NFL Cracks Down On Patriotic Cleats, Police Union Steps In To Help!

With more and more NFL players choosing to drop to their knee during the National Anthem, we see just how important love for country is to the NFL. Which is…not very important, seeing as how for the most part they are only turning a blind eye to the nonsense that is happening. Which hey, it is their right, therefore so be it.

HOWEVER! Now there is a player who made the announcement that he would be wearing cleats that are designed particularly in honor of the memory of 9/11 and those that suffered and continue to suffer from the tragedy.

NOW the NFL is ‘cracking’ down on this player and throwing the book at him. The NFL rulebook that is. Telling him if he does move forward with wearing the cleats there will be consequences.

I know what you may be thinking… no flipp’in way right!?

Well, it’s happening. Just like they wouldn’t allow the Dallas Cowboys to honor our fallen blue lives, they are not allowing this player to honor our fallen Americans on 9/11.

I get it, there are rules. But it does not make it any less disgusting.

You should know, that since the public has learned about the threat against this player, a police union has come out and said that they will pay the player’s NFL fine if he chooses to go forward with his plan.

God bless our first responders right??? I know!

However the NFL has their head up their ass so that their response is of course going to be very un-american.

They have BANNED Avery Williamson, linebacker for the Tennessee Titans from wearing the cleats he had custom made to honor our fallen and first responders of the 9/11 attack.

So a seemingly upset Williamson has just announced that instead of wearing them during Sunday’s game, he will be auctioning them off with the proceeds going to benefit Operation Warrior Wishes.

Now there are in fact TWO police unions stating that if he will wear the cleats instead of auctioning them off, they will pay the fine. That fine would be $6000 if the player ignored the NFL’s demands.

“We read, with understandable interest, [the Tennessean newspaper article] on Avery Williamson and the NFL’s stance on Avery honoring the September 11th victims,” Bobby Egbert, the public information officer for the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, wrote to the newspaper. “We, along with the New Jersey State Police Benevolent Association, are offering to pay any reasonable fine levied by the NFL if Avery chooses to wear his 9/11 cleats.”

Egbert added, “The PAPD is the police department that has always patrolled the World Trade Center complex. On September 11, 2001, the PAPD lost 37 police officers at the World Trade Center, the largest, single loss ever suffered by a police department in the history of American law enforcement.”

Williamson is planning to take the high road out in order to not cause further trouble and division between the two sides and has decided to auction them off. His purpose was to do something nice for the country but if the NFL is going to be douchebags over it…then forget it.

“I don’t want to draw negative attention, so I’m just going to focus on playing the game,” Williamson said of the ban on the cleats. “Once I heard from them, I didn’t even try to argue anything. I just left it alone. I didn’t want to press the issue.”

I understand his position. What I don’t understand is the purpose of the rule in regards to the intention of the player. The rule is in place so there are no unauthorized endorsements on the field.

However, how is honor, respect, and love for your country and your country’s heroes an endorsement? There should be an exception to this rule, when an unauthorized sponsorship is NOT a threat, and the intention is love for country.

Especially in perilous times like these.

That’s all I’m saying.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.