The Players Coalition is calling on Congress to pass a bill addressing education inequality that has been highlighted and expanded by the coronavirus pandemic.
In a letter, the players write that without Congressional action, education inequality for prekindergarten through high school students is “likely to be compounded in the coming year and beyond as state and local budgets deteriorate because of increased state and local COVID-related costs and steeply declining revenues due to COVID-related economic disruption.”
The players promoted a pair of bills, one passed by the House of Representatives in May and one proposed in the Senate in late June, that would provide billions of dollars in education funding.
Among the provisions the players are seeking in an education package are significant additional funding for elementary and secondary education, continued legal protections for marginalized students and addressing digital access for students.
COVID-19 exacerbated systemic problems in our schools. Absent significant Congressional action, education inequities are likely to continue growing. Today, we wrote to Senate leadership urging them to pass a COVID-19 relief package with crucial education provisions for our youth. pic.twitter.com/eqUYswaaoy
— PlayersCoalition (@playercoalition) July 17, 2020
The Players Coalition tweeted a copy of the letter Friday morning. It is addressed to Sens. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and signed by nearly 200 current and former professional athletes.
1 Related
“As Players Coalition members, we understand the importance of teamwork and never giving up — especially when prospects are bleak,” the players wrote. “We urge the Senate to work with the House to team up to enact these provisions, because giving up is not an option for our children of color and low-income children, or the future of our nation.”
McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is poised to release the Republicans’ $1 trillion coronavirus relief package as soon as next week. That plan is a counteroffer to the sweeping $3 trillion proposal that House Democrats approved in May, before the latest spike in coronavirus cases and hot spots.
The Players Coalition was founded in 2017. Its stated goal is “making an impact on social justice and racial equality at the federal, state and local levels through advocacy, awareness, education, and allocation of resources.”
In June, the Players Coalition gathered more than 1,400 signatures for a letter to Congress supporting a bill to end qualified immunity, which makes it difficult to sue police officers for brutality.
Myles Garrett said Thursday that he’s ready to live up to the distinction of being the highest-paid defender in NFL history.
“Now I have to assert myself as top dog,” he said. “I feel like I’m confident and ready to do that.
“Time to prove it.”
On Wednesday, the Cleveland Browns’ star pass-rusher signed a five-year extension with the Browns containing $100 million in total guarantees, the most ever paid to a defensive player, league sources told ESPN — with $50 million guaranteed at signing. The team did not discuss financial terms, but sources told ESPN that the deal is worth $125 million with a $25 million average salary, which is also a record for a defensive player.
“They had faith in me, and now I’ve got to give [the Browns] a reason to have that faith,” said Garrett, who, with the extension, will be under contract in Cleveland through the 2026 season. “I’m going to do my best to make it worth it to them.”
1 Related
Previously, the Chicago Bears’ Khalil Mack was the league’s highest-paid defensive player in both average salary ($23 million) and guaranteed money ($90 million). Mack was named NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 2016. As the new highest-paid defender, Garrett said the onus is now on him to win the award as well.
“I was in the [defensive] player of the year conversation [last year],” Garrett said. “I don’t want to make it a conversation anymore. This next year, I want to ball out, win that award … take my team to the playoffs. … I want to lead Cleveland to the promised land.”
In finishing 6-10 last year, the Browns proved to be one of the NFL’s biggest disappointments while running the league’s longest playoff drought to 18 years.
Cleveland’s defense cratered after Garrett was suspended for the final six games of the season for hitting Pittsburgh’s Mason Rudolph with the quarterback’s helmet during a skirmish at the end of their Nov. 14 game.
Garrett referred to the incident as “a small bump in the road” for him and disputed the notion that he’s a dirty player.
“The players I’ve played with and know, that’s not who they see. They’ve never thought of me that way. I’ve never been that.”
The NFL reinstated Garrett in February, and Garrett alleged again in an interview with ESPN’s Mina Kimes shortly after that he reacted to Rudolph calling him a racial slur. Rudolph has vehemently denied the claim, and Steelers coach Mike Tomlin aggressively defended Rudolph in an interview with ESPN’s First Take, saying he was “hacked off” by Garrett’s accusation that Tomlin said neither team corroborated after the fight.
Garrett said Thursday that he has yet to talk with Rudolph or Tomlin since but would “have no problem” doing so. The Browns are scheduled to play at Pittsburgh on Oct. 18.
“I don’t have any ill intent towards either of them,” he said.
On Thursday, Garrett also weighed in on social unrest in the country and said that quarterback Colin Kaepernick “deserves an apology” from the league for the way it has treated him.
Garrett also said that he covered the funeral expenses of David McAtee, a Louisville chef who was shot and killed by police outside his restaurant during a protest. Garrett said he also reached out to the family of David Dorn, a retired police captain who was shot and killed by a man looting a pawn shop in St. Louis.
“I really wanted to reach out and help where I could,” Garrett said. “Those stories that reached me personally and touched me on a deeper level.”
The NFL responded Tuesday night to the NFLPA’s counterproposal on coronavirus-related reopening protocols, but a source told ESPN that some major issues remain unresolved, including a dispute over whether COVID-19 should be classified as a “non-football injury.”
According to sources, the NFLPA has made several requests of the league, including daily COVID-19 testing, the elimination of all preseason games, financial and other compensation for players who opt out of playing for COVID-related reasons and a provision that would keep the 2021 salary cap from going down due to lost 2020 revenue.
The road to a new nickname, one that has existed for 87 years for Washington’s football team, was decades in the making for some.
But for Washington owner Dan Snyder, it was almost an overnight decision.
While the battle over opponents of the franchise’s name had gone on since the early 1970s, it wasn’t until the past month and a half that the pace changed from a light jog to a Usain Bolt sprint.
Here’s a look at what has transpired, ending with Snyder’s monumental decision to retire the name.
May 25: George Floyd’s death
ESPN NFL reporter John Keim explains why this time the Washington franchise decided to move on from the nickname and what it might mean for other teams with Native American nicknames. Listen
Floyd’s death while in police custody in Minneapolis spurred protests, riots and a social movement in the United States and across the globe. It led to statues being toppled and taken down, Confederate flags being banned from NASCAR tracks and the Mississippi state flag being retired. The coronavirus pandemic had left the country with time to think, which resulted in louder and louder shouts for change.
And it eventually led to more pressure being applied to Washington’s franchise to change its name. Whenever the team’s Twitter account tweeted, many replies included #changethename.
June 1-5: Companies voice support for social justice movement
The fact that multiple companies, including sponsors of the team and the NFL, spoke out in support of social justice reforms became more important three weeks later. It laid the groundwork for a letter that was sent to multiple sponsors by advocacy investment groups. On June 1, Nike dropped an advertisement that played off their “Just Do It” slogan saying, “For once, Don’t Do It” in regards to police brutality.
Four days later, Nike releases another statement that read in part, “Systemic racism and the events that have unfolded across America over the past few weeks serve as an urgent reminder of the continued change needed in our society.”
Meanwhile, Bank of America pledged $1 billion over four years to invest in “communities of color and minority-owned businesses.” The company released a statement that read: “The events of the past week have created a sense of true urgency that has arisen across our nation, particularly in view of the racial injustices we have seen in the communities where we work and live. We all need to do more.”
When advocacy investor groups saw those words, their eyes got wide. It opened a door for an argument to separate them from the NFL franchise’s nickname.
play
1:11
Former CB Darrell Green is grateful for Dan Snyder’s decision to change Washington’s mascot and logo, and adds that he’s ready to throw away his old jerseys and helmets for new ones.
Mid-June: Advocacy groups mobilize
Jonas Kron, the senior vice president and director of shareholder advocacy for Trillium Asset Management, couldn’t recall exactly when things got started, but it was around the middle of June. That’s when 11 years of groundwork on pushing for a name change turned into overnight success.
Kron said they had been working on the investment community since 2009 about advocacy investing. Had they waited until now to begin discussions on this topic, he said, they would not have had success.
“If we had come to them for the first time in June, they would have had a lot of homework to do,” he said. “It would have taken time to create that education. We had over a decade of work in the investor community on this.”
Kron said companies don’t move fast until it’s necessary. Hence, 11 years of groundwork resulting in seismic change in a short period.
“My experience is companies like FedEx, Nike, Pepsi and Bank of America rarely change what they’re doing because of one thing,” Kron said. “It’s always a constellation of events that comes to bear to get a company to make those changes. The constellation had not come together, yet.
2 Related
“The thing we had been warning them about was the risk to their reputation and being on the wrong side of history. We had just not made that clear enough for them and had not been persuasive enough, then eventually we were. Eventually the risk really did manifest itself.”
But during this same period, the Washington team was on a parallel track to considering change. As protests over racial injustice and police brutality reached many cities, team owner Dan Snyder initiated a dialogue with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell about changing the name, according to a source. Whether he knew riding out the storm wouldn’t work as it had in the past, or if he had a change of heart remains uncertain. Snyder hasn’t addressed his motives for a change in thinking.
Snyder also donated $250,000 for initiatives for an organizational town hall program for players and staff to discuss racism.
June 26: Letter sent to sponsors
A letter signed by 87 shareholders and investors worth a combined $620 billion was sent to three companies that are NFL and/or sponsors of Washington’s team: FedEx, PepsiCo and Nike. They asked these companies to sever ties with the team unless it changed the name. Six days later, Adweek wrote a story on this topic, at which point multiple people, some of whom know Snyder well and some who work for the team, had the same opinion: It’s over. This, said one person who used to work for the franchise, was different than other attempts to get them to change the name in the past.
Carla Fredericks, who is the director of the American Indian Law Clinic and director of First Peoples Worldwide, said over the years she has seen how companies wake up “a little too late” and face negative consequences for shareholders. She said advocacy by institutional investors had been going on since the early 1990s. It’s a dilemma sometimes for companies: Their primary role is to make money for investors. If there are problematic issues, but the company isn’t suffering financially, there’s little reason to change. “In this case, their own statements moved the needle,” she said. “It was straightforward, that commitments on racial justice should have commitments to native people.”
June 30-July 1: At first unsure, Rivera embraces change
On June 30, Washington coach Ron Rivera appeared on Chicago radio station 670 The Score and, when asked about the name, said, “That’s a discussion for another time. I feel a guy that’s my age, my era, you know, that was always part of football, the name of the Washington Redskins.”
Rivera then elaborated: “It’s all about the moment and the timing. But I’m just somebody that’s from a different era, when football wasn’t such a big part of the political scene. That’s one of the tough things for me, too, is I’ve always wanted to try to keep that separate. People have wanted me to get involved in politics while I was coaching, and I kept telling them, ‘It’s not for me to get up there and influence people.’ I have my beliefs. I know what I think. I support the movements, support the players. I believe in what they’re doing. Again, I think there are certain elements to certain things that’s all about the timing and the best time to discuss those things.”
Snyder had been talking to Goodell for nearly two weeks when he approached Rivera and asked him what he thought. They agreed now was as good a time as any to initiate a change. By then, a source said, Snyder had already made up his mind about what he wanted to do and had people looking into potential names. He just sought feedback from his new coach.
It was an awkward spot for someone who has yet to coach a game in Washington. But Snyder wanted a coach-centric approach after play
While Snyder was already reviewing the name, others viewed this as a pivotal day in the fight to get it changed. FedEx, which owns the naming rights to the stadium, issued a statement saying it wanted Washington to change its name. To those who wanted the name changed, not knowing Snyder’s path, they viewed this as a seismic shift.
“When FedEx came out with their statement, I knew that was the end of it,” Fredericks said.
It wasn’t just about FedEx now applying pressure on Snyder; it was also about seeing where the movement was headed and the fact that major corporations would be on board with forcing change.
“When we saw FedEx move that was, from our point of view, that the dam was starting to break,” Kron said.
Sources said FedEx CEO Fred Smith had discussed a name change with Snyder in the past. Around six years ago, there was a proposal filed by shareholders of FedEx to vote on whether the company should continue sponsoring Washington’s stadium. While it was voted down, it did lead to a conversation between Smith and Susan White, a former director of the Oneida Trust Enrollment Department. She died in 2018, but Kron wondered whether she had a lasting impact on Smith.
“She told him, as a Native American and as an investor, as a human being, these are my problems with the name,” Kron said. “Did that plant a seed in his head? I don’t know. But I know the conversation happened. And I know Susan was a compelling combination of a Native American woman, and an investor of a very large trust. She could speak with a profound authority that very few people could.”
Kron said White was also clear about this: “Sponsors had a critical role to play in this process. That’s why we focused on them.”
