Stand Respectfully: Megan Rapinoe, Anthem Protest and U.S. Soccer's Policy 604-1

Timeline

1. 4 Sep 2016Rapinoe kneels during the anthem before Seattle Reign's match in Chicago.
2. 7 Sep 2016The Washington Spirit plays the anthem early with players in the locker rooms; Seattle Reign backs Rapinoe.
3. 15 Sep 2016Rapinoe kneels in a U.S. uniform before a friendly against Thailand; U.S. Soccer says it expects players to stand.
4. 9 Feb 2017U.S. Soccer approves Policy 604-1 requiring national team representatives to stand.
5. 2017Rapinoe says she will respect the new rule.
6. 9 Jun 2020After calls from the Athlete Council and players' associations, the board repeals Policy 604-1.
7. 10 Jun 2020U.S. Soccer says the policy 'was wrong' and apologizes, especially to Black players.
8. Feb 2021Several USWNT players kneel during the anthem at the SheBelieves Cup.
9. 21 Jul 2021The USWNT and four other Olympic teams take a knee before kickoff, after the anthem.

The ethical issues

• Whether a national federation may compel conduct during the anthem.
• Freedom of expression for athletes representing their country.
• Club and federation control over pre-match ceremonies.
• Selection decisions and the perception of punishment for protest.
• Institutional apology and accountability for past policy.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Megan Rapinoe and national team players	Expression, conscience and selection on merit.
Black players and communities	Recognition of racial injustice and support for protest.
U.S. Soccer	National representation, sponsors, reputation and unity.
NWSL clubs	Control of their events and relations with fans.
Fans, including veterans	Differing views of the anthem's meaning.
Players' associations and Athlete Council	Protecting players' rights and voice.

The case

In September 2016 Megan Rapinoe, a World Cup winner with the United States, knelt during the national anthem before a National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) match. She said it was “a little nod” to NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who had refused to stand to protest racial injustice.^[3] Within days, one NWSL club played the anthem early so she could not kneel. After she knelt again in a U.S. uniform, the national federation wrote a rule requiring players to stand. Three and a half years later the same federation repealed the rule, said it had been wrong and apologized. This case asks whether a sports federation may require patriotic conduct from the players who represent it.

Background

Rapinoe first knelt on 4 September 2016, before her club Seattle Reign’s match against the Chicago Red Stars.^[1] She explained: “Being a gay American, I know what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties.” She called it “something small that I could do,” and said “it’s important to have white people stand in support of people of color on this.”^[3]

Three days later Seattle were due to play the Washington Spirit in Maryland. The Spirit moved its pre-game ceremonies so the anthem played while both teams were in the locker rooms.^[3] The club said it acted “rather than subject our fans and friends to the disrespect we feel such an act would represent.” It respected “every individual’s right to express themselves” but disagreed “with her method of hijacking our organization’s event to draw attention to what is ultimately a personal — albeit worthy — cause.”^[3] Rapinoe called the move “really disappointing and disrespectful,” adding that the club “didn’t even give both teams a chance to even stand in front of it and show their respects.”^[3]

Seattle Reign took a different approach. It said Rapinoe’s act “was offensive to some and a source of inspiration to others.” It said it would continue to encourage players to take part in the pre-match ceremony and to allow them to do so “in a manner consistent with their personal beliefs.”^[3][1] A Guardian commentator noted that the Spirit’s own supporters cheered Rapinoe when she entered the game, and called the owner’s decision a misreading of the fan base.^[4]

What happened

On 15 September 2016 Rapinoe knelt in a U.S. uniform before a friendly against Thailand.^[2] U.S. Soccer responded immediately: “As part of the privilege to represent your country, we have an expectation that our players and coaches will stand and honor our flag while the National Anthem is played.”^[2] Rapinoe, then still recovering from a knee injury, was not selected for the final three U.S. matches of 2016 or the first three of 2017. One outlet noted that she was “notably available and active” at the time.^[2]

On 9 February 2017 U.S. Soccer approved Policy 604-1: “All persons representing a Federation national team shall stand respectfully during the playing of national anthems at any event in which the Federation is represented.”^[1] Rapinoe said through her agent: “I will respect the new bylaw the leadership at USSF has put forward. That said, I believe we should always value the use of our voice and platform to fight for equality of every kind.”^[1]

The rules and governance

Policy 604-1 applied only to national team representatives, not to NWSL club matches, where each club decided how to stage its ceremonies.^[1][3] The policy was a federation rule rather than a law, and its enforcement mechanism was the federation’s control over national team selection and representation.

In June 2020, after the murder of George Floyd and a new wave of athlete activism, the U.S. Soccer Athlete Council and the national teams’ players’ associations called for repeal and an apology.^[1][2] On 9 June the board voted to repeal the policy in executive session, and a spokesman would not say whether the vote was unanimous.^[5] The federation’s statement said: “It has become clear that this policy was wrong and detracted from the important message of Black Lives Matter.” It continued: “We apologize to our players – especially our Black players – staff, fans, and all who support eradicating racism.” Going forward, it said, it would be “up to our players to determine how they can best use their platforms.”^[2] The repeal came under different leadership from that which adopted the policy.^[5]

Aftermath

Players used the new freedom. Several U.S. women’s players knelt during the anthem at the SheBelieves Cup in February 2021.^[6] At the Tokyo Olympics on 21 July 2021, the U.S., Sweden and three other teams took a knee before kickoff, though not during the anthem, under International Olympic Committee rules that allowed expression on the field before competition.^[6] Images of those protests were then misused online, showing how contested such gestures remain.^[6]

The core dilemma

When an athlete wears a national uniform, is a federation entitled to require a particular form of respect for the anthem? Or does representing the country include the right to protest what the country does?

Competing values

Freedom of expression and conscience sit against institutional unity and the federation’s interest in how the national team presents itself. Respect is claimed by both sides: the Spirit saw kneeling as disrespect, while Rapinoe saw it as a call for the flag to protect everyone. Fairness also matters. A rule adopted in direct response to one player’s protest raises questions about neutrality and selection.

Strongest arguments

For the policy: A national team represents the whole country, including fans who view the anthem as a tribute to service and sacrifice. Federations set dress codes and conduct rules, and pre-match ceremonies are part of the event. Players are free to speak in many other ways.^[3]

Against the policy: Kneeling is silent and peaceful. Rapinoe said it was meant to ask whether the flag protects everyone in the same way.^[1][3] A rule written in reaction to one player’s protest targets a viewpoint, not a behavior. The federation itself later concluded the policy “was wrong.”^[2]

Applying the frameworks

Rights

A rights perspective stresses the athlete’s freedom of conscience and expression. A federation is not a government, so constitutional free-speech protections may not apply directly. A rights view still asks whether players’ moral standing to dissent survives their selection. Compelling a gesture of respect can be seen as a greater intrusion than restricting speech.

Kantian ethics

Kant would ask whether the policy could be universalized and whether it treats players as ends. A rule that everyone must perform a gesture they consider insincere uses players as instruments of an image. Kantian ethics would also ask whether Rapinoe’s protest was principled: she acted openly and accepted consequences, including complying with the rule once it existed.^[1]

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics looks at character. Courage and integrity are relevant to Rapinoe’s choice. For the institutions, practical wisdom and humility matter. The Spirit’s decision was criticized as clumsy.^[4] The federation’s 2020 apology can be read as a virtuous acknowledgment of error, or as a reaction to changed public opinion.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. What are the facts? Rapinoe knelt with her club and the national team; the Spirit moved its anthem; U.S. Soccer adopted Policy 604-1 in 2017 and repealed it in 2020 with an apology.^[1][2][3]
2. Who are the stakeholders? Players, especially Black players; Rapinoe; U.S. Soccer; NWSL clubs; fans with differing views; players’ associations.
3. What are the options? Require standing; allow any peaceful gesture; set neutral time-and-place rules for all expression; or leave it to each team.
4. Which values are in conflict? Expression and conscience against unity, tradition and event control.
5. What do the frameworks suggest? Rights and Kantian reasoning are skeptical of compelled gestures; virtue ethics emphasizes humility and courage on both sides.
6. What would you decide and why? Decide as a federation board member in 2017. Then ask whether your answer would have been the same in 2020.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: The sequence of protests and policies, the text of Policy 604-1 and the federation’s 2020 statement that the policy was wrong.^[1][2]

Contested: Whether Rapinoe’s omission from national team matches in late 2016 and early 2017 was related to the protest; whether the 2020 repeal reflected conviction or changing public mood; and what respect for the anthem requires.^[2][5]

Why this case matters

This case is a companion to Colin Kaepernick’s protest and collusion grievance, showing how a federation, rather than a league, handled the same protest. It also connects to the USWNT equal pay lawsuit, in which many of the same players challenged the federation. It raises a question every governing body faces: how far can representation be made conditional on a particular expression of loyalty?

Key terms

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Multiple points of view

Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.

Codes and guardrails

Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Integrity

A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Was the Washington Spirit's decision to play the anthem early respectful or controlling?
2. Should players in a national uniform have less freedom of expression than club players?
3. Does it matter that Policy 604-1 was adopted in response to one player?
4. Was U.S. Soccer's 2020 apology adequate?
5. Where should the line be between protest and disruption of an event?

Sources

1. U.S. Soccer Lifts Anthem Kneeling Ban — Seattle Reign FC
2. U.S. Soccer repeals 'anthem policy,' apologizes to Black community — Equalizer Soccer
3. Washington Spirit move anthem to avoid Megan Rapinoe 'hijacking' — The Guardian (Associated Press)
4. Washington Spirit gave Megan Rapinoe fans by stopping her anthem protest — The Guardian
5. U.S. Soccer repeals policy requiring players to stand during anthem — NBC Sports
6. It's not true that the women's U.S. soccer team kneeled during the national anthem at the Olympics — PolitiFact