Kaepernick Kneels, Kirk Gets a Tribute: The NFL’s Hypocrisy

San Francisco 49ers Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid kneel during the national anthem before facing the Arizona Cardinals, Oct. 7, 2016. (Photo courtesy of Kirby Lee via USA TODAY Sports)

What just happened in the NFL at the very start of the season is par for the course. For years, fans and commentators have repeated the same line: “Keep politics out of sports.” But that phrase has often been applied selectively, especially when it comes to race. When a Black athlete like Colin Kaepernick took a knee to protest police brutality, the act was branded as divisive and disrespectful by the NFL.

On Sept. 14, the NFL chose to spotlight Charlie Kirk, a right-wing political activist whose rhetoric has been described by First Amendment advocates as inflammatory and by marginalized communities he targeted as racially hostile. Yet in this case, it was not treated as politics at all. Instead, the league framed it as a commemoration for someone simply expressing “his own opinion.”

In Week 2 of the 2025 NFL season, 26 of the league’s 32 teams led tributes to Charlie Kirk with moments of silence before kickoff. The league’s decision instantly sparked a firestorm online. 

Fans have drawn comparisons between the NFL’s tribute to Kirk and the league’s treatment of Colin Kaepernick’s 2016 protest. One fan on X, formerly known as Twitter, remarked, “It’s crazy because when I heard about the NFL honoring Kirk, I immediately thought about @Kaepernick7 and how they blackballed him out of the NFL and gave that man a hard time for protesting police brutality, fighting against racial injustice and systemic racism and standing up for slain black men and women.” 

Kirk has built his reputation by courting controversy. His speeches and social media posts have often included attacks on immigrants, LGBTQ communities and racial justice advocates. Supporters of Kirk defend him by calling his comments blunt or unfiltered. 

Critics, however, describe his words as a steady stream of dangerous and racially charged talking points. By choosing to highlight him, the NFL undermined the very campaigns it has spent years promoting, such as “Inspire Change,” which was launched in the wake of Kaepernick’s protests and the broader racial reckoning of 2020.

The choice to honor Kirk lands awkwardly against that history. When Kaepernick first took a knee in 2016, he explained clearly that it was a silent, peaceful act to call attention to police violence and racial inequality. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses Black people and people of color,” he said at the time. 

His gesture was measured, yet it was treated as if it were a personal attack on the sport itself. Fans burned his jerseys. Politicians used him as a symbol of disloyalty. And team owners quietly agreed that signing him was not worth the backlash.

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the protest, calling it “dumb and disrespectful,” although she acknowledged that athletes had the right to protest if they chose to. That tension between personal freedom and public perception would later shape how the league and its defenders tried to justify Kaepernick’s absence. By 2017, after his final season with the 49ers and once the protests had become a national flashpoint, critics claimed his skills had declined and that his career was already nearing its end.

That argument falls apart under even casual scrutiny. In 2016, his last season on the field, Kaepernick threw 16 touchdowns against only four interceptions in 12 starts, production that was stronger than several quarterbacks who continued to find jobs as backups for years afterward.

Consider his postseason record as well. Kaepernick played in six playoff games with the 49ers, throwing for 1,374 yards, seven touchdowns, five interceptions and recording a passer rating of 87.3. He also delivered a signature rushing performance of 181 yards against Green Bay that showcased his dual-threat capability. As a sports columnist, William C. Rhoden has argued, his continued exclusion from the NFL was never about a lack of skill. Instead, Kaepernick was effectively blackballed because his protest disrupted the comfort of fans and owners, turning him into a symbol of disloyalty rather than just another quarterback.

The NFL’s tribute to Kirk highlights how voices are treated differently depending on who is speaking and what message they convey.                                 

This moment is not happening in a vacuum. Sports have always been political spaces, particularly for Black athletes, whether leagues want to admit it or not. From Jackie Robinson’s integration into Major League Baseball, to Muhammad Ali’s refusal of the draft, to the raised fists of Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics, athletes have long used their platforms to push for justice. 

What makes the NFL’s selective stance so glaring is that it continues to claim neutrality while repeatedly showing it is not neutral at all.

The message sent to players and fans is unmistakable. Some politics are acceptable and even celebrated. Others will cost you your career. By honoring Kirk while continuing to distance itself from Kaepernick, the NFL has drawn a line that says advocacy for racial justice is unwelcome, but inflammatory right-wing rhetoric can be embraced.

In the end, politics in sports is not the issue. The real issue is whose politics are allowed to be heard and whose are silenced. The NFL’s decision to honor Charlie Kirk at the start of the season exposed that double standard once again. Until the league reckons with that contradiction, it will continue finding itself on the wrong side of moments like this.