Hacker News Reader

Comment by efa | Hacker News Reader

The league did not ban Kaepernick, he just wasn't signed by anyone (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore). Some say owners colluded to blacklist him. I find that very hard to believe. Owners don't seem to have a problem signing players with all types of sins in their history if it will help them win. Of course if he's going to bring trouble and he's not that great anymore, then the might pass on him.

View on HN

> (he wasn't a very highly rated quarterback anymore)

Though in the first 2 years Kaepernick went unsigned, about 10-15 quarterbacks weaker than him were signed. One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor.

> One has to assume the commercial/financial risk from fan and sponsor backlash was a significant factor.

I would assume that distraction for the team — regardless of reason for that distraction — was a major contributing factor.

At a certain level their objective is to win games and focus on the player politics and non-sport activities would be disruptive, and likely negatively impact his overall value to prospective teams.

He was blackballed. The league even settled in court with him over his grievances. Please don't muddy the waters.

Yeah, they settled (the league wasn't found guilty). The lawyer for Kaepernick said "... the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party." So I'm not muddying the water, the water was never clear. There was never a clear public resolution. (Again, I'm not saying they didn't do it.)

right, i didn't mean literally banned, but he was effectively banned to make a political and economic point (also not suggesting that they necessarily did anything illegal).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com