President Donald Trump on Monday abruptly disinvited the entire Philadelphia Eagles team from attending a White House ceremony on Tuesday. The ceremony would have been in honor of the Eagles defeating the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LII.
In a statement, Trump objected to certain Eagles players partaking in protests during the playing of the national anthem, although not a single Eagles player kneeled during the anthem last season. Trump depicted the players as having a disagreement “with their President because he insists that they proudly stand for the National Anthem, hand on heart, in honor of the great men and women of our military and the people of our country.” The White House will still welcome Eagles fans to join "a different type of ceremony—one that will honor our great country, pay tribute to the heroes who fight to protect it, and loudly and proudly play the National Anthem.”
Trump’s decision is significant on several levels.
First, rescinding the invitation appears to be unprecedented in American history. According to ESPN writer Thomas Neumann, the White House’s custom of inviting a championship team
began in 1924. At the time, President Calvin Coolidge invited the Washington Senators—fresh off a World Series victory against the New York Giants—to celebrate at the White House. There is no record of another team being disinvited by a sitting president after the team already accepted an invitation (Trump also made history last year when he didn’t invite the Golden State Warriors to a White House ceremony after they beat the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 2017 NBA finals; for their part, the Warriors signaled
they probably wouldn’t have accepted Trump’s invitation anyway).
Second, the sudden disinvitation—at the 11th hour, after months of planning—raises the possibility that the White House might have come across information or a rumor that caused it to take such dramatic action. Perhaps, for example, the White House became concerned about a potential player protest during the White House visit. In May, Twitter user @KayFusion asked me about
potential repercussions of players kneeling during a visit to the White House. As a government building staffed by government employees, the White House is, in a general sense, obligated to protect First Amendment free speech rights. While a variety of security and privacy concerns allow the White House to restrict the behavior of visitors, a player kneeling or engaging in some other form of peaceful protest probably wouldn’t trigger security concerns. The White House might have felt that there was a risk of a controversial moment with Eagles players visiting.
Additional facts about the invitation’s rescission came to light on Tuesday morning, when Trump
tweeted that “only a small number of players decided to come” (he also reiterated that he finds players kneeling to be “disrespectful”). Trump’s reference to relatively few players deciding to partake in the ceremony is consistent with reporting by the
Philadelphia Inquirer and
Philadelphia Daily News on Tuesday that fewer than 10 players were planning to attend (it’s unclear how many coaches, executives and staff planned to attend). It is also consistent with a tweet Monday night by Eagles wide receiver Torrey Smith, who
insisted that not many Eagles players were going to attend. This information signals that the President’s decision, while clearly related to his ongoing frustration about players and the national anthem, was at least partly motivated by concern about the optics of unimpressive attendance.
Third, and most consequential to the NFL, the disinvitation fits the theory of collusion advanced by Colin Kaepernick’s attorneys,
Mark Geragos and
Ben Meiselas. Pursuant to Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement (and as
detailed more extensively in other SI stories), Kaepernick can only prevail in his collusion grievance if he proves that two or more teams, or the league and at least one team, conspired against him. Here, the conspiracy would refer to an agreement or understanding to deny him an opportunity to sign with a team.
Keep in mind what the collusion standard requires. If one owner decided, on his own, to not sign Kaepernick for political/anthem reasons, that would
not constitute collusion. The reason why is that collusion requires the involvement of multiple teams (or the involvement of the league and at least one team). Similarly, if one owner spoke with Trump and after that conversation decided to not sign Kaepernick, that too would not describe collusion. That is because for purposes of a labor grievance in the NFL, Trump is merely a third party (albeit perhaps the most influential third party on Earth). The collective bargaining agreement does not govern the President of the United States.
<---just in case
