Kaepernick Blames NFL Owners for Career End, Cites Trump Donations

From 2016 Kneeling to the 2020 Executive Admission

The controversy began in August 2016 when Kaepernick sat, and later knelt, during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice. The move sparked a nationwide firestorm, drawing both intense support and fierce condemnation from fans, politicians, and media pundits.

By 2020, the narrative surrounding his departure from the league shifted as the national conversation on race evolved following the death of George Floyd. In May 2020, a former high-ranking NFL executive publicly confirmed what many observers had long suspected: that the protests were the primary reason Kaepernick remained unsigned.

The executive noted that the league felt immense pressure from sponsors and ownership groups to distance themselves from the movement. This admission provided a rare look behind the curtain of NFL personnel decisions, which are typically shielded by claims of competitive strategy.

The internal league environment in 2016 and 2017 was characterized by extreme caution. Teams feared that signing a player so closely associated with a polarizing political issue would alienate their core fan base.

• 32 teams operate in the NFL, each with independent ownership.
• The 49ers finished the 2016 season with a 2-14 record.
• Public polling in 2017 showed that over 50% of NFL fans disapproved of the kneeling protests.

These numbers highlight the difficult position the league felt it was in at the time. Owners were caught between the evolving social consciousness of their players and the traditionalist expectations of their television partners and corporate sponsors. The 2020 admission effectively ended the debate over whether Kaepernick was blacklisted, though the league never officially changed its stance.

How the 2017 Trump Tweet Reshaped the Sidelines

The political stakes escalated significantly in September 2017 when Donald Trump, then serving as president, used a rally in Alabama to call for the firing of any player who knelt during the anthem. The president's rhetoric transformed the protest from a localized athlete-led movement into a national political wedge issue.

Trump's tweets and public comments created a binary choice for many owners: align with the president's call for patriotism or defend the players' right to protest. This pressure forced owners to take a public stance, often resulting in statements of unity that many players felt were disingenuous.

The Washington Post reported in October 2017 that the heightened political atmosphere made it increasingly difficult for teams to justify signing Kaepernick. The president's vocal opposition created a perceived risk for any owner who might consider adding him to their roster.

This period marked a turning point in how the NFL handled dissent. The league moved from a stance of relative indifference to one of active management, eventually implementing policies that required players to stand if they were on the field during the anthem.

• Trump sent multiple tweets criticizing NFL players in September 2017.
• The NFL Players Association eventually pushed back against the league's 2018 policy.
• The policy was later suspended in July 2018 after widespread backlash.

The constant back-and-forth between the White House and the league office created an environment where football decisions were secondary to political optics. For Kaepernick, this meant that his professional future was no longer in the hands of general managers and coaches, but rather in the hands of owners who were navigating a volatile political landscape.

Tracking the Political Donations of NFL Ownership

Kaepernick's assertion that NFL owners donate to Trump is supported by public federal election records. Throughout the 2016, 2020, and 2024 election cycles, several prominent NFL owners contributed significant sums to Republican candidates and political action committees associated with the former president.

These donations, while legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, illustrate the political leanings of the league's ownership class. Critics of the league have long argued that this financial alignment creates an inherent bias against players who advocate for progressive causes.

The intersection of money and power in the NFL is not new. Owners are typically among the wealthiest individuals in the country, and their political influence extends far beyond the stadium. When these owners take a stand on social issues, they are often protecting their broader business interests, which include tax policy, stadium financing, and regulatory oversight.

• Over $10 million was donated by NFL owners to political causes in the 2024 cycle (industry reports indicate).
• FEC filings show a majority of these donations went to Republican-aligned organizations.
• Some owners have maintained a non-partisan approach, donating to both parties.

The perception that these donations influenced the league's treatment of Kaepernick is a central theme in his argument. He suggests that the owners were not just protecting their brand, but actively participating in a political campaign to marginalize voices that challenged the status quo. This perspective forces a deeper look at how professional sports leagues regulate the political expression of their employees.

The League's Pivot to Social Justice Initiatives

In the years following the 2020 protests, the NFL underwent a significant rebranding effort, launching the 'Inspire Change' initiative. The program aimed to address systemic racism and support community organizations. However, for many, this pivot felt like an attempt to co-opt the very movement that Kaepernick had started.

The league's investment in social justice programs, while substantial in dollar terms, has been met with skepticism by those who point to the continued absence of Kaepernick from the field. Critics argue that the NFL is trying to have it both ways: profiting from the cultural relevance of social justice while keeping the movement's most prominent figure on the outside.

The league has pointed to its partnerships with groups like the Players Coalition as evidence of its commitment to change. These efforts include funding for education, criminal justice reform, and economic development in underserved communities.

• The NFL committed $250 million to social justice causes over 10 years starting in 2020.
• The 'Inspire Change' initiative focuses on four key pillars: education, economic advancement, police-community relations, and criminal justice reform.
• Over 80% of NFL teams have participated in local social justice programs since 2021.

Despite these initiatives, the shadow of the Kaepernick saga remains. The league continues to face questions about whether its commitment to social justice is genuine or merely a defensive measure against public pressure. The disconnect between the league's public messaging and the treatment of its most vocal activists remains a point of contention for many players and fans.

Measuring the Lasting Impact on Athlete Advocacy

The legacy of the Kaepernick era is defined by the permanent change in how athletes approach their platform. Today, it is common for players across all major sports to speak out on political issues, a shift that was accelerated by the events of 2016.

Kaepernick's decision to sacrifice his career for his beliefs paved the way for a new generation of athletes who feel empowered to use their voices. While he remains out of the league, his influence is felt in the locker rooms of every NFL team. Players are now more organized, more politically aware, and more willing to challenge the status quo.

As of September 2026, the NFL finds itself in a different place than it was a decade ago. The league is more diverse in its front offices, and there is a greater acknowledgment of the role players play in the league's success. However, the fundamental tension between the business of sports and the reality of American politics remains as sharp as ever.

'The reality is that owners hold the power, and they use it to ensure the league reflects their own interests,' one sports analyst noted during a recent briefing. This power dynamic is unlikely to change, but the conversation surrounding it has been forever altered by Kaepernick's willingness to stand his ground. His appearance on The View serves as a reminder that the story of the 2016 protests is not a closed chapter, but a continuing dialogue about the limits of dissent in the American workplace.