Go back and please read what I said. I'm not going to provide something on behalf of the strawman you're creating.
I stated that a representative of the Government (Donald Trump) implied punative government action could/should be taken (revoking certain tax breaks that benefit the NFL) against a private enterprise (The NFL) because of the speech and protests ("disrespecting our anthem") of that enterprises employees (the players).
As one of his responses to the protests, Trump tweeted out "Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!"
(SOURCE).
He is perfectly free to criticize the protests all he wants; while I may dislike his twitter tirades and childish antics, he's still a citizen with free speech even as the President. However,
AS the President, he is part of the government apparatus and is still subject to the restrictions that come on it. Threatening tax consequences upon the NFL due to the speech/protest of their employees is a gross overstepping on the part of the government as it relates to the first amendment. It is utilizing the power of the government to pressure a private business to do what it wants under threat of punishment.
You're right, it is always about money; and part of what impacts money is the leagues anti-trust exemption and various realities within the tax code that allow for them to operate in the fashion they do. Their money was threatened by the President of the United States because of the speech of their employees. That should be chilling to anyone who cares about the Constitution REGARDLESS of your personal stance on the issue of the protests.