A wise man once said that archaeologists of the future will eventually unearth one of our massive football stadiums, turn to their colleagues and say, “This is where they worshipped!”

If worship is gauged by a society’s priorities, this would be a fair assumption. Many stadiums hold more people than the population of some towns. Portions of cities are shut down for the day when the area’s favorite team is hitting the field. Beer and soda flow like well water and the equivalent of a feudal lord’s whole herd is grilled up to stock concession stands and the backs of pickup trucks. Football games are huge events, and such undertakings require men and women in uniform to restrain the excesses of celebration. Numerous cities across the U.S. claim they can’t hire (or afford) enough cops to address rising crime rates, but it’s rare to see a situation where a local sports team doesn’t get the cops they need to host a game on the gridiron.

The Las Vegas Raiders, though, came pretty close. It all started with, ironically enough, a new security plan. The powers that be at the National Football League decided that they would up their proverbial game (on entry management) by partnering with a company called Wicket. Wicket’s product scans people’s faces, helping to confirm their identity before they can enter specific areas, such as the locker rooms and press box. Under the old arrangement, personnel were simply issued a wristband that they displayed when they needed to enter restricted areas. Under the new, high-tech arrangement, a previously submitted photo of themselves would be compared to a scan of their face to enter one of these areas.    

The Las Vegas Police Protective Association (LVPPA), though, pushed back against the new system upon learning that officers would be required to provide their photographs, fingerprints and next-of-kin information before working security details at NFL games at Allegiant Stadium. The main objection was having their biometric data in a system that could risk public disclosure. 

The LVPPA sent a video to its members highlighting a passage in the new security policy that required participants to consent to the “collection, use, retention and disclosure of biometric data by and among members of the NFL family and their credentialing vendors.”

“I’m sure if you’re like me, you don’t want to have biometric data in the hands of people that you don’t know,” LVPPA President Steve Grammas said in the video. 

While that concern may sound a bit conspiratorial, it is (unfortunately) not. It’s not unheard of for anti-police groups or individuals to post an officer’s personal information online while encouraging people to go harass them. This often happens as the result of high-profile use-of-force incidents, well before investigations have been completed or actual facts about the incidents are even available. 

The union announced that its members would not consent to the use of their biometric data, calling the new measures unnecessary and intrusive. In media interviews, Grammas underscored the safety concerns, pointing out that the data could be used by those who would “target and harass officers just for doing their job.” The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Sheriff Kevin McMahill released statements backing the LVPPA’s stance. 

As the disagreement went on, the police union held their ground. Just hours before the Raiders’ August 23 preseason game against the San Francisco 49ers, LVPPA leaders met with NFL security officials and confirmed that their officers would continue to use wristbands to gain entry to restricted areas, at least for now. 

“They didn’t like it, but they didn’t have a choice,” Grammas told the Associated Press. “We told them what we were going to do.”

Since the NFL is deploying the new face authentication system at all 30 of its stadiums this season, this issue could be taken up by other law enforcement groups nationwide. Grammas informed KSNV News that police departments in other cities with NFL teams, including Houston and Denver, were closely following the NFL’s response to the LVPPA’s refusal to agree to the demand for biometrics.