I don't think this has anything to do with this SPECIFIC issue only. I think what the NHL is really trying to do is prevent a huge issue later on. Supporting Native Americans is an almost universally accepted cause right now, with the vast majority (other than racists, obviously) getting behind this. Of course the NHL is not against it. This is one of those really easy 'black and white' issues.
The NHL wanted to fully back Pride, and announced that they were all for it. Then a handful of players didn't want to support it, and that drew a lot of attention to those players and to the NHL as a whole in how they deal with it. Still, that's a fairly popular cause.
What happens when there is a cause that is a little more grey? Right now the easy one to pick out is if a player wants to show support for either Israel or the Palestinians. That's going to draw a lot of negative attention from the other side. This will create a tonne of controversy.
I think this is the position that the NHL finds itself in. They can't allow the easy black and white, universally accepted causes to be supported, because then when someone does want to support something that is a little bit more on the 'grey' side, when the NHL ends up getting involved to put a stop to it, it will be taken as the NHL supporting the other side.
I don't agree with the NHL not allowing Fleury to wear the mask (and good on him for wearing it anyway), but I do understand the rationale (I think anyway - the above is how I personally make sense of the situation).
It is also difficult to compare the NHL to the other sports. I really don't pay attention to baseball, so I can't speak to it, but the NFL is a gigantic monster, and it can withstand a lot more controversy than the NHL. The NBA has the most marketable athletes in all of professional sports with their own brands, and they can probably withstand more controversy (and more rules) than the NHL can.
I would like to see the NHL back more good causes, but I also understand that this then becomes a slippery slope at some point, with some players wanting to back something that he may feel is very important, but may not be a very popular sentiment. Then what? I think the NHL feels it has to either allow everything, or simply allow nothing. At this point in time, they view nothing as the easier and safer road, and I am not sure I actually disagree with that. Doesn't mean I agree with it either, but I do think that this is the issue here, not whether or not the NHL supports Native American Heritage, or has anything to do with racism because the owners don't have enough diversity among themselves.
|