NFL Uniforms: Control and Defiance

 “A uniform is more than just clothes – it’s a symbol of the team, the city, and the pride we carry every time we step on the field.” – Patrick Mahomes.

What Patrick Mahomes (current quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs) says in the quote above makes sense. When players wear their uniform, they become a part of something much bigger than themselves. But is it just as deep as representing a team, their city, their fans? Or does it have more layers? Layers that come with control and suppression of their representatives. 

Uniforms in the National Football League (NFL) can commonly be overlooked as standard functional athletic apparel that is used as an easy identifier for different opposing teams. However, when looking deeper into certain uniform campaigns and incidents where players were fined for straying from the NFL’s expectations, the uniforms of the NFL broadcasts unfair and even unnoticed oppression onto players, and furthermore, viewers as well. 

Dulling Down The Message 

Certain campaigns that the NFL has participated in, with uniforms being the visionary appeal, have gone through drastic changes over the years. In the early 2010s, the NFL started to promote breast cancer awareness through a uniform campaign mostly referred to as “pink out”. This is when, every game in October, players would wear monochromatic pink uniforms to both raise awareness and funds that went towards breast cancer only. In all, the campaign was heavily marketed as a unifying and empathetic social movement. However, around the 2016 NFL season, the NFL started to receive some backlash from critics about the “pink out” campaign, making claims that the campaign was more for the NFL to look good on a surface level, while not being inclusive to people struggling with the many different types of cancer. It was also revealed by critics at the time that very minimal amounts of revenue were actually being given to breast cancer charities. The majority of funds were being used to cover the costs of running the “pink out” campaign. 

The NFL “Pink Out” campaign would eventually evolve into a more educational, cancer-inclusive campaign known as “The Crucial Catch: Intercept Cancer” campaign. Instead of having direct visual attention drawers like pink uniforms, which were starting to be received as publicity rather than charity, it focuses on awareness for all types of cancer, and resources for education on identifying early signs of cancer. When looking at this shift, it can be argued that it was a direct result of the criticism the NFL was receiving. This caused the NFL to put a stop to the pink uniforms and remain more neutral and inclusive with their campaigns for social issues like cancer awareness, and to not have as loud a stance on social issues. On top of the NFL dulling down their uniform campaigns, they still find many other ways to continue pushing their own beliefs out to the public through their players' uniforms. 

Uniform Contract: NFL Control Over Player Attire

The actual contract that players of the NFL sign is located in Article 51: Miscellaneous, Section 2: Player Attire, in the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement. The player attire section of the contract is relatively small, only being broken down into three subsections (a,b, and c). 

Subsection (a) discusses the rule about cleats and gloves for players, stating:

“Neither the NFL nor any of the Clubs may have any rule prohibiting or limiting the type of footwear or gloves…wore by players on the field, except to the extent  such rules or limitations are based on safety…the NFL…may have any such rule relating solely to image considerations…[and] shall have the right to regulate any third party branding…worn by players on game days…minicamp(s)...training camp…and all practice session.” 

This will become an important rule when discussing incidents where players have been fined by the NFL for their uniforms. Subsection (b) talks about how players are required to wear their uniform on game day before kickoff and for an additional 90 minutes after each game has ended. In this subsection, it also states:

“...[players]...will be prohibited from wearing, displaying, or orally promoting equipment, apparel, or other items that carry commercial names or logos of companies…unless…approved in advance by the League office.”

Finally, subsection (c) basically just summarizes subsections (a) and (b), but all the way at the end, the last sentence states:

“...in Subsection (a)-(c) above shall not be used or referred to in any dispute between the parties over prohibition by the League…as expressly addressed in those Subsections." 

The last part of the uniform contract is vague and confusing due to the fact that the rules aren't very direct about what players could potentially violate.  Additionally, with the contract stating that if a disagreement over uniform rules does come up, the rules about the uniforms can not be referred to and used unless they specifically fit into the criteria from subsections (a) and (b). But the one deciding if the disagreement fits the criteria provided is the NFL itself. 

In all, the NFL has very discreet ways of imposing its dominant and manipulative uniform rules onto its players, which can go unnoticed to both the players and the fans. Another way that the NFL carefully showcases social messages through uniforms on the field, while simultaneously keeping control over the message being sent, is through two specific campaigns: the Inspire Change Helmet Decals and the My Cause My Cleats campaign. 

Controlling The Narrative Through Publicity Stunts

The Inspire Change Helmet Decals campaign was started in the 2021 season for awareness of social justice issues. Players were given a choice of 6 pre-approved social justice messages to place on the bottom of the back of their helmets. The messages consisted of the statements ”It Takes All of Us, End Racism, Inspire Change, Stop Hate, Say Their Names, and Black Lives Matter”. All six of the statements have a very significant meaning, addressing social justice issues. This can be a good thing to have broadcast for fans to see. But the pressing matter is that the NFL picked the messages, not the players. So again, the NFL is strictly managing what type of message they are making their player represent, and their fans observe. 

The last two statements are the most powerful (“Black Lives Matter” and “Say Their Names”). As stated before, this campaign started in 2021, at the same time when the Black Lives Matter movement was at its peak. So, for a campaign that is marketed as an inclusive social justice campaign, it focuses solely on one single minority when it has the opportunity to focus on social justice issues for all minorities. With this logic, this campaign is no different from the “pink out” campaign, and how it was argued to have just been promoted for publicity. The NFL sees socially acceptable issues that are getting a lot of media attention and pursues them without sending out a fully comprehensive sentiment about what the NFL is truly advocating for and supporting.

In addition, this year was the tenth season in which the campaign My Cause My Cleats occurred. According to the NFL, the campaign is run during games in Weeks 12 and 13 to creatively showcase important causes and non-profit organizations. The whole campaign is to allow players to express their commitment to causes that are important to them, with 100% of the proceeds going to the player's chosen cause. The NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, even stated: “Our players are passionate supporters of many charitable causes and serve as changemakers in their communities.” In theory, this campaign sounds like an amazing idea, having players of the NFL highlighted on the field with cleats that influence and highlight different social issues. But, similarly to the Inspire Change Helmet Decals campaign, the social issues that players pick have to be approved by the NFL, which opens up an area for control of a higher agenda to come into play again. 

Defiance On The Field

So far, all that has been discussed about control is the idea that a higher, more powerful agenda is forcefully pushing its beliefs onto an unknowing group (the players of the  NFL). But resistance to this idea can also clearly be seen by certain players of the NFL, who have broken uniform rules and made their own political and social statements. Players, including DeAngelo Williams, Brandon Marshall, and William Gay, all display acts of resistance against the NFL’s uniform rules. 

In late 2015, when DeAngelo Williams (at the time he was a Running Back for the Pittsburgh Steelers) put in a request to the NFL to wear pink all season to honor both his mother and aunt, who had passed away due to breast cancer. The NFL declined his request, but Williams still found a way to honor his mother and aunt. He dyed his hair pink, wore a pink breast cancer ribbon, and wrote on his eye black the statement, “We will find a cure.” This act of resistance got Williams a $5,787 fine for uniform violations. Even after the fine, Williams continued to dye his hair pink for breast cancer awareness, and even covered the cost for mammograms through a foundation he then started. 

Similarly, in October and December of 2013, Brandon Marshall (Receiver for the Chicago Bears) was fined for two separate uniform violations. The first fine was for wearing lime green cleats to promote Mental Health Awareness Week, for which he was fined $10,500. The second was for wearing orange cleats to again bring awareness to mental health, for which he was fined $15,000. After both fines, Marshall matched the $25,500 fines and donated that money to his mental health charity, stating: “Football is my platform, not my purpose." 

Lastly, very similar to Brandon Marshall and DeAngelo Williams, William Gay (Cornerback for the Pittsburgh Steelers) was fined by the NFL for a uniform violation in October of 2015. Gay wore purple cleats to bring awareness to domestic violence, due to his mother being killed by an act of domestic violence as a child. Gay was fined $5,787 for his uniform violation. 

All three of these players participated in acts of “cultural resistance”; they had a cause that they were passionate about and went against the NFL peacefully to broadcast their beliefs, knowing that what they were doing was breaking a contract that they had signed. This is what “cultural resistance” is about, knowing that suppression is being pushed onto another person and then being able to rise above that oppression through actions. 

Ban On Social Messages 

Uniforms are used by the NFL not to broadcast social, political, and racial issues, but are instead used as a way for the NFL to control and construct a certain narrative of what they want their corporation to represent. But when players of the NFL attempt to use their uniforms for personal expression, they face fines and disciplinary action. The NFL shows inconsistencies in the league’s approach to expression. The NFL claims to value unity and awareness, but it selectively restricts individual voices while amplifying corporate ones.

If the NFL is able to promote certain messages, its players should be held to the same standards. Players should be allowed to make their own political, social, and racial statements through their appearance on the field if the NFL is allowing certain uniform campaigns to promote the discussed issues. So, until the NFL acknowledges and allows players to showcase their own individual identities, resistance will, and should continue to challenge the legitimacy of its selective messaging practices.