
You may have missed the actual meaning behind these 5 popular songs.
'Every breath you ...' what? 5 classic songs where people totally missed the meaning
I’ve never been a "lyrics guy"—as long as the words sound pleasing to the ear, are relatively interesting, and aren’t evil or distractingly dumb, I don’t care all that much what the singer is going on about. I’m focused on the dynamics, the color of the arrangements, the rhythms, and harmonies. It’s only natural that I’d misinterpret some songs over the years, including ones that I’ve heard a thousand times while walking around malls and supermarkets.
I know I’m not alone. And I’d argue there are plenty of factors behind this phenomenon: Some people take lyrics too literally, while others only focus on hooky choruses and fail to notice nuance in the verses. Context can also blind us—if the music is danceable and upbeat, you might fail to catch darker elements in the words. Still, it can be hilarious and/or shocking when hugely popular tunes are misinterpreted on a mass scale.
Speaking of which: Let’s consult a viral Reddit thread titled "Any songs that are (or were) misunderstood by the public?" There's a mountain of suggestions—everything from '90s Latin-pop hits to '80s heartland-rock epics. But five of them felt especially perfect, so let’s dig a little deeper below.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
The Police - "Every Breath You Take" (1983)
As someone argues in the comments, "Pointing out the real meaning behind 'Every Breath You Take' has to have become so commonplace that it can't really be misunderstood anymore." Point taken. But still…this eerie Police track continues to be used in pop culture and everyday life as a signifier of romance—appearing as the soundtrack to TV slow dances and being arranged for weddings by string quartets. It’s easy to assume, at first glance anyway, that the song's protagonist is pledging their devotion—sticking around for "every breath" their partner takes. Instead, the atmosphere is more disturbing, given the whole "I’ll be watching you" thing. "I didn't realize at the time [I wrote it] how sinister it is," Sting told The Independent in 1993. "I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance, and control."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Bruce Springsteen - "Born in the U.S.A." (1984)
"Born in the U.S.A." is one of Bruce Springsteen's signature songs—but also likely his most misinterpreted. As an official explainer video notes, the words "center around America's industrial decline and loss of innocence during the Vietnam War"—a message that became somewhat diluted as politicians began using the stadium-sized track for their campaigns. "Conservative commenters praised the song, and it earned the approval of both candidates in the 1984 presidential election," the clip's narrator adds. "Despite being adopted as a patriotic anthem, 'Born in the U.S.A.' is far from nationalistic." In a deep-dive piece, NPR quotes Springsteen talking about the song on stage: "'After it came out, I read all over the place that nobody knew what it was about,' he said before performing 'Born in the U.S.A' to a crowd in 1995. 'I'm sure that everybody here tonight understood it."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Los Del Rio - "Macarena" (Bayside Boys remix) (1995)
Most Americans probably know the bubbly Bayside Boys remix of Los Del Rio's Spanish-language hit—it became the marquee moment of many a mid-'90s wedding reception and middle-school dance, thanks to its once-ubiquitous choreography. Maybe it's because people were too distracted by remembering the dance moves, but lots of us didn’t notice the lyrics. Of course, the chorus is in Spanish, which could have been a barrier for some, but the remix features English lines like the following: "Now don't you worry about my boyfriend / The boy whose name is Vitorino / Ha! I don't want him, can't stand him / He was no good so I, ha ha ha / Now come on, what was I supposed to do? / He was out of town, and his two friends were so fine."
"My little teenage mind was blown when I learned 'Macarena' was about cheating on a boyfriend with his friends," one Redditor wrote. "[Thank you] for the correction, it was 2 friends! Was sleep deprived writing this. I just did the moves, never questioned the lyrics." Yeah, gotta admit—this legitimately never crossed my mind either. Same with some of the people who took part in a reaction video for Distracify: "It’s definitely about dancing," one person said, before learning the truth. Another added, "I have no idea what it’s about still to this day. Please tell me it’s not something really dark."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Baha Men - "Who Let the Dogs Out" (2000)
The party was nice. The party was pumpin'.' Until, that is, some "flea-infested mongrels" got involved. Back in 2000, you couldn't escape Baha Men's booming cover of "Who Let the Dogs Out"—it became a staple of sporting events everywhere, a kind of bookend for the Jock Jams era. "I know I definitely misunderstood 'Who Let the Dogs Out' to be about actual dogs," one Redditor wrote, likely speaking for most of the listening public. There's probably a good chance most of those people chanting the chorus weren't thinking about the song's real meaning, crafted by Trinidadian artist Anslem Douglas for his 1998 original. But if you pay attention to the lyrics, "Who Let the Dogs Out" has a feminist theme, telling the story of women who stand up against crass catcalling. "This is going to be a revenge song where a woman tells men, 'Get away from me—you're a dog,'" Douglas told Vice in a 2021 video history of the track. "[Offensive] slang was everywhere. It was just degrading women and calling them all sorts of derogatory names. I tried to do a social commentary as a party song, but the party song overshadowed the social commentary aspect of it."
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Hozier - "Take Me to Church" (2013)
One section of the Reddit thread is devoted to songs interpreted as pro-religion, when the truth is... well, more complicated. "'Take Me to Church' by Hozier is often used by Churches for things, and I’m like 'Oh, that’s not…,'" wrote one user. The bluesy, slow-burning ballad may use religious imagery. Still, it's about something more human—"[It's] this idea that powerful organizations use people’s sexuality in order to mobilize people against women, against gay people," the Irish songwriter told Genius in 2023. "And the justification behind that is often religious in nature." Hozier even isolated one particular lyric that highlights this misconception: "'She tells me, ‘Worship in the bedroom' [is] something tongue-and-cheek, a bit of humor to it, also revealing that this is not necessarily a traditional worship song," he said. "I think I still see my name put into playlists for Christian music, and I’m not averse to that—I don’t think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. But that line I would’ve thought would’ve disqualified it from something like that."