Los Angeles Rams wide receiver Puka Nacua issued a public apology after backlash over a gesture he performed on a livestream, acknowledging the seriousness of the moment. In his statement, Nacua admitted the gesture was “anti-Semitic in nature,” said he “did not know the meaning at the time,” and stressed that he “does not stand for racism or hate.” Those admissions, paired with video evidence, are central to what could come next.
Advertisement
California attorney Nicholas J. Brooks broke down the legal reality, explaining that discipline flows through the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy and team-level “conduct detrimental” clauses. “When your employer publicly calls something anti-Semitic and derogatory, it fits squarely into the conduct detrimental to the integrity of the NFL bucket,” Brooks said, adding that the policy is intentionally broad. In his words, “All NFL personnel must avoid conduct that…undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, and discipline does not require a criminal conviction.”
Brooks emphasized that both the National Football League and the Rams have already characterized the act as offensive, which matters legally. “Those admissions and the video itself are the evidence any league decisionmaker looks at,” he said. That framing gives the commissioner discretion to investigate and impose punishment ranging from fines to suspensions.
To illustrate precedent, Brooks pointed to a past anti-Semitism case involving Deshaun Watson—often cited in discussions like this—where the team disciplined the player with what was “widely understood as a substantial fine plus mandatory education, even without a public suspension.” The takeaway, Brooks noted, is that team action and league action are separate tracks that can both apply.
So what are the realistic consequences Nacua could face? Brooks outlined three main options. “Options include fines, mandatory anti-Semitism education, and community work,” he said, along with internal conditions tied to remaining with the team. At the league level, there is also “a possible suspension if the commissioner views this conduct as materially harmful to the NFL’s reputation.”
Even if Nacua avoids missing games, Brooks cautioned the impact doesn’t end there. “This incident becomes part of his conduct history, and repeat violations are treated more harshly under the policy,” he explained. It can also affect future contracts: teams may cite brand risk to “adjust guarantees, bonus language, or moral clauses accordingly.”
Bottom line, as Brooks put it: “The question is not can they act, but how hard they choose to hit.”
