A Complicated History
Donald Trump will become the first sitting U.S. president to attend a Super Bowl on Sunday. However, his relationship with the sport of football has been complex and controversial.
During his first term as president, Trump feuded with the National Football League (NFL) after Black players began kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. He called kneeling players "sons of a bitches" and demanded they be fired.
Trump's history with football goes back further. In the 1980s, he bought into the upstart United States Football League (USFL) and sought to compete directly with the NFL. This move is widely seen as contributing to the USFL's demise.
Trump's ultimate goal, according to author Jeff Pearlman, was to own an NFL franchise in New York City. He saw the USFL as a way to achieve this, either by beating the NFL or forcing a merger.
Trump led a USFL antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The USFL won the case at trial, but the jury awarded only a single dollar in damages. The USFL canceled its 1986 season shortly after, effectively ending its operations.
In 2016, Trump criticized NFL players who knelt during the national anthem, calling it disrespectful to the flag and the military. This led to further tension between Trump and the NFL.
In 2018, NFL team owners approved a new rule requiring players to stand during the anthem or stay in the locker room. This rule was later repealed after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police sparked nationwide protests.
The NFL has faced criticism this week for its decision to use the slogan "Choose Love" instead of "End Racism" at this year's Super Bowl. Critics speculate this is a nod to Trump's policies aimed at ending diversity programs. The NFL denies this, stating the change is in response to recent tragedies.
Trump's attendance at the Super Bowl marks a significant moment in the history of the event. It also highlights the complex and often contentious relationship between Trump and the sport of football.
14 Comments
Matzomaster
“The article spends too much time making him out to be a villain, without acknowledging that standing up for the flag isn’t a crime.”
Rotfront
“The text conveniently omits the context behind Trump’s actions. It’s a smear job designed to attack him at every turn.”
Karamba
“I can’t buy this biased narrative. Trump’s tough stance on national symbols isn’t the same as the hate being portrayed here.”
Rotfront
“Trump has been painted as the enemy for speaking hard truths. This write‑up cherry‑picks events to push a biased agenda.”
Karamba
“The narrative here is outdated and dismissive of Trump’s intentions. It looks more like a political vendetta than a balanced story.”
Habibi
“If you ignore all the successes of his business and political career, sure, you can nitpick his past. But this text is trolling.”
ZmeeLove
“The text smears Trump by implying that everything he’s done is controversial. Not every hard stance deserves such vilification.”
Coccinella
“I don’t trust this article at all. It zeroes in on controversial sound bites while ignoring the broader positive impact.”
Africa
“I appreciate the honesty here—the text doesn’t sugarcoat the controversies surrounding Trump’s relationship with the NFL.”
Comandante
“Every fact here rings true. It’s refreshing to see an article that isn’t afraid to explore the complexities of his past.”
Bella Ciao
“This article is nothing more than partisan propaganda—it twists history to make Trump look like the villain.”
Muchacha
“Why is it acceptable to label someone’s stance as ‘controversial’ when the media has spent years demonizing him? This article is another example.”
Africa
“Finally, someone tells it like it is! Trump’s complicated history with football is laid out clearly in this article.”
Raphael
“The piece connects the dots between his business ambitions and his political moves in a very clear, factual manner.”