Sport Icons of the Americas: Pele, Ali, and Jordan

 Sport Icons of the Americas

            Zlatan Ibrahimovic gave an interview that caused him to trend on Twitter. The tall Swedish soccer player gave his opinion on athletes and their role in society. In particular, he mentioned the likes of Lebron James. Zlatan’s take was along the lines that he is not a fan of athletes gaining status and using it to get into politics. To quickly summarize, stick to sports, or what they are good at.

            Zlatan can voice his opinion, he is known to have very strong views, usually of himself, but this one he jumps into something he knows very little about. This is not to say that Zlatan is wrong or said something offensive. In fact, I believe that he stated what he said based on his personal professional career. One where he has built himself up and has avoided (so far) to be pulled into arenas he isn’t familiar with. It is one thing to say that Zlatan avoids politics and another to say that others should as well. In doing so he puts himself into a historically naïve category. One where people with the luxury of saying they stay out of politics can and do so for their personal and most likely financial reasons.

            I wouldn’t condemn Zlatan as purposely aiding the oppressor, but when people are not informed like in this particular situation, it doesn’t help the oppressed at all. The “white moderates” as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put it in his writings. I also do not take Zlatan’s comments, not just this one, but overall, with any bearing. However, his interview did make me think about the athletes across the Atlantic from the likes of Zlatan and their view in politics.

            To focus on the Americas I picked three athletes. The criteria I chose was simple, they have or had to be black, successful in their sport and a global icon. In other words, the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) of their respected sports. And the very last but not least one was that they had to be from the Americas, aka the New World. Pele, Muhammad Ali, and Michael Jordan were the three athletes that I have been thinking about as of late in the topic of sport and politics.

            Pele is the only player to this date to have won three World Cups (1958, 1962, 1970) and is in most if not all conversations of being one of the best soccer players ever! Muhammad Ali was one of the best boxers not just of his times, but ever to set foot into a ring. Michael Jordan, the six-time NBA champion with the Chicago Bulls is the standard when it comes to discussions and heated debates on who is the best basketball player ever.

            These three athletes played different sports and in somewhat a similar time, from the 1950s to the early to mid-90s. All three have left their mark and not just in their sport, but on a global stage and that is where my interest and analysis comes in. For those who have studied each athlete in a biographical manner or race and sport may have a gist of where my generalizations come from. Pele literally represented Brazil at an international sporting event. In a new Netflix documentary about the Brazilian soccer star juxtaposes Pele’s playing career and how the government of brazil went from a democracy into a military dictatorship.

            Pele was an already well-known global icon when Brazil was overtaken by a military coup. Which is why I think he was spared from any serious repercussion from the military government. In fact, they used Pele as a model for national unity and Brazilian prowess after the 1970 triumph in Mexico. There are pictures of Medici holding the word cup trophy along side the men’s national team. Brazil has had and still has a racist history with slavery and keeping their black citizens as second class. However, to paraphrase Gilberto Freyre, observed that Brazil had treated their black population better than their neighbors up north after taking a visit to the United States. Not sure if that was an attempt to critique the United States or use them as a way to defend his native country of any sins, but all I know is that it does not look good either way. That is where the next two athletes come from.

            Muhammed Ali and Michael Jordan were born in the United States. Their status in American sports has cemented these two as legends of their sport era. That is where the similarities end. Their talent on the court and in the ring were remarkable, but what they did outside is what differentiates these two Americans. Muhammad Ali was very outspoken especially against the United States invasion of Vietnam and its treatment on Black Americans. Ali avoided the draft on the implications that it was immoral and due to his religion. This caused a rebuttal from the authorities that stripped him of his rights to box in the United States. However, Ali continued on his chosen path and never backed down.

            Michael Jordan was silent for the most part when it came to off the court issues. One thing he did was capitalize on his name and image creating the Air Jordan brand making him into one of the richest athletes ever. One could argue that at the time it was after the civil rights movement, what more was there to fight. Yet, that would not be an honest analysis. Jordan’s teammate, Craig Hodges, continued to fight for representation and fair treatment on the Black community in the US. Hodges attempted to get Jordan to speak out as people would listen to him. But Republicans buy shoes too, right?

            Pele, Muhammad Ali, and Michael Jordan all had GOAT worthy sporting careers that propelled them to become global icons. Outside of sports each of them was different. One could argue that Pele and Michael Jordan may have had more in common than Ali. The comparison isn’t to tarnish or rank these athletes, but to understand how they lived their lives outside of sport because sports are just part of it. Pele played soccer and helped establish Brazil as a soccer nation even though his nation was overtaken by a military dictatorship. Muhammad Ali was just a boxer, yet he was drafted to fight in a war he did not want to for a country that did not see him as a citizen. Michael Jordan established himself as one of the most marketable brands ever.

            They were black athletes that were in different situations and responded differently to survive or challenge the status quo. Zlatan has no idea what it is to be black, quite frankly neither do I, but analyzing these three American athletes reveals the challenges they had to face outside of sports. Therefore, how can one stay out of it if they are smack in the middle of it? Michael Jordan was able to get rich in a nation that condemned the likes of Muhammad Ali for speaking out against it. That same nation supported military dictatorship coups all across Latin America that prompted suppression and obedience in society where the people of Brazil looked to Pele as a form of human validation, hope, and pride.

LA Sports Trade of the 20th Century

 

Stadium and Politics: LA’s mega trade

Los Angeles is no stranger to blockbuster sport trades. Jared Goff for Matthew Stafford being the most recent trade to have occurred in Tinseltown. One could argue that it comes with the territory for representing the city. It has to be a big splash or don’t do it at all. The trade I am talking about occurred about fifty years ago and it involves all sort of non-athlete players. How Walter O’Malley and Los Angeles got a stadium for the Dodgers.

            Dodger Stadium sits on top of Chavez Ravine looking down at Los Angeles. The “myth” as Andy McCue puts it in his article Barrio, Bulldozers, and Baseball The Destruction of Chavez Ravine is that families who wore mostly Mexican American were removed for the construction of a baseball stadium. McCue argues that both occurred, but that not necessarily in a direct manner as the city removed tenants in 1953 and the Walter O’Malley did not show interest in LA until 1957. Therefore, creating this myth that was amplified due to the images of officers removing residents that made it to the papers.

            There are quite a few players from different arenas that I want to introduce before I address the “myth.” Let us commence with the two Californian republicans that somehow are still used as positive and negative connotations depending on context. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. At the time Richard Nixon was Vice President and Ronald Reagan was union president of the Screen Actors Guild. The issue here was Public Housing. The incumbent mayor of LA, Fletcher Bowron a liberal republican, was in favor of public housing and had eleven sights in the city on his agenda. His adversary, Norris Poulson also republican, opposed public housing claiming it was a waste of money and socialism in disguise.

            Ronald Reagan supported Fletcher Bowron. However, in the 1953 mayoral election, Norris Poulson unseated Bowron. Nixon supported a measure for the city to get out of its contract for public housing. By 1953 after court rulings and political maneuvering the community was destroyed. The land was sold to the city for $1,279,000 under the condition that it would be for “public purpose.” Walter O’Malley did not have an interest in relocating his Brooklyn Baseball team until 1957. The gap suggests that it was political turmoil not Walter O’Malley and the Dodgers who removed the residents from their homes.

            Moving on from the political figures and their positions, we can focus on the trade between the city of Los Angeles and Walter O’Malley. LA gave the O’Malley 315 acres in Chavez Ravine in exchange for the minor league ballpark, Wrigley Field and its nine-acre plot. The city also threw in $4.74 million in land preparation for the stadium site and in exchange, O’Malley would build an invisible youth center.

            BUT WAIT! THERE IS MORE! Like all blockbuster trades there has to be some drama. Not all Angelenos were in favor of this move and enough signatures were gathered for a referendum. Prop B would be on the ballot in June for the people to decide. A ‘yes’ vote would approve of the move. Spoiler, it passed. It required some campaigning from stars such as Lucille Ball and Ronald Reagan who took part in the “Dodgerthon.”

            Fun fact to take away from here. Ronald Reagan flipped ideology when it came to welfare assistance programs. As Governor of California, he became a strict narc on welfare in the state and even challenged Nixon—president at the time—on his Family Assistance Program on combating poverty in the country. The fake cowboy really made Nixon seem liberal here, wild.

            Now back to the trade, who won? Yes, residents did get displaced, but the Dodgers won the World Series in 2020. And if the Mexican American population still had some resentment, the team did sign a young pitcher named Fernando Valenzuela who turned out to be a stud and swayed the hearts of the community the stadium displaced. So, a tie? All kidding aside the complexity is the point of it. There are so many angles that it is difficult to point to just one. Sports have a way of shaping the culture around a community. Give it time and it will continuously evolve.

            Finally, to address the “myth.” McCue argued that the time lapse was evidence that the image of a woman being removed by officers enhanced a sentiment that necessarily may not have been genuine. He further argues that the Arechiga family who were one of last few families to hold out till the end were not necessarily poor and had properties across the city that had living tenants. My answer to the “myth” is that the evidence presented is accurate and well thought out to an extent. Yes, Walter O’Malley’s decision to relocate his ball club did not cause the city of LA to displace residents from their homes. But if one of McCue’s arguments is that the Arechiga family were not some dirt poor Angelenos be forced to leave their only home, then it can be argued that the rich white owner benefitted from the system while it hindered a Mexican American family.

            My intent is not to get a movement to hate a team or forcing people to learn the history before supporting a team. It just isn’t that simple. Which ever way a person may think about this trade is up to them, I just wanted to bring it up since LA sports trades were a thing this week. To end it by taking a full quote from Benjamin Lisle’s book Modern Coliseum, “’It is not morally or legally right for a government agency to condemn private land, take it away from the property owner through Eminent Domain proceedings, then turn around and give it to a private person or corporation for private gain,’ –councilman Edward Roybal.”

The FloridaLympics

 

The Florida Olympics

            The summer Tokyo Olympics are set to go as planned at the moment. Which plan is that? I do not know either. Just like most people who spent way too much time online I came across the idea that Florida could possibly step in to host the summer Olympic games. Granted that has no merit and bear with me I am trying to make a point here.

            There is a pandemic going on which has revealed a lot about those in power. The grossly incompetence is obvious by how nations are handling or ignoring the situation. However, what it also has revealed is that the old ways were just as bad. Which makes sense given to how inadequately prepared the world was when confronted with this virus. This failure of the world can be seen through the lens of the Olympic games.

            Full disclosure I love sports. I dabble a bit in sport history, but I enjoy watching sports, reading about them, and when it was of the time before participated in them. The Olympics are special and fascinating topic to study, both ancient and modern games. My studies were shaped by professors who are experts in the field and emphasized the importance the games along with the short comings of the Olympic legacy.

            The modern games are the Florida Olympics. The games were supposed to be held in 2020, but due to the pandemic they were eventually postponed. But even prior to pandemic the games were not necessarily without scandal. Hosting the games are expensive and the International Olympic Committee is not free from bribery scandals when it comes to awarding a city the games. Andrew Zimbalist breaks down the economic components of the games really well in Tokyo 2020 and Its Postponement: An economic Prognosis. To summarize, Zimbalist reiterates what is already well known, the myth of economic prosperity of the Olympics.

            A few key interesting takeaways from Zimbalist’s work come to no true surprise other than the magnitude on how expensive the city and country have to spend just to prepare for the games. The 2013 estimates from the government of audit board had the cost at $7.43 billion and increased to $13.43 billion in three years. That is the cost that excluded building a new stadium that had an estimate cost of $2.4 billion. A study from the University of Oxford found that the average cost overrun since 1976 is 252%. I know, I had to look up “cost overrun” just to make sure my mind was blown proportionally only to realize this is a lunatic amount. If that isn’t enough add in that the IOC moved the marathon to a different city without consulting the governor and the head of the Tokyo Organizing Committee resigned due to a bribe paid to the IOC in the range of $2.3 million in 2013.

            But hey, this isn’t Florida, right? I sincerely do not mean to bash on the state of Florida and only tend to use its American societal connotation as a comparison to the leadership and accepted practices of the Olympic Game preparations and bidding process. I do not know what or if the games will happen in 2021. I am not sure if I even care if they do or do not. My heart goes out to the people of Japan and the athletes around the world who have trained and worked so hard only to be screwed over again.

(below is the link for the Zimbalist’s paper)

https://olympicstudies.org/tokyo-2020-and-its-postponement-economic-prognosis/

Stafford for Goff Investment

 

LA Rams

The GameStop of Football

 

            The Los Angeles Rams finally got an answer at the quarterback position. Jared Goff along with two first-round draft picks and a third-round pick were traded to the Detroit Lions in exchange for Matthew Stafford. There is no surprise that a trade happened. The surprise might stem from the draft picks the Rams traded away, but not on the fact that they needed someone else under center for the next season. As a Rams fan who like most fans around the country tend to have an unwavering support of players on their favorite franchise. I for sure fall under that category.

            To clarify, I did not believe that Jared Goff was the next Joe Montana, but I watched this past season gutted every snap he took. Before the thumb injury it was obvious to me that Goff was terrible. If I, a sit on the couch eating pizza and chips fan, can see this than I have no doubt McVay and the rest of the team’s coaching staff were well aware of their quarterback situation throughout the season.

            Goff is heading to Detroit and Stafford is coming to Los Angeles. The obvious is that Stafford is a better quarterback than Goff. The issue the Rams have was that they had a contract that no team would be willing to take on a simple player for player trade. The Rams pulled it off with Detroit. Yes, they pulled it off.

            As previously mentioned, I am a Rams fan and my bias will always show. The view of some sport radio and shows I have listened to break it all down on who won the trade, how much the future may impact the Rams or the Lions and the usual stuff that follows a blockbuster trade. Some say the Rams lost because they gave up so much for a soon to be 33-year-old quarterback who has on resume not really accomplished much. In fact, if one lays out a few select stats Goff can easily be portrayed as the better player. I do not care.

            I am excited that the Rams have a new quarterback! I can’t say that I have had an interest Stafford but like most fans around the league I know of him. A good quarterback with a really bad team. One of the knocks is that the Rams have no first-round draft picks until 2024 and I do not share the same sentiment. I have seen this franchise go from Kurt Warner to Marc Bulger to Sam Bradford to Jared Goff. Having Matthew Stafford for a couple seasons is not that bad. To address the draft picks, the Rams have disappointed on the offensive side when it comes to picking young talent. I am still furious that the front office thought Tavon Austin was better than DeAndre Hopkins.

            I am in support of this all-in win now approach. I am aware the team in the future may be limited on their moves, but I am fine with that. I lived through the Jeff Fisher era. I will be fine. I may regret having this thought process, it may attribute to the GameStonks movement in me where I disregard for the conventional wisdom and caution. TO THE MOON!

Leeds United v. Pep Guardiola: Money in coaching

             Leeds United hosted Manchester City today to a 1-1 draw. Pep Guardiola's team was dominant in the first 20 minutes where I suspected that Leeds was out of there depth and based on their playing style would easily let in 3 more goals. However, Leeds did not break from their playing philosophy. Bielsa's coaching style was well demonstrated on the field today. I don't want to merely summarize the match as mostly anyone reading this can find others much more qualified for that. My interest lies more in the typical nostalgia factor of they don't make them like that anymore. 

            There is no surprise that Manchester City have a significant economic backing from their ownership group. The back four are one of the most expensive back lines in football. That is where I want to focus on, the money. No, this isn't the usual money is destroying the game and brings a disadvantage to other teams and blah blah blah. The emphasis on the money is how it has changed or can change coaching and managing a soccer team. The two managers for this game. Pep Guardiola and Marcelo Bielsa are two masterminds in the footballing world. Pep a genius and Bielsa "el loco." 

            The game was entertaining to watch, but it was difficult not to notice the way the teams were built. Guardiola has almost all the resources available to him while Bielsa is on the opposite end. Both teams are built in mind with their coach's approach to the game. Just one has unlimited amounts of cash or it seems that way while the other is a team recently promoted from the second division. To be fair, Leeds United did spend this off season. Their goal scorer tonight, Rodrigo was purchased for his services from the Spanish side Valencia for quite the price tag, breaking a club record.

            This in no shape or form am I suggesting that one coach is better than the other or one side has an unfair advantage. My focus here is on the coaching or the approach to coaching a team with the influence of large amounts of money. Bielsa is carrying what I would consider the traditional approach where a coach has a team and must develop the players and team philosophy to complete their goals. Bielsa has revitalized the like of Kalvin Phillips in the central midfield role. This is not to say that Guardiola has not or can't do the same, which he has in the past. The issue is that now, Pep can turn to money to attempt for a quick fix for his side. In no way is that wrong or foul play, but today we saw that Mendy may not be the answer for Manchester City at left back. Full disclosure I watch Leeds United more than I watch Manchester City and could be wrong on my player analysis. Mendy could have just had a bad game and the pouring rain did not help either. Yet, for an expensive backline I would expect better from all four defenders. 

            The issue with money is that Bielsa is forced to coach players and their roles more intensely than Guardiola due to not sharing the same deep financial pockets. I see that Bielsa is a coach from the Sir Alex Ferguson era where one must make their team and players better with reliance on team chemistry and individual growth from certain core players year to year and game to game. I am not naïve to state that Manchester United did not spend massively on players during Ferguson's time in charge, but he didn't have the same approach as the other coaches who wanted to find a finish polish player every transfer market. Guardiola is an excellent coach with a huge budget or not. However, I sense that coaches are looking for the quick fixes which makes sense with the amount of pressure and limited time they have to turn a team around and get results. I wonder if that is one of the issues causing Manchester City's sluggish start that has carried over from last season. 

            I rate both coaches in the upper echelons of coaching. One clearly has financial resources while the other must rely much more heavily on his coaching philosophy. Which makes sense when Bielsa has stated that Leeds only know how to play one way. This is no ding at the teams with money at their disposal, it would be foolish for a coach to have that resource and not utilize it properly. I just wonder if that is being used as a primary method to fix a team further reducing the coaching role requiring to coach than to a manager trying to fit and control new star recruits for their team to function.   

California Law v. NCAA Policy

           California is giving the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) a headache. The state senate and assembly passed their own versions of the Fair Pay to Play Act. If the legislation passes, it still needs to have minor details between the two bodies of government worked out, would allow for college athletes to monetize their image and likeliness through a third party. This would mean that college athletes would be able or protected by California state law to hire an agent. An athlete could essentially be paid to be in local commercials or received payments for their autograph at a signing event.

            This doesn’t sit well with the NCAA and its policy of amateurism. All student-athletes are amateurs and therefore cannot receive any form of monetary payment. However, college football and basketball tend to resemble professional sports rather than a local or regional sporting event. The president of the NCAA has issued a warning that if the law passes the not-for-profit organization would ban all schools from California. UCLA, USC, Stanford, and Cal are a few of the big-name schools that would face a dilemma. Whether to follow state law or the NCAA’s policy. The state of California also has other schools that participate in division I sports such as Cal State Fullerton (Baseball) and San Diego State. This would place plenty of schools in a bind.

            The Fair Pay to Play Act, if passed, would not go into effect until January 1, 2023. However, the NCAA is prepared to challenge California’s law in court. Most likely through a federal court on the notion of interstate trade and commerce. The legal battle will be an interesting one to follow, but it might end up being settled if the NCAA changes its policies before the law goes into effect.

            One of the threats that the NCAA states it will issue is banning schools from participating in Bowl Games or playoffs. Which is a serious threat as many schools will miss out on monetary gains. One of the possible implications would be that high school prospects would opt out from joining schools in California and that high-quality coaches would not take a job as they would be barred from any NCAA championship.

            BUT! What about the students’ perspective?  The assumption that student athletes would avoid USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal because they would not be NCAA playoff eligible seems to miss a few key points. Lets not forget that the current trend among college football athletes is to sit out on bowl games as they are deemed to be too much of a high risk especially for athletes that are prospects to be drafted in the early rounds of the NFL draft. The second point is that making money tends to be a huge motivator. Mallory Pugh left UCLA’s women’s soccer program to go pro and get paid! Why do something for free when one can get paid to do it?

            This is in no way to diminish the spirit of the sport, especially in the older fan community. There is something admirable about playing a sport just to play. However, NCAA football and basketball players do not play just to play. They are amateurs by name only. I play soccer on the weekends and no one who reads this knew that. That’s amateur. I would want to see the law go into effect and be curious to see if top high school prospects actually prefer to attend the universities in California. The schools will still have athletics, granted they may turn local and regional due to being barred from the NCAA, but I am a strong believer that college sports in California will not vanish once or if the law is passed.

            A top prospect would play less games, travel shorter distances for away games, and has the opportunity to get paid. Those conditions seem to favor the student-athlete. The law would affect all student athletes in California so that would mean that tennis players, volleyball, swim, track and field, and other sports would be eligible to pursue the same economic gains without being banned or punished by the NCAA. Football and basketball players will most likely generate a higher price tag, but that’s just the free market working out right?

            The law will challenge and force the hand of other states as well as the NCAA to act and define the role and limitations of collegiate athletes. If a student-athlete opts to play for free and just accept a scholarship then great, their choice. But, that choice should not limit the options of other college athletes from pursuing their liberty and happiness.

"The Life of J.Z." by Jay-Z

     The National Football League's commissioner, Rodger Goodell, met with Jay-Z , one of the most successful rappers of all-time and a hip-hop mogul. The two had a joint media session in the Roc Nation's office building in New York. The general public has taken notice or is most likely aware that the NFL has had an image problem for quite some time. Starting from the withheld concussion information to the players' protest. Colin Kaepernick is rightly given the credit on starting the dialogue by sitting and then kneeling during the national anthem that is traditionally played before a sporting event.

     Kaepernick's protest was to raise awareness on police brutality and the inequality that exists in the country. It was spun and turned into a debate about the flag and symbolism rather than addressing the real physical impact a bullet has on human flesh. There is so much to unpack and unravel from that. However, that is not the main purpose for what is to be discussed today. That is not to imply that the words of the President and many others who lack or have a very limited knowledge of sport history should be ignored and not properly addressed.

     The focus is on Jay-Z. He partnered with the NFL to develop the NFL's social-justice initiatives by creating a place and space for players to speak out on issues and the Super Bowl halftime show. I don't want to be a skeptic, but I have a sense that the latter is what Roc Nation will be more heavily concerned with. After all Jay-Z is a smart businessman and why wouldn't you want your entertainment company to have an exclusive inside access pass to one of the country's most watched sporting event? To clarify, the focus on Jay-Z is not to excuse the multiple times the NFL has botched on social and health issues or make Roger Goodell the good guy here. The thesis is to understand some of the backlash Jay-Z has received due in part of this partnership deal.

     There are quite a few ways to go about this. The method I chose was to examine a few words that Jay-Z said that left me scratching my head. Especially since it came from someone who has utilized his platform pretty well when it has come to social issues. The quote in full below. Granted there is more to the media session, but this caught my eye.

“I think that we forget that Colin’s whole thing was to bring attention to social injustice, correct?” Jay-Z said during the press conference. “So, in that case, this is a success; this is the next thing. ’Cause there’s two parts of protesting. You go outside and you protest, and then the company or the individual says, ‘I hear you. What do we do next?’ So, for me, it was like, action, actionable item, what are we going to do with it? Everyone heard and we hear what you’re saying, and everybody knows I agree with what you’re saying. So what are we going to do? So we should, millions of millions of people, and all we get stuck on [is] Colin not having a job. I think we’re past kneeling. I think it’s time for action.”
   The first part that I question is Jay-Z stating that one protests an "individual or company." That right there says a few things and Jay-Z unknowingly undermines Kaepernick. Colin Kaepernick was not protesting an individual (President 45?) or a company (NFL). He was protesting police brutality and inequality which Kaepernick said from the very beginning when reporters asked him why he took a knee. 

      From my understanding the majority of protest are intended and aimed at government institutions for failing their citizens. Which is a social structure problem not an NFL or individual issue. In that context, Jay-Z has shifted the systemic problems Kaepernick wanted to bring up into the forefront of national conversation towards a solution.  A solution that two companies will attempt to solve. To be fair, Jay-Z did not say that this partnership will solve institutional racism that exist in the country. 

     That follows my second problem with what Jay-Z said. Which was that he implemented "we" as in millions of people were stuck on Colin Kaepernick not having a job. That plays into the hands of the NFL when it comes to their public image of the league blackballing the former Quarterback. Jay-Z fails to see that Kaepernick used his platform to speak out on social issues and lost his job for it. The NFL is a company that exist within a much larger structure. That structure is the US economy that is more of a pro-enterprise market than a free market. Enterprises have been given more rights and leniency than individual Americans. That is the excuse that has allowed for laws and practices to strip Black Americans from their rights, land, and jobs. That is were I think Jay-Z fails to understand the history of racism in America. 

     I believe that Jay-Z has well intentions in his partnership with the NFL, it will certainly benefit his company. However, this is a business to business partnership and the bottom line is to make as much money as possible. This is similar to the outrage I sometimes read about people calling Hollywood or other sectors of the entertainment industry as hypocrites. Yes, the entertainment industry may have liberal and progressive views, but their main thrust is to entertain not get the Democratic candidate in the Colorado senate race elected. 

     This is my guess in why part of the backlash Jay-Z has encountered the last few days. There may be a lot more to it, but by entering this partnership Jay-Z is not thinking about Kaepernick or else he would have had him take some part in this. It is very early to predict the future with how this will turn out. The financial details have not been disclosed and Jay-Z has not had any time to demonstrate his work and vision in this project. All I know is that the structures will limit and social justice progress.