I don't think any of the tea party people would have a problem with Walter Williams as president

"Give me liberty or give me something that I can call liberty."

Your argument that the 70% of the players is "the NFL's biggest asset" is what is fantasy. It ignores history (See the strike) uppity players strike and the game moves on without them. The people who pay ungodly money to attend the games and those who sit through commercials to watch are the NFL's biggest asset, if by that you mean what they cannot live without. I am merely pointing out that allowing yourself to be suckered into taking gratuitous positions to mollify one political segment, i.e the players, will invariably offend someone else, some of the fans. See pete's post above.

Your argument that the 70% of the players is "the NFL's biggest asset" is what is fantasy. It ignores history (See the strike) uppity players strike and the game moves on without them. The people who pay ungodly money to attend the games and those who sit through commercials to watch are the NFL's biggest asset, if by that you mean what they cannot live without. I am merely pointing out that allowing yourself to be suckered into taking gratuitous positions to mollify one political segment, i.e the players, will invariably offend someone else, some of the fans.

I would submit that if anywhere close to 50% of luxury suite owners and season ticket holders wrote letters threatening to cancel if Goodell blackballs Limbaugh, he would be GIVEN a team and allowed march at haltime carrying a confederate battle flag.

Will the NFL capitulate to the demands of "70%" of its workforce if it means offending 50% of its market?

So do you approve or disapprove of the NFL "blackballing" persons for divisive political comments?

Both the anti-Limbaugh and anti-Ohlberman crowd and those offended by the recent statements of the players on both sides of the issue await your response.

Your position seems to be well grounded but you gotta admit that blacks in general seem to have a knack for putting their politics above their self interest. :)

Right eddie. Goodell seems to be saying that those who make high profile statements which might offend people on one side of the political spectrum are not welcome in the NFL as they are bad for the bottom line. I await his suspension of each of the players who has spoken out against Limbaugh.

Short of you naming some blacks who have been denied their bid to become majority owners, I fail to understand how that would answer my question. But, in any event, I agree with what I believe your argument to be; that is freedom of association. You seem to imply that the NFL ha, or should have, the right to discriminate against anybody, for any position, for any reason whatsoever; which would include: the right to deny ownership to someone for making unpopular comments; the right not to fire a player for being involved in dog fighting, regardless of whether he went to jail; the right to "cut" or fire a player if he is discovered to be gay; and the right to fire a coach or player for "the simple fact" that he is black.