Quote:
Originally Posted by dubc80
Ha ha. Not sure what the NHL was thinking.
Once they implemented this ban, that had to of known that they'd get backlash and PR attention.
If they were not strong enough to "stick to their guns", why implement it in the first place? Just terrible foresight.
Glad it got removed. It was unnecessary in my opinion. Let the players use it or not use it at their personal discretion.
|
Or, it could have been a calculated response.
They needed to get away from fans/media lambasting players who did not want to wear pride jerseys etc., because that's a weird place to be to have unionized individuals catching heat for organizationally 'enforced' social agendas.
So, come out with a heavy hand as an organization. Ban it outright. The organization then takes the heat off the individual people - the players, which is the organization's commodity (which was gross anyways).
Then, move off the ban and make it optional. Now those people who were attacking the individual players, and then the organization after the heat shifted, feel like they've won, even though there's now no organizationally 'enforced' event and things are as you say, the way they should be. It's at the individuals discretion - and seeing as it's an individual's rights that they're standing up for in the first place, that makes a lot more sense than where we were a year or two ago.
The NHL has protected their players from mob-anger, and landed in the place where it should be. Allow individual people to stand for individual beliefs.
Seems to me that things are as they should be now.