The Liberal Assault on the NFL

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 17, 2014 10:27:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't see what business a professional organization has in monitoring--let alone governing--its members' private lives. Disclaim the shameful behaviour, but "It's really not our concern how football players conduct their personal lives." is good enough for me.

That said, I agree with Dark that "Vice President for Social Responsibility" sounds like the title the tobacco companies give the guy who runs around to photo ops with hard workin' tobacco farmers.

Why anybody cares about a few football players with half of the world on fire around us is another mystery for the ages.

There's no real mystery.  The question almost answers itself.  Why would the media want to report on the imploding Obama Presidency, and his failed leadership at home and around the world when they can report on the NFL.

I keep waiting for all of this stuff to bottom out, for common sense to bubble to the surface and finally prevail- but it never does.  It just keeps dipping lower, and lower.  Maybe it'll take ISIS hijacking a school bus and throwing kids severed heads out the window as they travel down the road before Americans wake the fuck up to the real shit going on.  But then, maybe that wouldn't even do it.  Not with little Barry as President-- that would probably get blamed on the GOP controlled House somehow.

[mmhmm]

Sept 17, 2014 11:53:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

When I'm right...I'm right:

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/cory_booker_among_two_us_senators_seeking_to_yank_the_nfls_tax-exempt_status.html

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) wants to remove the NFL's tax-exempt status over the league's handling of players linked to domestic violence. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) reportedly wants the exemption gone due to another form of perceived inaction: the NFL's failure to force Washington to ditch the name "Redskins."

The league's 32 NFL clubs aren't exempt from taxes, although the league office operates as a non-profit under the federal tax code. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell could be the highest paid head of any non-profit in the U.S. as he took home $44.2 million in 2012, the most current figure available.

See, I told you so. 

From your link:

These two efforts aren't the first to seek the prevent sports leagues from claiming to be a 501(c)(6) organization. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has crusaded in the past to strip leagues of the loophole as has Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Those efforts, however, foundered.

You were saying ...

[973beachbum]

Sept 17, 2014 11:55:15 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't know the particulars in this case, but I do know that the situation is one of two cases: either 1) the football player(s) in question were not formally charged or otherwise did not meet the conditions of the morals clause, in which case the appropriate response by the NFL is to do nothing, or 2) the player(s) were formally charged or otherwise did meet the conditions of the morals clause, in which case the appropriate response by the NFL is to terminate employment in compliance with the clause.

I believe Peterson, the child beater, is under investigation and new charges that he also beat another son so hard he left marks have surfaced. So I guess the NFL would have to decide if they would suspend someone or let them keep playing if they are under investigation but not yet convicted of a felony.

I think Rice, the wife beater, got a misdemeanor and had to go to counseling - part of the stink is about how the local DA failed to prosecute this as a felony assault, I believe. If it is just a misdemeanor, and Rice can prove that the NFL failed to fire other NFL players for similar misdemeanors (and there have been other NFL players who were accused of wife beating but weren't caught on tape) he may be able to sue the NFL to get his job back.

I think part of the problem is the NFL doesn't have any cut and dried rules about what, in fact, is a violation of their morality clause. Your chance of getting canned by the NFL is probably directly related to the amount of shit storm your behavior causes in the media.

As far as rice and the charges being plea bargained down and going to pretrail intervention that is the standard for around here.  I live 8 feet down the street and I promise you that jail is so over crowded that they have periodic epidemics of TB. 

I want everyone to seriously think about that for a minute.  Being so over crowded that you get TB epidemics for the inmates is a big big health concern.  And that is for everyone, even if you think they got what they deserved, as eventually they are going to be let out to spread that TB to the rest of the population.

But my point still stands.  For the average Joe no one is going to find out that they got in a brawl at a casino over the weekend.  They are just going to pay their fines and keep their mouths shut until it is finished.  I could do something and my work wouldn't know unless I couldn't make bail in time to be at work the next day.  

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 11:58:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:53:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

When I'm right...I'm right:

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/cory_booker_among_two_us_senators_seeking_to_yank_the_nfls_tax-exempt_status.html

See, I told you so. 

From your link:

These two efforts aren't the first to seek the prevent sports leagues from claiming to be a 501(c)(6) organization. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has crusaded in the past to strip leagues of the loophole as has Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Those efforts, however, foundered.

You were saying ...

but....Obama.....

[mmhmm]

Sept 17, 2014 12:29:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:58:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

From your link:
You were saying ...

but....Obama.....

Exactly! Liberal conspiracy me arse! At least, folks should be reading their own material before putting it out here as an example that defies what they're suggesting! Sheesh!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 12:32:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 17, 2014 12:29:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but....Obama.....

Exactly! Liberal conspiracy me arse! At least, folks should be reading their own material before putting it out here as an example that defies what they're suggesting! Sheesh!

you know what is odd about this discussion?  liberals often get flack for falling victim to conspiracies (some of that is valid, some is not), and conservatives take great pains to point that out.  but here, the liberals and moderates are seeing this as an institutional norm, not any sort of conspiracy or "culture war", and at least some of our conservative friends are seeing this as an example of something more sinister. 

if you don't do something in a situation like this, you are not liberal or conservative.  you are STUPID.

[mmhmm]

I've found it to be true right along that liberals and conservatives both tend to fall for conspiracy theories. It just depends on which conspiracy theory is being propounded which group gets behind it. I don't think it has much to do with the person's politics (other than which conspiracy theory they embrace). I think it has a lot more to do with an inherent gullibility in the person coupled with a failure to research thoroughly and without pre-conceived bias.

[973beachbum]

And just so no one accuses me of going too far from politics, the Atlantic county prosecutor and the people who run the county jail are republicans.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 12:41:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've found it to be true right along that liberals and conservatives both tend to fall for conspiracy theories. It just depends on which conspiracy theory is being propounded which group gets behind it. I don't think it has much to do with the person's politics (other than which conspiracy theory they embrace). I think it has a lot more to do with an inherent gullibility in the person coupled with a failure to research thoroughly and without pre-conceived bias.

there is another factor, too- the outright "brazenness" of some of the lying.  the lies are so outrageous in some cases, that people believe them simply because of how outrageous they are.  Romney's claim about robbing medicare was a good example.  the press called him out for it repeatedly, all of the fact checkers rated it pants on fire, and yet he continued to make the assertion over and over again right up to Election Day.  red meat for the LIV's.

[mmhmm]

Sept 17, 2014 12:50:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 17, 2014 12:41:01 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've found it to be true right along that liberals and conservatives both tend to fall for conspiracy theories. It just depends on which conspiracy theory is being propounded which group gets behind it. I don't think it has much to do with the person's politics (other than which conspiracy theory they embrace). I think it has a lot more to do with an inherent gullibility in the person coupled with a failure to research thoroughly and without pre-conceived bias.

there is another factor, too- the outright "brazenness" of some of the lying.  the lies are so outrageous in some cases, that people believe them simply because of how outrageous they are.  Romney's claim about robbing medicare was a good example.  the press called him out for it repeatedly, all of the fact checkers rated it pants on fire, and yet he continued to make the assertion over and over again right up to Election Day.  red meat for the LIV's.

Yep. Seems to me there used to be an old saw about lying.  Something like, if you're going to do it - do it BIG! I guess it works on some people, but those are the folks who are too busy squawking to actually do some research.

[Phoenix84]

Sept 17, 2014 11:19:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:06:34 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

That professional organization is interested in the money it makes, Virgil. There's a whole, bloomin' lot of it! Their advertisers are up in arms over certain events and the NFL is concerned about loss of revenue. It's not about caring for the football players. It's about the golden green.

What exactly is the NFL supposed to do about it?

If they want to put a morals clause in the employment contract that states "You will be docked $X.00 in pay if you punch your spouse." and the clause holds legal muster, then by all means do so. Barring that, their relationship with a player starts and ends with the employment contract. It is neither their prerogative nor their responsibility to censure athletes for misconduct in their private lives. We have a system in place for that. It's called "the justice system".

And then this issue of the NFL "releasing video": why does the NFL even have video? At what point did they morph from an organization regulating a professional sport into a de facto news/surveillance agency with a duty to inform the public?

As an organization, their response to the masses demanding "social responsibility" should be that their sole social responsibility is--or ought to be--respecting the role and contractual limits of their relationship with the athletes.

Virgil, I agree that it's not really the NFL's responsibility to do anything other than enforce the employment contracts with the athletes and let the justice system handle criminal charges.

BUT I also recognize that we live in a world where public relations matter organizations need to appear "sensitive" to issues like domestic violence.  There are a cadre of so called "social justice warriors" out there who would interpret the NFL doing nothing as supporting domestic violence or "blaming the victim."  People like that will get "whipped up" and possibly not spend money that goes to the NFL.

And as DJ and mmhmm pointed out, the NFL is a business, and they want people to keep earning money by the boatloads.  They are doing this to try and smooth their PR image so people will not get pissed off and not spend as much money.

[happyhoix]

But my point still stands. For the average Joe no one is going to find out that they got in a brawl at a casino over the weekend. They are just going to pay their fines and keep their mouths shut until it is finished. I could do something and my work wouldn't know unless I couldn't make bail in time to be at work the next day.

I think it depends on the crime and how much publicity it gets. If it gets into the news, like our company pediphile did, that's pretty much a guarantee you'll get fired. It also depends on whether your job requires you to not have criminal convictions - our drivers can't have a serious driving accident or a DUI, and a couple times a year we do a DMV report check not only on our state but in all 50 states to see if they had a driving issue they didn't report. Same thing with a dirty drug screen - if a driver gets busted in a random drug test for an illegal drug, he's suspended right away. There are also some positions, like lawyers or doctors, who can be suspended by their profession if they engage in certain criminal activities. A lady at our church's husband tried to hire a hit man to kill her, and he got suspended from being able to practise at local hospitals, then kicked out of the medical association, so once he gets out of jail he'll have to find some other job to do. 

So I would say it depends on the crime and on your job. Certainly it might be possible for most average Joe's to cover up their arrest and keep their jobs, at least until they have to go to jail.
 

[Tennesseer]

Sept 17, 2014 11:58:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:53:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

When I'm right...I'm right:

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/cory_booker_among_two_us_senators_seeking_to_yank_the_nfls_tax-exempt_status.html

See, I told you so. 

From your link:

These two efforts aren't the first to seek the prevent sports leagues from claiming to be a 501(c)(6) organization. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has crusaded in the past to strip leagues of the loophole as has Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Those efforts, however, foundered.

You were saying ...

Oh Snap!

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 12:59:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:19:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What exactly is the NFL supposed to do about it?

If they want to put a morals clause in the employment contract that states "You will be docked $X.00 in pay if you punch your spouse." and the clause holds legal muster, then by all means do so. Barring that, their relationship with a player starts and ends with the employment contract. It is neither their prerogative nor their responsibility to censure athletes for misconduct in their private lives. We have a system in place for that. It's called "the justice system".

And then this issue of the NFL "releasing video": why does the NFL even have video? At what point did they morph from an organization regulating a professional sport into a de facto news/surveillance agency with a duty to inform the public?

As an organization, their response to the masses demanding "social responsibility" should be that their sole social responsibility is--or ought to be--respecting the role and contractual limits of their relationship with the athletes.

Virgil, I agree that it's not really the NFL's responsibility to do anything other than enforce the employment contracts with the athletes and let the justice system handle criminal charges.

BUT I also recognize that we live in a world where public relations matter organizations need to appear "sensitive" to issues like domestic violence.  There are a cadre of so called "social justice warriors" out there who would interpret the NFL doing nothing as supporting domestic violence or "blaming the victim."  People like that will get "whipped up" and possibly not spend money that goes to the NFL.

And as DJ and mmhmm pointed out, the NFL is a business, and they want people to keep earning money by the boatloads.  They are doing this to try and smooth their PR image so people will not get pissed off and not spend as much money.

conservatives like to pay lip service to "enlightened self interest", but they fail to recognize stuff like this as precisely that.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 17, 2014 15:12:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 17, 2014 12:59:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Virgil, I agree that it's not really the NFL's responsibility to do anything other than enforce the employment contracts with the athletes and let the justice system handle criminal charges.

BUT I also recognize that we live in a world where public relations matter organizations need to appear "sensitive" to issues like domestic violence.  There are a cadre of so called "social justice warriors" out there who would interpret the NFL doing nothing as supporting domestic violence or "blaming the victim."  People like that will get "whipped up" and possibly not spend money that goes to the NFL.

And as DJ and mmhmm pointed out, the NFL is a business, and they want people to keep earning money by the boatloads.  They are doing this to try and smooth their PR image so people will not get pissed off and not spend as much money.

conservatives like to pay lip service to "enlightened self interest", but they fail to recognize stuff like this as precisely that.

Good PR is necessary because of the politically charged atmosphere. That is driven by leftwing activists in media.

I recognize the NFL'S desire to appease the noisy left, the question for me us why are things this way, and wouldn't it be better for all of us if we ignored the mext supposed "outrage"?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 17:04:54 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 17, 2014 15:12:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

conservatives like to pay lip service to "enlightened self interest", but they fail to recognize stuff like this as precisely that.

Good PR is necessary because of the politically charged atmosphere. That is driven by leftwing activists in media.

LOL!

i wish i could use 7 point font here.  over 60% of all political commentary comes from conservatives.  fact.  this is based on column inches of press, and minutes on air.

edit: when the views of reporters are studied, rather than the party, it turns out that reporters are slightly right of the american middle.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 17, 2014 17:48:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 17, 2014 17:04:54 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Good PR is necessary because of the politically charged atmosphere. That is driven by leftwing activists in media.

LOL!

i wish i could use 7 point font here.  over 60% of all political commentary comes from conservatives.  fact.  this is based on column inches of press, and minutes on air.

edit: when the views of reporters are studied, rather than the party, it turns out that reporters are slightly right of the american middle.

I know, that's why adherents to liberalism- an ideology at war with nature- hates conservatism and especially talk radio.  I've read these stats, too-- usually in the context of rationalizing the "fairness doctrine" - expressly designed to shut conservatives up.  How really true is it?  Not sure.  Column inches of press and minutes on air don't carry the same weight as pre-K through college indoctrination.

[mmhmm]

Column inches of press and minutes on air don't carry the same weight as pre-K through college indoctrination.

In that case, why don't you go teach, paul? You seem to want to school all of us and most of us don't really feel the need to be schooled by you. Perhaps, when you catch 'em young, they'll be more interested in what you have to say, eh?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 18:50:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 17, 2014 17:48:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

LOL!

i wish i could use 7 point font here.  over 60% of all political commentary comes from conservatives.  fact.  this is based on column inches of press, and minutes on air.

edit: when the views of reporters are studied, rather than the party, it turns out that reporters are slightly right of the american middle.

I know, that's why adherents to liberalism- an ideology at war with nature- hates conservatism and especially talk radio. 

no, we hate talk radio because it is full of such loathing for liberals, science, and in many cases, fact.  what are we supposed to do, love it?  Jesus might want to love his enemies, but the best i have ever been able to manage is to understand them.

I've read these stats, too-- usually in the context of rationalizing the "fairness doctrine" - expressly designed to shut conservatives up. 

no it wasn't.  it was crafted during the Cold War to prevent hegemony of opinion.  it was designed to give liberals AND conservatives a voice, particularly in political races, in the interests of that quaint old idea we once called having an informed public- an idea that has literally been sold down the river by conservatives.  but of course, i understand why conservatives don't want any mechanism that requires equal time on the air.  it is much better to not have your ideas challenged by anyone, if you can manage it.

How really true is it?  Not sure.  Column inches of press and minutes on air don't carry the same weight as pre-K through college indoctrination.

LOL!

i will never master your skill for abandoning points and moving to new ones.  i guess i could point out that most conservatives got the same indoctrination as liberals, but i am guessing that you would probably say "that makes me wonder what things would look like if they got a conservative indoctrination", to which i would reply "not much different", to which i would probably get a little guy rolling on the ground laughing as a reply. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 17, 2014 18:57:30 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Column inches of press and minutes on air don't carry the same weight as pre-K through college indoctrination.

In that case, why don't you go teach, paul? You seem to want to school all of us and most of us don't really feel the need to be schooled by you. Perhaps, when you catch 'em young, they'll be more interested in what you have to say, eh?

my engineering school was pretty conservative.  sure, my philosophy and poli sci profs were raging lefties, but almost ALL of my core instructors weren't.  lots of them had military careers, many of them had worked for the defense industry.  they loved to tease us liberal students about it. 

[steff]

There's always good people mixed in with the bad.  it's why we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

a warm fuzzy, feel good, live saving NFL story....

www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/ravens-player-gives-up-career-to-donate-kidney-to-brother-a-former-steeler-091714

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 17, 2014 12:59:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:19:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What exactly is the NFL supposed to do about it?

If they want to put a morals clause in the employment contract that states "You will be docked $X.00 in pay if you punch your spouse." and the clause holds legal muster, then by all means do so. Barring that, their relationship with a player starts and ends with the employment contract. It is neither their prerogative nor their responsibility to censure athletes for misconduct in their private lives. We have a system in place for that. It's called "the justice system".

And then this issue of the NFL "releasing video": why does the NFL even have video? At what point did they morph from an organization regulating a professional sport into a de facto news/surveillance agency with a duty to inform the public?

As an organization, their response to the masses demanding "social responsibility" should be that their sole social responsibility is--or ought to be--respecting the role and contractual limits of their relationship with the athletes.

Virgil, I agree that it's not really the NFL's responsibility to do anything other than enforce the employment contracts with the athletes and let the justice system handle criminal charges.

BUT I also recognize that we live in a world where public relations matter organizations need to appear "sensitive" to issues like domestic violence.  There are a cadre of so called "social justice warriors" out there who would interpret the NFL doing nothing as supporting domestic violence or "blaming the victim."  People like that will get "whipped up" and possibly not spend money that goes to the NFL.

And as DJ and mmhmm pointed out, the NFL is a business, and they want people to keep earning money by the boatloads.  They are doing this to try and smooth their PR image so people will not get pissed off and not spend as much money.

So we now live in a society where Joe and Jane Q. Public consider it the responsibility of professional sports organizations to discourage athletes from beating their families, is what you're saying?

And not only do Joe and Jane believe this, they believe it so strongly that they'll boycott any sports organization that respects the contractual limits of its relationship with the players, in no small part to avoid wrongful dismissal lawsuits?

The lawyers must love this. Lawyers to prosecute the violent football players. Lawyers to defend them. Lawyers to demand "social responsibility" from an organization that has nothing to do with the crimes. Lawyers to draft the "social responsibility" policy to placate the previous group of lawyers. Lawyers to sue the organization for censuring or firing players under the pretense of social responsibility. Next week we'll probably have lawyers suing the lawyers suing the NFL.

[mmhmm]

Sept 17, 2014 20:32:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 17, 2014 12:59:48 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Virgil, I agree that it's not really the NFL's responsibility to do anything other than enforce the employment contracts with the athletes and let the justice system handle criminal charges.

BUT I also recognize that we live in a world where public relations matter organizations need to appear "sensitive" to issues like domestic violence.  There are a cadre of so called "social justice warriors" out there who would interpret the NFL doing nothing as supporting domestic violence or "blaming the victim."  People like that will get "whipped up" and possibly not spend money that goes to the NFL.

And as DJ and mmhmm pointed out, the NFL is a business, and they want people to keep earning money by the boatloads.  They are doing this to try and smooth their PR image so people will not get pissed off and not spend as much money.

So we now live in a society where Joe and Jane Q. Public consider it the responsibility of professional sports organizations to discourage athletes from beating their families, is what you're saying?

And not only do Joe and Jane believe this, they believe it so strongly that they'll boycott any sports organization that respects the contractual limits of its relationship with the players, in no small part to avoid wrongful dismissal lawsuits?

The lawyers must love this. Lawyers to prosecute the violent football players. Lawyers to defend them. Lawyers to demand "social responsibility" from an organization that has nothing to do with the crimes. Lawyers to draft the "social responsibility" policy to placate the previous group of lawyers. Lawyers to sue the organization for censuring or firing players under the pretense of social responsibility. Next week we'll probably have lawyers suing the lawyers suing the NFL.

Many times we don't know what Joe and Jane believe because the corporate entity reacts before they even find out. They don't want to take the chance that there will be enough incensed Joes and Janes to cause them problems.

[tallguy]

Sept 17, 2014 11:58:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 17, 2014 11:53:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

When I'm right...I'm right:

www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/09/cory_booker_among_two_us_senators_seeking_to_yank_the_nfls_tax-exempt_status.html

See, I told you so. 

From your link:

These two efforts aren't the first to seek the prevent sports leagues from claiming to be a 501(c)(6) organization. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has crusaded in the past to strip leagues of the loophole as has Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Those efforts, however, foundered.

You were saying ...

And even admitting that politicians from BOTH parties have gone after the NFL's tax-exempt status, that still only applies to the league office.  There are 32 teams that actually receive the overwhelming majority of the money that are not and have never been exempt from tax.  So:

When I'm right...I'm right

And when you're not, is...damn near always.

[steff]

So we now live in a society where Joe and Jane Q. Public consider it the responsibility of professional sports organizations to discourage athletes from beating their families, is what you're saying?

No, we don't expect them to have to discourage such acts.  We expect them to not accept them as a fair price to put a football "star" on the field to make the team & league & owners money.  We expect them to hold players to the same standard as anyone else & not treat them as untouchable because they generate money for the team & league & owners.  We expect them to make reasonable guidelines/penalties/consequences for criminal acts/violence against others off-field.  We expect them not to look the other way, sweep it under the carpet, pretend like it's not a big deal, and in other actions create a culture of athletes who believe they can get away with anything. 

[djAdvocate]

wherever you find money, you will find lawyers.  expect a lot of them, here.

[Phoenix84]

"So we now live in a society where Joe and Jane Q. Public consider it the responsibility of professional sports organizations to discourage athletes from beating their families, is what you're saying?

And not only do Joe and Jane believe this, they believe it so strongly that they'll boycott any sports organization that respects the contractual limits of its relationship with the players, in no small part to avoid wrongful dismissal lawsuits?

The lawyers must love this. Lawyers to prosecute the violent football players. Lawyers to defend them. Lawyers to demand "social responsibility" from an organization that has nothing to do with the crimes. Lawyers to draft the "social responsibility" policy to placate the previous group of lawyers. Lawyers to sue the organization for censuring or firing players under the pretense of social responsibility. Next week we'll probably have lawyers suing the lawyers suing the NFL."

Pretty much. It's basic public relations. The NFL wants to maintain a family friendly image and not risk alienating female fans. It's all about image and appearances.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 17, 2014 20:42:19 GMT -5 steff said:

So we now live in a society where Joe and Jane Q. Public consider it the responsibility of professional sports organizations to discourage athletes from beating their families, is what you're saying?

No, we don't expect them to have to discourage such acts.  We expect them to not accept them as a fair price to put a football "star" on the field to make the team & league & owners money.  We expect them to hold players to the same standard as anyone else & not treat them as untouchable because they generate money for the team & league & owners.  We expect them to make reasonable guidelines/penalties/consequences for criminal acts/violence against others off-field.  We expect them not to look the other way, sweep it under the carpet, pretend like it's not a big deal, and in other actions create a culture of athletes who believe they can get away with anything. 

Managing the private lives of athletes, punishing criminal behaviour, is not their responsibility. Nor is it their prerogative.

If the abuses are happening in their corporate offices or venues under their control, then they inherit a degree of responsibility. If they promote or encourage violence against women and children, or supply out-of-the-box defense lawyers to their athletes to quash criminal charges, then they inherit a degree of responsibility. If they have morals clauses in the employee contracts that are clearly being violated, then they inherit a degree of responsibility.

They are not responsible for athletes' private conduct by virtue of the fact that they employ the athletes. A football league's sole concern should be administrating the sport and business of football, and respecting the contractual limitations of its relationship with the athletes.

As for the athletes, if they do indeed "believe they can get away with anything", I submit that their belief stems from the fact that they make an absurd amount of money in a society where money goes a long way in determining how much an individual can get away with. Unfortunate as this is, it is not the responsibility of a professional sports organization (or any employer) to correct this failing of the justice system. How athletes spend their money and conduct their private lives is well beyond an employer's purview. In the same vein, if John von Movie Star is a coked-out drug addict or Jane Starlett is caught on tape hurling beer bottles at her husband, although a movie producer might think twice about hiring such actors for a blockbuster film, it is not his/her responsibility to monitor and manage actors' private lives. The producer has no social obligation, and indeed no contractual right, to do so.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 18, 2014 8:10:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 17, 2014 20:42:19 GMT -5 steff said:

No, we don't expect them to have to discourage such acts.  We expect them to not accept them as a fair price to put a football "star" on the field to make the team & league & owners money.  We expect them to hold players to the same standard as anyone else & not treat them as untouchable because they generate money for the team & league & owners.  We expect them to make reasonable guidelines/penalties/consequences for criminal acts/violence against others off-field.  We expect them not to look the other way, sweep it under the carpet, pretend like it's not a big deal, and in other actions create a culture of athletes who believe they can get away with anything. 

Managing the private lives of athletes, punishing criminal behaviour, is not their responsibility. Nor is it their prerogative.

If the abuses are happening in their corporate offices or venues under their control, then they inherit a degree of responsibility. If they promote or encourage violence against women and children, or supply out-of-the-box defense lawyers to their athletes to quash criminal charges, then they inherit a degree of responsibility. If they have morals clauses in the employee contracts that are clearly being violated, then they inherit a degree of responsibility.

They are not responsible for athletes' private conduct by virtue of the fact that they employ the athletes. A football league's sole concern should be administrating the sport and business of football, and respecting the contractual limitations of its relationship with the athletes.

As for the athletes, if they do indeed "believe they can get away with anything", I submit that their belief stems from the fact that they make an absurd amount of money in a society where money goes a long way in determining how much an individual can get away with. Unfortunate as this is, it is not the responsibility of a professional sports organization (or any employer) to correct this failing of the justice system. How athletes spend their money and conduct their private lives is well beyond an employer's purview. In the same vein, if John von Movie Star is a coked-out drug addict or Jane Starlett is caught on tape hurling beer bottles at her husband, although a movie producer might think twice about hiring such actors for a blockbuster film, it is not his/her responsibility to monitor and manage actors' private lives. The producer has no social obligation, and indeed no contractual right, to do so.

i have mixed feelings about the meddlesomeness.

on the one hand, it strikes me as utterly non-libertarian.  my private life is my business, and nobody else's.

on the other hand, these guys are, by virtue of their profession, PUBLIC FIGURES, subject to all of the scrutiny that entails.  moreover, unlike public officials, who MERELY have the public to contend with, these folks are subject to top-down authoritarian management, which has the right and the fiduciary responsibility to return value to investors in the league.  this invites a whole-other-level of intrusion.

i don't envy them.  i have some sympathy for them.  but when you sign up for the job, my feeling is that you sign up for the routine violation of privacy, as well.  hopefully the pay is worth it.  it would not be, for me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 18, 2014 8:33:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 18, 2014 8:10:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Managing the private lives of athletes, punishing criminal behaviour, is not their responsibility. Nor is it their prerogative.

If the abuses are happening in their corporate offices or venues under their control, then they inherit a degree of responsibility. If they promote or encourage violence against women and children, or supply out-of-the-box defense lawyers to their athletes to quash criminal charges, then they inherit a degree of responsibility. If they have morals clauses in the employee contracts that are clearly being violated, then they inherit a degree of responsibility.

They are not responsible for athletes' private conduct by virtue of the fact that they employ the athletes. A football league's sole concern should be administrating the sport and business of football, and respecting the contractual limitations of its relationship with the athletes.

As for the athletes, if they do indeed "believe they can get away with anything", I submit that their belief stems from the fact that they make an absurd amount of money in a society where money goes a long way in determining how much an individual can get away with. Unfortunate as this is, it is not the responsibility of a professional sports organization (or any employer) to correct this failing of the justice system. How athletes spend their money and conduct their private lives is well beyond an employer's purview. In the same vein, if John von Movie Star is a coked-out drug addict or Jane Starlett is caught on tape hurling beer bottles at her husband, although a movie producer might think twice about hiring such actors for a blockbuster film, it is not his/her responsibility to monitor and manage actors' private lives. The producer has no social obligation, and indeed no contractual right, to do so.

i have mixed feelings about the meddlesomeness.

on the one hand, it strikes me as utterly non-libertarian.  my private life is my business, and nobody else's.

on the other hand, these guys are, by virtue of their profession, PUBLIC FIGURES, subject to all of the scrutiny that entails.  moreover, unlike public officials, who MERELY have the public to contend with, these folks are subject to top-down authoritarian management, which has the right and the fiduciary responsibility to return value to investors in the league.  this invites a whole-other-level of intrusion.

i don't envy them.  i have some sympathy for them.  but when you sign up for the job, my feeling is that you sign up for the routine violation of privacy, as well.  hopefully the pay is worth it.  it would not be, for me.

I agree the business has a fiduciary responsibility to investors. It stands to reason that if canning football players for personal misconduct was in the NFL's financial interest, there wouldn't be so much hue and cry about social responsibility in addition to fiduciary responsibility.

My grievance is that public sentiment has basically turned an overreaching social responsibility into a fiduciary responsibility. The justice system won't extract the necessary pound of flesh from abusive players, hence let's make it the football league's responsibility--with the saddest part being that censuring or firing such players would almost certainly do nothing to curb rates of domestic violence.

I maintain that it is neither an employer's responsibility nor its prerogative to dispense justice or manage their employees lives beyond contractual terms, no matter how high profile the employees may be. If there are unforgivable acts totally inconsistent with the corporate doctrine, etc., codify them using morals clauses in the employment contract with specific penalties and enforce the contract. Aside from that, butt out. Your social responsibility is to mind your own business.

Well complicating matters is the issue of sports heroes as role models. While the NFL is no way contractually or legally required to deal with this, it is a consideration because it potentially effects their perception and likeability by the public at large. Efforts have been made over the past few years to take pro athletes off the pedestal we have put them on, which is a good thing. However it is still a profession whose popularity is at least partially due to adulation and emulation by youth.

I've never really understood the emphasis of athletes as role models either.

Even taking that into account, what is the role being modeled? The athlete's personal life, or his/her exemplary performance, good sportsmanship, and charitable works? Are kids attuned to athletes' personal baggage, or are they just interested in the strong, fast, cool sports guys who believed in a dream, worked hard, and stayed in school?