The NFL's Contradictory Stance on Social Justice and Player Expression
In September 2025, the National Football League found itself at the center of a complex debate about politics, expression, and consistency. Four days after right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University, several NFL teams held moments of silence in his honor. The Green Bay Packers led the way on September 11, combining their tribute with remembrances for 9/11 victims. The Dallas Cowboys displayed Kirk's face on their Jumbotron, while the New York Jets rolled a video package. Notably, the league appeared to have no reservations about honoring a figure who had vocalized anti-Black sentiments, despite over half of its players being Black Americans.
A Stark Contrast in Treatment
Fast forward eighteen weeks to Sunday, January 18, 2026. On the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and hours before a crucial Texans-Patriots playoff matchup, the NFL fined Houston Texans linebacker Azeez Al-Shaair $11,593. His offense? Wearing eye black during the previous week's game against the Pittsburgh Steelers that read "stop the genocide." The league cited its rule against personal messages as justification for the penalty.
Al-Shaair's message was apparently deemed too political by NFL standards. However, it is crucial to clarify that advocating for the protection of innocent human lives—many of whom are children—should not be considered a partisan issue. It is fundamentally a human one. This incident starkly illustrates the NFL's conditional support for player expression, which seems welcomed when it aligns with the league's interests but discouraged when players address systemic racism or broader social justice concerns.
A Pattern of Performative Activism
The same league that penalized Al-Shaair for condemning mass violence in Palestine had no issue with teams broadcasting tributes to Charlie Kirk—a man with no connection to football whose entire brand was built on inflammatory political commentary. This inconsistency echoes past controversies, such as when the league silenced Colin Kaepernick for kneeling against police brutality, only to later paint "End Racism" in NFL end zones and make "Lift Every Voice and Sing" a pregame fixture after George Floyd's murder.
Since Kaepernick's protest in 2016, the NFL has engaged in what many perceive as performative activism. The league has slapped social justice slogans in multiple end zones since 2020, though it notably removed "End Racism" from the 2025 Super Bowl. It has wrapped itself in pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, rolled out military flyovers, and given lukewarm nods to LGBTQ+ Pride. These actions often feel calculated, with the league cherry-picking causes it deems safe, marketable, and non-threatening to its bottom line. In contrast, players speaking out about pressing human rights issues are frequently treated as liabilities.
Selective Silence and Vocal Hypocrisy
It is worth noting that not all teams participated in honoring Charlie Kirk. Seven franchises—the Cincinnati Bengals, Detroit Lions, Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers, Indianapolis Colts, Minnesota Vikings, and Las Vegas Raiders—did not hold moments of silence for him. The Houston Texans held a moment of silence without explicitly naming Kirk, instead honoring "all victims of violence and natural disasters." One could argue that Kirk, who spread election conspiracy theories and made incendiary comments about race, had no relevance to football. Those seven teams exercised their freedom to abstain from the tribute.
Yet, Azeez Al-Shaair, a Muslim American player witnessing the death toll in Gaza climb into the tens of thousands, faced punishment for expressing his feelings publicly. The hypocrisy is palpable and suffocating. This debate transcends personal agreement with Al-Shaair's message or Kaepernick's kneeling; it centers on who gets to have a voice within the NFL ecosystem.
The Message to Players: Conform or Face Consequences
The NFL can broadcast its carefully curated politics across stadium screens and paint them onto the turf. However, the moment a player steps out of line—daring to think, feel, or speak as an individual—the hammer comes down. This dynamic sends a clear message: players are expected to shut up and play the game. Be grateful, smile for the cameras, cash the checks, and avoid reminding the league that they are human beings with consciences, faiths, and families watching the news in horror. The NFL wants performers—bodies that run routes, take hits, and refrain from questioning why the league can honor a deceased political provocateur but not tolerate a linebacker saying, "stop the genocide."
Respect, however, is a two-way street. If Charlie Kirk's life merits attention within the context of professional football, then a player's plea for human life deserves equal consideration. The NFL's selective approach to social justice not only undermines its credibility but also highlights a broader societal issue about whose voices are amplified and whose are silenced in the public sphere.
