Thoughts on the expansion of Thursday Night Football*
*The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Dr. Don Davis and do not reflect the opinions or positions of the NFLPA or its affiliates.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” Dr. Martin Luther King.
When Dr. King penned these words in his essay Letter From Birmingham Jail, he referenced the unfair and unjust treatment of people of color in America. In his letter, Dr. King stresses the importance of justice and clearly articulates the difference between negative peace—the absence of tension, and positive peace—the presence of justice. He makes the distinct point that the absence of tension does not equal the presence of justice.
Some argue that there can be no injustice when discussing many issues affecting professional athletes because they make millions of dollars playing a game. This narrative, however, is contrary to the reality that most professional athletes do not have the large contracts that get reported in the media, especially in the NFL. Over the last few years, we have seen that injustice does, in fact, exist in professional sports, including in the National Football League. The recent settlement of the race-norming lawsuit, as well as NFL coach Brian Flores’s discrimination case, proves that some within the NFL infrastructure feel that there is most certainly the presence of injustice.
The approved proposal by the NFL to allow teams to play more than one Thursday night game during a season is another example of what many current players consider an injustice. While it is true that players share in the revenues that are created by the broadcast contracts, it is also true that players do not get to decide when and how the games are played. Given the opportunity, the majority of players might choose their physical, mental, and emotional health over more money.
Since the inception of Thursday night football in 2006, players have been consistently vocal about their health and safety concerns about having to play a game on Sunday and then turn around within five days to play again on Thursday night. The fact that these complaints appear to have fallen on deaf ears, coupled with this recent decision to allow teams to play not just one, but two Thursday night games in a season, contributes to the perception that profits and power are more important than people.
The NFL business model has a long history of pursuing profit and or power at the expense of people. For example, when injury data revealed a disturbing trend that slit-film turf had more lower extremity injuries—only one of the six NFL stadiums with this turf voluntarily agreed to change the playing surface. Another example that players point to is the disparity across NFL clubs as it relates to conditions that impact the quality of life for players. As noted in the NFLPA free-agent report released following the 2022 season, a description of NFL teams that charge the players for dinner, or lock the cafeteria on players’ off-days, leaves the impression that rather than prioritizing the player experience, the bottom line is all that matters to club ownership.
NFL players are in a unique position because they are employees and therefore have rights and protections that are governed by federal law. However, unlike typical employees, they are also business partners with management and therefore share in the revenue that is produced. The delicate balance that NFL decision-makers continually face is the battle between the pursuit of more profits for themselves (and revenue for the players—as they would argue) and the pursuit of protection for the safety and welfare of the employees— in this case, the players who shoulder the mental and physical burdens and risks associated with the business decisions that affect when and how they play. The decision to allow teams to play two Thursday night games during a season despite the expressed player concerns confirms the perception of an NFL mentality that good ethics are not considered good business, which is unfortunate for players.
In his manifesto, Dr. King outlined four principal steps of a non-violent campaign against injustice; 1) collection of facts, 2) negotiation, 3) self-purification, and 4) direct action. Utilizing this approach, Dr. King suggests that when negotiations with those in authority have failed, direct action can create tension, which can force that negotiation. In the NFL, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) lists the terms that have been negotiated and agreed upon by both the NFL and the NFLPA. However, the NFL has unilateral authority over the NFL game schedule each year and therefore can determine when the games are played. If players want change, it starts with education, which must be followed by collective action. An educated, unified, and inspired group of players can send a strong message to those in power that choosing profit and power over people (players) is detrimental to the long-term health and viability, of not only the people but also the business.
Without the players, there can be no game.
Dr. King dreamed of a future without injustice and had hope for a better tomorrow. However, hope alone, is never a good strategy. Players…voicing your displeasure is helpful, but your actions speak much louder than words. Player solidarity is and always will be the greatest threat to those in power.
If you want change, direct action is the only option that provides leverage.
