U.S. Soccer-'Players Must Stand For National Anthem'

[AmericanRam]

The US Soccer Federation announced this a couple of days ago: http://www.espnfc.com/united-states/story/3075281/us-soccer-passes-policy-that-national-team-players-must-stand-for-anthem

I personally feel that if you  decide to play for your country, you should always stand and agree with this. What do ya'll think? USSF shouldn't have done this? Agree with it? What would you think if same policy was applied for the England National Team?

[Highgate]

I disagree, what's the point in compelling people to show respect?  Surely a mark of respect, such as standing, is only valid if it is voluntary. Now, when players stand for the American national anthem, we won't know if they actually respect their country or whether they just wish to avoid punishment. Also, people should have a right to protest peacefully if they wish.

[McRamFan]

Thought it would conflict with 1st amendment, petition peacefully against government?

[AndyinLiverpool]

I think they should stop playing national anthems. They are outdated expressions of outdated concepts.

What sort of victory are we supposed to be sending our monarch to, for example?

I always mute the telly or turn over for God Save the Queen.

Nationalists have a fettish about flags and anthems and get all hot under the collar at any hint of disrespect they perceive. If somebody wants to not sing or not stand, let them. It probably means they are living in the 21st century.

[TigerTedd]

12 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I think they should stop playing national anthems. They are outdated expressions of outdated concepts.

What sort of victory are we supposed to be sending our monarch to, for example?

I always mute the telly or turn over for God Save the Queen.

Nationalists have a fettish about flags and anthems and get all hot under the collar at any hint of disrespect they perceive. If somebody wants to not sing or not stand, let them. It probably means they are living in the 21st century.

My wife has been having an argument recently with many of her Peruvian compatriots about the rights of homosexuals (they're including gender equality in the national curriculum in peru, it's a big deal). Many are against it because the Old Testament says homosexualism is wrong.

Talk about an outdated expression of an outdated concept. Compared to religious zealotry, patriotism is just a bit of fun (I do say that with tongue firmly in cheek, I realise that patriotism can be as much to blame for atrocities as religious zealotry). Point is, the Old Testament was written c.3000+ years ago. The national anthem is not very old. So if people are still hanging onto the Old Testament, of course they're going to hang onto the national anthem. 

I like a bit of pomp and ceremony and tradition, as long as there is the freedom for change where necessary. I'm for the monarchy. But with regards to this, I'm also for democratic ideals. Which means no one should be forced, or even pier pressured, into singing a national anthem if they don't want to. If they want to sit down, they should be free to do so without judgement or prejudice. 

Dont the Americans like to say 'it's a free country'?

[Anon]

9 hours ago, Highgate said:

I disagree, what's the point in compelling people to show respect?  Surely a mark of respect, such as standing, is only valid if it is voluntary. Now, when players stand for the American national anthem, we won't know if they actually respect their country or whether they just wish to avoid punishment. Also, people should have a right to protest peacefully if they wish.

That's a fair point, but why have these people turned up to represent their nation at all if they have no respect for it? No one should be forced to represent their nation, but equally national sporting associations have no obligation to provide these people with a platform for protest.

[RadioactiveWaste]

The reaction to that american football plater who didn't stand up did give me one of those "bloody hell America is a strange place" feelings.

I agree with @AndyinLiverpool

[Anon]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I think they should stop playing national anthems. They are outdated expressions of outdated concepts.

What sort of victory are we supposed to be sending our monarch to, for example?

I always mute the telly or turn over for God Save the Queen.

Nationalists have a fettish about flags and anthems and get all hot under the collar at any hint of disrespect they perceive. If somebody wants to not sing or not stand, let them. It probably means they are living in the 21st century.

So waving a flag or singing a song is a anachronistic nationalistic act, yet representing or supporting your nation in competition against others is entirely un partisan. How do you justify watching international sport at all?

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, Anon said:

So waving a flag or singing a song is a anachronistic nationalistic act, yet representing or supporting your nation in competition against others is entirely un partisan. How do you justify watching international sport at all?

I don't justify it. I'm capricious. I do tend to watch international sport for the sake of it (I even managed about 10 minutes of rugby the other week) but I have never worked out why people have to sing about God and the Queen beforehand.

I have also often wondered whether the one that put so much emotion into 'God Save the Queen' are the same people that embarrass us by smashing places up. I guess they can't be because there's no way an actual christian would resort to violence and destruction like that.

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

That's a fair point, but why have these people turned up to represent their nation at all if they have no respect for it? No one should be forced to represent their nation, but equally national sporting associations have no obligation to provide these people with a platform for protest.

This is true - they can always choose no to select somebody who won't sing the national anthem, for example, but then aren't they sanctioning someone for their beliefs? That could all end quite badly.

[Anon]

4 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

I don't justify it. I'm capricious. I do tend to watch international sport for the sake of it (I even managed about 10 minutes of rugby the other week) but I have never worked out why people have to sing about God and the Queen beforehand.

I have also often wondered whether the one that put so much emotion into 'God Save the Queen' are the same people that embarrass us by smashing places up. I guess they can't be because there's no way an actual christian would resort to violence and destruction like that.

I understand why people might have an issue with the British national anthem. That's another debate though. This is specifically about the American national anthem and whether football players should stand for its duration. As far as I'm concerned it was nothing but selfish, lazy, political grandstanding from the individual involved. I notice she didn't decide to protest by withdrawing her labour and thereby forfeiting her paycheque.

[bcnram]

11 hours ago, Highgate said:

I disagree, what's the point in compelling people to show respect?  Surely a mark of respect, such as standing, is only valid if it is voluntary. Now, when players stand for the American national anthem, we won't know if they actually respect their country or whether they just wish to avoid punishment. Also, people should have a right to protest peacefully if they wish.

Does it really matter whether or not you know if individuals respect their country?

[Anon]

5 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Does it really matter whether or not you know if individuals respect their country?

You'd know anyway. The act of standing through the anthem is the sign of respect for the nation, in it's entirety. No one is trying to police athlete's thoughts. They are quite welcome to utterly despise certain policies, laws, or aspects of the nation and they are quite welcome to say so. All we're asking is that they put those opinions to one side for a couple of minutes and demonstrate some kind of solidarity with their teammates and the nation at large. If anyone really despises their own nation so much that they can't find some aspect they like or are in favour of to think positively about for two measly minutes, then they should either jack the sports lark in and turn to open revolt or move somewhere else.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

That's a fair point, but why have these people turned up to represent their nation at all if they have no respect for it? No one should be forced to represent their nation, but equally national sporting associations have no obligation to provide these people with a platform for protest.

It wouldn't be that strange to play for a country without having any nationalistic feelings towards it, think of all the player in various sports who play for a country other than their own in football, rugby and cricket for example.They are professional sportspeople and they are entitled to think about the benefit it might bring to their career if that is what's most important to them. Others may like their country, want to play for it, but are sceptical of overt displays of nationalism, and those anachronistic anthems that each country feels the need to sing before a game. That would certainly a valid viewpoint it seems to me. Add to those people also might want to play for their homeland, may even be conventionally nationalistic but strongly don't agree with the policies of it's government, they may even feel the need to protest.

I don't think many would argue that sporting organizations should be obligated to provide a platform for protest, but why would they be motivated to shut them down when they occur naturally? Let sportspeople show their dissatisfaction if they wish, and the rest of us can be try to be mature enough to understand where they are coming from and if they have a valid point or not.

A whole team of clones, denied freedom of expression, 'respecting' their country because they are compelled to do so, is surely not the direction any country should be heading in. Disappointing to see the US do this, which has for so long led the world in protecting people's right to free speech and free expression. 

[Highgate]

18 minutes ago, bcnram said:

Does it really matter whether or not you know if individuals respect their country?

Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of standing and singing the national anthem, to show genuine respect for your country? What's the point if it's all an act. We could all fake respect...but surely it becomes meaningless when we do so.

[Anon]

14 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't think many would argue that sporting organizations should be obligated to provide a platform for protest, but why would they be motivated to shut them down when they occur naturally? Let sportspeople show their dissatisfaction if they wish, and the rest of us can be try to be mature enough to understand where they are coming from and if they have a valid point or not.

So where do you draw the line? Is there one at all or are we doomed to a future where every international sporting occasion is a political rally. Scroll down the line whilst the anthem plays only to see the 'keeper doing a black power salute, the right winger a Nazi salute, the centre mid waving a placard because his council tax went up by £100, the striker laid down to protest lack of beds in the NHS, and the manager furiously crossing himself to show his staunch opposition to the legalisation of gay marriage.

[Highgate]

3 minutes ago, Anon said:

So where do you draw the line? Is there one at all or are we doomed to a future where every international sporting occasion is a political rally. Scroll down the line whilst the anthem plays only to see the 'keeper doing a black power salute, the right winger a Nazi salute, the centre mid waving a placard because his council tax went up by £100, the striker laid down to protest lack of beds in the NHS, and the manager is furiously crossing himself to show his staunch objection to the legalisation of gay marriage.

Ah...the slippery slope argument, we let one person do it and everyone will jump at the chance to make political / social statements. Do you really think what you propose is realistic?  Apart from the Nazi salute, and the cash-strapped player carrying a placard onto the pitch I wouldn't have a problem with them, in fact your striker makes a great point, but it's irrelevant as it's not going to happen. I

There is also a clear difference in simply refusing to do something that others are doing, such as singing or standing and on the other hand, making political gestures of your own in public, such as the salutes you mentioned.

 

[Anon]

17 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Ah...the slippery slope argument, we let one person do it and everyone will jump at the chance to make political / social statements. Do you really think what you propose is realistic?  Apart from the Nazi salute, and the cash-strapped player carrying a placard onto the pitch I wouldn't have a problem with them, in fact your striker makes a great point, but it's irrelevant as it's not going to happen. I

There is also a clear difference in simply refusing to do something that others are doing, such as singing or standing and on the other hand, making political gestures of your own in public, such as the salutes you mentioned.

 

Why wouldn't they? Obviously some of my examples were exaggerated for effect, but I don't think it's a giant leap of imagination to assume that other people would take advantage of this opportunity to highlight an issue they felt strongly about.

Also, kneeling is not a natural body position. Rapinoe's action was a deliberate statement. She could've remained seated in the dugout, the natural position for a substitute, or stayed in the changing room but chose to move into a position where she knew the cameras would be on her.

[Highgate]

6 minutes ago, Anon said:

Why wouldn't they? Obviously some of my examples were exaggerated for effect, but I don't think it's a giant leap of imagination to assume that other people would take advantage of this opportunity to highlight an issue they felt strongly about.

Also, kneeling is not a natural body position. Rapinoe's action was a deliberate statement. She could've remained seated in the dugout, the natural position for a substitute, or stayed in the changing room but chose to move into a position where she knew the cameras would be on her.

So let them protest, what is it that you are afraid of?  It only grabs people's attention and gets people talking if it's a rare event anyway.Therefore you probably won't have to worry about the horrors of sportspeople simultaneously multi-protesting, instead of standing and singing along to some invariably nonsensical anthem like a well behaved automaton should.

Kneeling is pretty natural if the whole point is not standing. I'd probably choose sitting myself if in that situation. Neither position have any political meaning in their own right, unlike a recognizable salute.

[oomarkwright]

3 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

My wife has been having an argument recently with many of her Peruvian compatriots about the rights of homosexuals (they're including gender equality in the national curriculum in peru, it's a big deal). Many are against it because the Old Testament says homosexualism is wrong.

Talk about an outdated expression of an outdated concept. Compared to religious zealotry, patriotism is just a bit of fun (I do say that with tongue firmly in cheek, I realise that patriotism can be as much to blame for atrocities as religious zealotry). Point is, the Old Testament was written c.3000+ years ago. The national anthem is not very old. So if people are still hanging onto the Old Testament, of course they're going to hang onto the national anthem. 

I like a bit of pomp and ceremony and tradition, as long as there is the freedom for change where necessary. I'm for the monarchy. But with regards to this, I'm also for democratic ideals. Which means no one should be forced, or even pier pressured, into singing a national anthem if they don't want to. If they want to sit down, they should be free to do so without judgement or prejudice. 

Dont the Americans like to say 'it's a free country'?

The new testament states it's wrong too.