It has been quite a week of sports controversies and politics.
The biggest story has of course been the disastrous decision by many in the NFL to boycott the national anthem by taking a knee in protest.
What, exactly, they are protesting has never been clear. Somehow, these rich, powerful, successful professional athletes making millions of dollars to play a game think they are treated unfairly somehow. Such poor babies!
But another story went largely unnoticed in the wake of the NFL tidal wave. And that is the beef between Stephen Curry and President Trump. Trump famously disinvited Curry from visiting the White House after Curry made some derogatory comments about Trump. Seems fair.
But just like the athletes in the NFL, Curry now feels like he has been treated unfairly.
At least we can count on Charles Barkley to bring some common sense to the equation. The Round Mound of Rebound recently commented and sided largely with Trump. Take a look at the following article from Yahoo Sports for more details, that is if you can get past the horrible bias from the writer.
Here’s more, from Yahoo Sports:
Charles Barkley always has some goofy opinions, and that’s just when it comes to the game of basketball, so this next one shouldn’t come as a surprise.
By now you have to be aware of what happened late last week between the Golden State Warriors and Donald Trump. In case you’re not up to speed, it went like this: the Warriors were set to vote on whether to head to the White House. When asked about the upcoming vote, Stephen Curry said that he would vote no. Trump then heard about the video, and preemptively disinvited the team via Twitter.
As if that wasn’t wild enough, Barkley then weighed in on the matter during an NBA TV segment after all that went down.
The TNT broadcaster’s response was that he felt that the Warriors deciding to forgo a trip to the White House would set a bad precedent.
“I think it’s really unfortunate. I think that it’s an honor and privilege to go to the White House, no matter who the president is. And also, I thought it would have been an opportunity for those guys to sit down and talk to the president about some of the issues and concerns they had.
“We’re all concerned about police brutality. I’m concerned about DACA. They could have negotiated a sit-down instead of just coming in, do that informal stuff where he stands there and you get your jersey and everything. It’s unfortunate. It’s just really sad, to be honest with you. When guys start not going to the White House because they don’t like who the president is, I think that sets a bad precedent.”
Remember, the Warriors didn’t actually decide to not go to the White House. It was Trump that told them they were not allowed to come. The team was set to vote on the issue, but didn’t actually get to do so after Trump saw Curry’s comments.
There is also something to be said for Barkley’s insistence that the Warriors had to go to the White House. That is, impressing upon an individual to partake in an activity of which they are morally or otherwise personally opposed. An activity that is not part of their contract, a specific part of winning the Larry O’Brien trophy, or part of what many would consider to be the American ideal — to force any person of free will to do such an inconsequential activity.
"I think that sets a bad precedent." – Charles Barkley on the White House controversy on #GameTime. pic.twitter.com/OyCRwDNGcH
— NBA TV (@NBATV) September 23, 2017
Join the conversation!
Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!