@justanotherfan
I respectfully disagree. There are multiple factors taken into considerations when you want to hire some one to do a certain job and what he does on the field is by no means the only one.
As an employer I can tell you that when hiring someone you look at how qualified that person is for the job? how is that person going to represent your firm when he interfaces with clients? How is he going to get along with other employees? Is he going to get you more clients or lose you existing clients? and most importantly of all...is he going to make you or lose you money.
Obviously some positions, such as secretaries, are what we call overhead and are not expected to produce revenue. In football positions such as equipment managers, office personnel and the proverbial water boy do not make you money directly but are an integral part of a successful organizations. Players on the other hand are directly responsible for putting butts on seats since fans pay good money to see them perform; likewise, a player that causes fans to stay away is effectively causing a loss of income.
I don't care what the owners say, they are obviously constrained by political correctness and have to give the political correct answer. The bottom line is that owners see fans staying away if CK is hired and no responsible business person in his right mind would purposefully hire some one that will negatively affect the bottom line. In CK's case, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. If it was a Tom Brady or a Russel Wilson or an Aaron Rogers or a Cam Newton, I could see owners taking a chance, but for a marginal, on his way down QB, no way.
LeBron James famously said: "The first time I stepped on an NBA court, I became a businessman." For the players, football is a business not a cause and likewise, the owners are businessmen and they are not in it to lose money. There is plenty of evidence that CK caused the 49ers and the League at large to loose a great deal of money; they will not make that mistake again.
In my opinion, if CK would have made his statement on his own time and not at his employer's place of business and not being so antagonistic and alienating people, the result would have been quite different. Yes,the effect would have been smaller but which one is better? a large but mostly negative effect or a smaller but mostly positive effect? I would think that most unbiased observers would pick the second as the better outcome, I know I would.
