https://www.wsj.com/articles/poll-s...ions-over-anthem-protests-1535709600?mod=e2tw
POLL SHOWS NFL FAN INTEREST REMAINS LOWER, STARK DIVISIONS OVER ANTHEM PROTESTS
Fewer people, in particular Republicans, are following the NFL closely than they did four years ago, according to new WSJ/NBC News poll
With less than a week until the 2018 NFL season kicks off, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that interest in the league remains far lower than it once was, and fans are deeply divided over player protests during the national anthem.
The numbers paint a problematic picture. Fewer people, in particular Republicans, are following the NFL closely than they did four years ago. And many of those fans are the ones who also judge the player protests—which began in 2016 to call attention to social injustices and racial inequality—to be not appropriate.
Overall, 52% people said they follow the NFL closely. That's an increase from 49% in January but the figure remains down from 58% in 2014. The recent rebound falls within the poll's margin of error.
The poll is "still reflecting a lower audience base than we measured in 2014," said Micah Roberts, a Republican pollster who helped conduct the poll along with Democratic pollster Fred Yang. "It's not going in the right direction."
Men age 50 and above follow the game closer than any other group measured, but they also have decidedly negative views about the protests. At the same time, those who have stopped following the league are those who overwhelmingly see the player protests as not appropriate. And those who follow the league have a more favorable view of the player protests than the general population.
Interest in the NFL has waned most among Republicans. According to the poll, 39% of base Republicans said they follow professional football not at all closely. That's compared to just 16% of base Republicans who said that in 2014, making it the largest falloff for any group.
But, regardless of political party, interest in the NFL among white respondents has dropped about the same amount since 2014. White democrats who follow the NFL closely has fallen from 59% to 50%, versus 59% to 51% among white non-Democrats. Non-white Democrats have held steady, following the league closely at 58%.
At the same time, the fans who are increasingly tuning out the NFL are also those at odds with the player protests. While 43% of respondents said they view the protests as appropriate—compared to 54% said they are not—only 10% of Republicans and 38% of white people said they think the demonstrations are appropriate. The poll did not ask if people's habits changed based on the player protests, but Mr. Roberts said that, judging by the subgroups that showed the biggest changes, "the anthem protests are having an effect on the viewership."
Tommy Davis, a 34-year-old from Texas, said he no longer follows the league closely despite having a Dallas Cowboys tattoo on his leg. He had been an ardent Dallas fan and paid close attention up until last season, he said, when the pregame player protests began again.
"I'm pretty much over it," Mr. Davis said. "I'm sticking with college football from here on out."
The Journal/NBC News poll surveyed 900 registered voters from Aug. 18-22. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.27 percentage points.
Although 43% of people view the protests as appropriate, there's a difference between those who follow and don't follow the professional football. Among people who don't follow that game, only 41% see the protests as appropriate—a number that jumps to 46% for people who pay close attention to the NFL.
The demonstrations began in 2016 when a small group of players began sitting, taking a knee or raising a fist in order to call attention to social issues such as prison reform. After the protests became largely muted at the start of the 2017 season and down to only a handful of players, the topic took on a new life when President Donald Trump assailed the players and league as unpatriotic in a stump speech, with later attacks on Twitter, including calling a generic player a "son of a bitch."
In response to his comments, players knelt en masse in a direct rebuke of the president. The NFL, briefly, implemented a rule in the spring to prevent the protests from continuing into a third season--but when that rule proved problematic and drew the ire of players, it was suspended. Negotiations between players and the league over a potential policy before the 2018 regular season begins next Thursday remain ongoing.
The demonstrations remain an issue with some of the fans that remain part of the NFL's core base. The largest group of fans that follows the game closely—men ages 50 and over, at 61%—also overwhelmingly sees the protests as not appropriate, at 67%.
There is another side to the demographics, though. At 72%, Democrats strongly view the protests as appropriate. In media markets with an NFL team, 49% said the protests are appropriate, versus 47% who do not. And in the crucial 18-to-34 age bracket, there's an even stronger 56% who said they were appropriate to 41% not.
Said Samantha Kirk, a 32-year-old from Indiana who follows the league: "It doesn't bother me."
POLL SHOWS NFL FAN INTEREST REMAINS LOWER, STARK DIVISIONS OVER ANTHEM PROTESTS
Fewer people, in particular Republicans, are following the NFL closely than they did four years ago, according to new WSJ/NBC News poll
With less than a week until the 2018 NFL season kicks off, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that interest in the league remains far lower than it once was, and fans are deeply divided over player protests during the national anthem.
The numbers paint a problematic picture. Fewer people, in particular Republicans, are following the NFL closely than they did four years ago. And many of those fans are the ones who also judge the player protests—which began in 2016 to call attention to social injustices and racial inequality—to be not appropriate.
Overall, 52% people said they follow the NFL closely. That's an increase from 49% in January but the figure remains down from 58% in 2014. The recent rebound falls within the poll's margin of error.
The poll is "still reflecting a lower audience base than we measured in 2014," said Micah Roberts, a Republican pollster who helped conduct the poll along with Democratic pollster Fred Yang. "It's not going in the right direction."
Men age 50 and above follow the game closer than any other group measured, but they also have decidedly negative views about the protests. At the same time, those who have stopped following the league are those who overwhelmingly see the player protests as not appropriate. And those who follow the league have a more favorable view of the player protests than the general population.
Interest in the NFL has waned most among Republicans. According to the poll, 39% of base Republicans said they follow professional football not at all closely. That's compared to just 16% of base Republicans who said that in 2014, making it the largest falloff for any group.
But, regardless of political party, interest in the NFL among white respondents has dropped about the same amount since 2014. White democrats who follow the NFL closely has fallen from 59% to 50%, versus 59% to 51% among white non-Democrats. Non-white Democrats have held steady, following the league closely at 58%.
At the same time, the fans who are increasingly tuning out the NFL are also those at odds with the player protests. While 43% of respondents said they view the protests as appropriate—compared to 54% said they are not—only 10% of Republicans and 38% of white people said they think the demonstrations are appropriate. The poll did not ask if people's habits changed based on the player protests, but Mr. Roberts said that, judging by the subgroups that showed the biggest changes, "the anthem protests are having an effect on the viewership."
Tommy Davis, a 34-year-old from Texas, said he no longer follows the league closely despite having a Dallas Cowboys tattoo on his leg. He had been an ardent Dallas fan and paid close attention up until last season, he said, when the pregame player protests began again.
"I'm pretty much over it," Mr. Davis said. "I'm sticking with college football from here on out."
The Journal/NBC News poll surveyed 900 registered voters from Aug. 18-22. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.27 percentage points.
Although 43% of people view the protests as appropriate, there's a difference between those who follow and don't follow the professional football. Among people who don't follow that game, only 41% see the protests as appropriate—a number that jumps to 46% for people who pay close attention to the NFL.
The demonstrations began in 2016 when a small group of players began sitting, taking a knee or raising a fist in order to call attention to social issues such as prison reform. After the protests became largely muted at the start of the 2017 season and down to only a handful of players, the topic took on a new life when President Donald Trump assailed the players and league as unpatriotic in a stump speech, with later attacks on Twitter, including calling a generic player a "son of a bitch."
In response to his comments, players knelt en masse in a direct rebuke of the president. The NFL, briefly, implemented a rule in the spring to prevent the protests from continuing into a third season--but when that rule proved problematic and drew the ire of players, it was suspended. Negotiations between players and the league over a potential policy before the 2018 regular season begins next Thursday remain ongoing.
The demonstrations remain an issue with some of the fans that remain part of the NFL's core base. The largest group of fans that follows the game closely—men ages 50 and over, at 61%—also overwhelmingly sees the protests as not appropriate, at 67%.
There is another side to the demographics, though. At 72%, Democrats strongly view the protests as appropriate. In media markets with an NFL team, 49% said the protests are appropriate, versus 47% who do not. And in the crucial 18-to-34 age bracket, there's an even stronger 56% who said they were appropriate to 41% not.
Said Samantha Kirk, a 32-year-old from Indiana who follows the league: "It doesn't bother me."
