xgeoff":r9z8pmvy said:
Scott simply asserted that Kaepernick is being blackballed by the NFL, which is relatively obvious. You can debate whether it's right or wrong or whether it's because of team chemistry or whatever. All those discussions have merit. But with so many teams in this league desperate for QB's, It is simply absurd to me that anyone could deny that Kaepernick is out of work because of his social justice stance.
Kaepernick's extracurricular activities and the possible negative fan reaction are surely a very large factor. Another factor is that his value as a player doesn't offset the possible negatives. This distraction/value calculus goes on for every NFL team for every player.
My response is: so what?
If by "blackballed" he means that each individual team has decided the negatives of Kaepernick's activism outweigh his benefits as a player, then that isn't an actionable injustice against Kaepernick. Let's say I do something, anything, harmful to the bottom line of my current employer that results in splashy bad PR, in an industry where PR is a major consideration (which is nearly every industry, but especially the entertainment industry). Other employers very likely will stay far away from me. So what.
*Collusion* is, and collusion is the word lurking behind Scott's usage of the word "blackball", because many conflate the two concepts. But Scott knows there's no evidence of collusion, and that such evidence is excruciatingly difficult to find sans audio footage of mustache-twirling NFL owners laughing about rejecting Kaepernick in a smoke-filled room.
This SI article is a pretty good run-down of Kaepernick's conclusion grievance why collusion is a pretty high bar to clear.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/15/colin-kaepernick-collusion-lawsuit-against-nfl
In my opinion the only way Kaepernick wins a collusion claim is if he gets an activist judge/arbitrator, and even then it can't stand up to appeal.