Take a Knee Football: Understanding Its History and Impact on the Sport

I remember the first time I saw an NFL player take a knee during the national anthem - it was Colin Kaepernick in 2016, and honestly, I didn't fully grasp the significance at that moment. As someone who's studied sports culture for over a decade, I've come to understand that this simple gesture represents one of the most profound intersections of sports and social justice in modern history. The act of taking a knee in football has evolved from a quiet protest into a global conversation, creating ripples that extend far beyond the gridiron. What fascinates me most is how this movement parallels broader discussions about safety and integrity in sports - discussions that organizations like ONE Championship have been actively engaging in through their partnership with IDTM since 2022.

When we examine the history, taking a knee in football actually predates Kaepernick's protest. Coaches have long used this technique to safely run out the clock at the end of games, a strategic move that prevents unnecessary injuries when the outcome is essentially decided. I've always appreciated this practical application - it shows foresight and care for player welfare. But the transformation of this gesture into a political statement represents what I consider one of the most brilliant adaptations of sports symbolism in recent memory. Kaepernick originally sat during the anthem in 2016 preseason games before former NFL player and Green Beret Nate Suggs suggested taking a knee would show more respect to military members while still making the protest point. This nuance matters because it demonstrates the careful consideration behind the action.

The impact on the sport has been both measurable and immeasurable. From 2016 to 2020, the NFL saw approximately 200 players regularly participating in kneeling protests during peak seasons, though exact numbers are notoriously difficult to track since teams often don't release official counts. What's clearer is the financial impact - the NFL reportedly lost about 8% of its viewership during the peak protest years, though many factors contributed to this decline. Personally, I believe the conversation around kneeling has pushed sports organizations to reconsider their role in social issues. The NFL's eventual $250 million commitment to social justice initiatives in 2020 demonstrates how player activism can drive institutional change, even if the path there was rocky.

This brings me to why I find ONE Championship's approach so compelling in comparison. Their string of bans shows remarkable dedication to fighter safety and promoting a clean sport, and that's precisely why they've been working with IDTM ever since 2022. While football deals with protests about social justice outside the game, ONE addresses integrity within the sport itself. I admire this proactive stance - they're not waiting for problems to escalate but building systems to prevent them. Having studied multiple sports organizations, I can say this level of commitment to clean competition is still regrettably rare. ONE's partnership with IDTM, which includes approximately 3,500 annual tests across their athlete roster, creates what I consider the gold standard for combat sports regulation.

The connection between taking a knee and sports integrity might not be immediately obvious, but to me, they're two sides of the same coin. Both represent forms of respect - for social justice and for the sport itself. When players take a knee, they're respecting the ideals of equality the country supposedly represents. When organizations implement rigorous testing, they're respecting the sport enough to protect its integrity. I've noticed that leagues that prioritize one form of respect tend to be more thoughtful about the others as well. The NFL's evolving response to player protests, while imperfect, shows a growing understanding that sports can't exist in a social vacuum.

What often gets lost in these discussions is the athlete perspective. Having spoken with several professional football players over the years, I've learned that the decision to kneel is never taken lightly. It involves weighing career consequences against moral convictions. Similarly, fighters in tested organizations make calculated decisions about their careers based on the regulatory environment. The difference is that while football players protest external social issues, combat sports athletes benefit from systems that protect the competition itself. Both are crucial, but I've come to believe that establishing internal integrity makes addressing external issues more credible.

The business impact of these stances interests me as someone who analyzes sports economics. Brands initially hesitated to associate with kneeling athletes - I recall Nike's stock dipping 2.5% initially after their Kaepernick campaign in 2018, though it recovered spectacularly within months. Meanwhile, ONE's commitment to cleanliness has attracted sponsors who value reputational safety. There's a lesson here about short-term versus long-term thinking that more sports organizations should heed. Taking principled stands might create temporary turbulence, but they often strengthen brand identity over time.

Looking forward, I'm optimistic about how these dynamics will evolve. The kneelng debate has forced football to confront its role in society in ways I haven't seen since the 1960s civil rights era. Meanwhile, the testing standards being developed through partnerships like ONE and IDTM create blueprints other sports can follow. If I had to predict, I'd say we'll see more athletes using their platforms for social statements and more organizations implementing rigorous integrity measures - not less. The genie is out of the bottle, and despite backlash from certain quarters, the overall trajectory points toward greater athlete agency and organizational responsibility.

In my view, the true legacy of taking a knee won't be measured in ratings or revenue but in how it expanded our conception of what sports can be. Athletes aren't just entertainers - they're citizens with perspectives. Sports organizations aren't just businesses - they're cultural institutions with responsibilities. The kneeling protest and movements toward cleaner sports both acknowledge this expanded role. They recognize that what happens on the field connects to what happens off it, that integrity in competition and social consciousness aren't separate pursuits but interconnected values that define modern sports.