The NFL is NOT the employer. It is an entity, partially funded by public monies, who has decided to set rules to punish criminal offenses.
Of course they are the employer.
How is the NFL funded by public monies?
They are not punishing criminal offenses, they are punishing actions that are violation of their collectively bargained code of conduct.
Surely you can see the difference, even though some violations fit both criteria.
Teams can indeed have its own policies. However, a team is NOT free to have any set of rules it wishes. For example, if Hernandez been exonerated, the patriots would likely have lost a very large lawsuit. Owners are free to take those risks.
They are as free to have any rules they wish as any other employer.
Would your employer have fired Michael Vick, Hernandez, Rice, Hardy, Peterson, Stallworth?
That would be their decision and of course they can implement them as they see fit.
I strongly disagree with your idea that the NFL should exact major financial punishments on players with no clearly defined rules. I am not at all comfortable with the NFL and its teams deciding what actions outside the workplace are punishable by major financial penalties, without clear rules.
======================
It was collectively bargained. It's been clear for quite some time that the league will punish actions that harm its reputation. They certainly have every right to do that.
We are discussing financial consideration. SURELY, it is not the business of the NFL or the teams to be our arbiters of morality, and the punisher of improper action. We have legislatures and courts for that function.
This is where you are wrong. Morality is a part of virtually every employment contract in this country.
The league/teams have a right to employ whoever they want. Moral character is certianly an allowable criteria just as the ability to block or tackle is.
Once again, the courts determine LEGAL consequence. The league is not doing that.
Ban all felons and those convicted of child abuse or spousal abuse if you wish. Personally, I don't think that this is appropriate. Banning them, or depriving them of pay, without any civil conviction is simply wrong.
======================
Wouldn't you think that this is the decision of the employer who is paying those players millions of dollars? Why do they pay them millions of dollars? So they can make more millions. Its a business. If an employee costs a company money, they are gone. These players are damaging the ability of the NFL to make money, because CONSUMERS and advertisers are coming out and saying they do not want to support the team and league if those players are part of it.
If Hernandez got off on a technicality and the Patriots resigned him, do you not think that would damage the brand, and cost them money advertisers and fans?
You are arguing they would not have the right to not want that.
With regard to Peterson, I guess that the state of MINN who partially paid for the stadium can put moral conditions on its support of the team. Again, I think that this is poor politics and poor policy.
The state of Minnesota has no power in telling the Vikings what they can do. They can however, like advertisers and fans voice their opinion, and of course the team will take that into account, because public relations are vital to their financial success.
If this was the CEO of a major corporation, do you really think that he would still be employed?
