Looks like its very clear they can only do what the owners ie their employers allow.
The players are still playing, though, aren't they? Sure, employers can mandate what they wear and what they do while the players are at work. The Constitution does not take away the employer's right to hire and fire for cause. So far, the teams have penalized players with fines, etc., and Kaep hasn't found a job.
The players' are exercising their rights as American citizens, and their employers can punish them for their actions. There's no contradiction. Of course, if the players held up their fists, or wore black arm bands, or did anything else to protest what they're protesting, the outcry of '''they're being unpatriotic" would be sounded. It always has.
It's interesting that people argue that the Second Amendment gives them the right to bear arms. And people get upset when people are fired for making inappropriate remarks or actions to co-workers.
Can you explain how the president is "trying to infringe upon their rights and get them fired."
The president has called them sons of bitches, suggested that they should be fired, and threatened to find ways to hurt the NFL if the league doesn't stop the players from protesting. He threatened to change the tax laws that benefit the league. He backed off, but it was a governmental threat that amounts to coercion. Worse, it's coercion to fake patriotism. If they stand, but don't mean it, it's only a show.
And, I know that some would say that the president has "Freedom of speech" so he can say what he wants. Of course, using the same argument, the Constitution does not give him that right. The Constitution just says that the government can't infringe upon him. His employers, however, can hire and fire him. Right?
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."