Kaepernick Accuses NFL Owners of Political Collusion
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the national anthem in the 2016 NFL season to protest police brutality and social injustice. After he left the 49ers that season, no NFL team signed him; he filed a collusion grievance against the NFL in 2017 that settled in 2019 with undisclosed terms, and on ABC's "The View" he said the reason was political and that owners have donated millions of dollars to Donald Trump. Separately, rapper Macklemore was dropped as a supporting act on Ed Sheeran's tour after telling a MetLife Stadium crowd that people in Gaza and "the occupied West Bank" should know "we have not forgotten about them" and saying "free Palestine," and after New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and other NFL stadium owners refused to let him perform at their venues; all four supporting acts for upcoming dates then withdrew in support of Macklemore. Kraft attributed the ban to Macklemore's "recent actions" and "a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community." On the MeidasTouch podcast, Kaepernick accused Kraft and NFL owners of colluding against Macklemore in a way he compared to his own exclusion from the league.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Colin Kaepernick and Robert Kraft
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 15, 01:01 UTC by Breitbart, naming its source.
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The two sides are not covering the same accusation. Left-leaning coverage reports Kaepernick, on a podcast, saying NFL owners colluded to keep Macklemore off Ed Sheeran's tour after remarks on Palestine. Right-leaning coverage reports him, on The View, saying owners kept him unsigned after he knelt and that they donate to Trump. The Guardian omits the Trump-donations claim. Breitbart omits the Macklemore tour ban. A reader of either would not know the other charge was made.
Left-leaning coverage quotes him charging that owners are "openly colluding." Right-leaning coverage quotes him saying the freeze-out "was political."
Has any proceeding ever found that NFL owners agreed among themselves to freeze out Kaepernick or Macklemore?
Bottom line
A Guardian reader never hears Kaepernick on The View blame Trump donations for why no team signed him, and a Breitbart reader never hears him accuse owners of colluding to keep Macklemore off a tour.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Kaepernick said NFL owners have donated millions of dollars to Trump
- Kaepernick said the NFL is approximately 70 percent Black
The Left View
The Guardian frames Kaepernick's MeidasTouch remarks as drawing a parallel between Macklemore's tour removal and Kaepernick's exclusion from the NFL. Kaepernick said that by denying Macklemore the chance to perform, Kraft and the owners "are willing to collude" and "are openly colluding," and that when he filed the grievance people assumed "the owners wouldn't do that" because "everybody just wants to win," whereas they "want to protect their interests," "their power," and "their money," and "want people to know that if you take an action that they don't agree with, they will come for you." The Guardian notes Kraft is a longtime supporter of Israel. Kaepernick said this "may not touch you today" but "at some point it's going to come knocking on your doorstep or someone you love's doorstep," and that "we should be taking action actively right now."
The Right View
Breitbart highlights Kaepernick's "The View" explanation that being kept out "was political" and "was power," emphasizing that he "didn't protest the NFL, so their response to the protest is very informative in relation to where they stand politically," and that "we've seen them donate millions of dollars to Trump in this administration." Through co-host Ana Navarro's question, the article notes that owners denied they were intentionally keeping him out and that the grievance ended in a confidential agreement. Kaepernick also argued that protest support and boycotts of the NFL, and the league being "approximately 70% black," mean players as "the product on the field" have "power and control," and that if they "spent one weekend and said, we're not going out there until you address this, there's no game."
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that owners will coordinate to punish politics they reject, evidenced by Kaepernick going unsigned after the kneeling protest and by stadium owners blocking Macklemore after his Palestine remarks—conduct he described as them being "willing to collude" to protect "their interests," "power," and "money" rather than simply trying to win, a pattern the Guardian links to Kraft's support for Israel. The right-leaning coverage's strongest through-line is Kaepernick's claim that his exclusion was political, including owners' donations to Trump, while recording that owners denied collusion and that the case ended confidentially, and highlighting his argument that unified players could stop games. The central unresolved tension is whether the unsigned status and the stadium bans constitute political collusion to suppress dissent, or independent owner decisions—including Kraft's stated objection to what he called antisemitic rhetoric—a question the 2019 confidential settlement never publicly resolved.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.