[void_mint]

> The amount of "celebrity" someone has directly effects how much attention their statements will get, and thus the impact of those statements.

Or behave in a way in which nobody would purchase their products, which their role as CEO defines as one of their highest priorities.

Quarterbacks play football well.

Are you seeing how this is a silly comparison?

[tablespoon]

> Are you seeing how this is a silly comparison?

I'll try this one last time.

Quarterbacks aren't anonymous guys who throw a ball around. They're celebrities with a direct connection to the brand of the team they play for, and fans are familiar with whatever they do during a game. If they get involved in some controversy, it affects that brand.

It's a certainty that a greater proportion of football customers (fans) watch games than game studio customers subscribe to CEO tweets or attend to something that will bring them to their attention. That's because watching football games is more integral to being a football customer than paying attention to twitter is to pretty much anything.

Also, IIRC Kaepernick was booed on many occasions during his protests.

If a CEO's controversial personal political tweets can affect revenue to the point he should be fired, a QB's in-game controversial political statements can too.

[void_mint]

I'll try this one last time.

> Quarterbacks aren't anonymous guys who throw a ball around. They're celebrities with a direct connection to the brand of the team they play for, and fans are familiar with whatever they do during a game. If they get involved in some controversy, it affects that brand.

Quarterbacks are employed to play football. CEOs are employed to run companies. If you can't see this, you're either intentionally being obtuse or aren't capable of having this type of conversation.

> If a CEO's controversial personal political tweets can affect revenue to the point he should be fired, a QB's in-game controversial political statements can too.

I'm not sure what point you're making. He was fired. He was actually cancelled, in that the people that disagreed with him prevented him from ever getting future work, which is unlike the Tripwire CEO, who will land somewhere else just fine. Employers are within their rights to fire whoever they want. The difference is, again, the purpose for which that employee was employed in the first place. Firing your plumber because of their facebook posts may be unnecessary. Firing a spokesman for damaging your brand is not.

Again, if you can't see this, you're either intentionally being obtuse or aren't capable of having this type of conversation. Either way this'll be the last exchange we have on this topic. Have an excellent day.