Richard Sherman and Doug Baldwin mock NFL media policies and procedures

[IndianPat]

There are times when NFL policies are hypocritical. It is a good day when its minority stakeholders (the players, coaches, the media and of course, its fans) take a stand on these policies. Yes, sometimes you have to bite the hand that feeds you, especially when the hand is feeding you s**t, like asking the players to play 2 games in 5 days.

 

[primetime]

His salary comes from Paul Allen, Seahawks owner. The Seahawks play in the NFL. Without the NFL, there are no Seahawks and Richard Sherman doesn't get to criticise the industry that is going to make him a wealthy man.

Feel free to stand up against the big bad NFL if you like. I on the other hand, despite my acknowledgement of corporate greed, understand how the world operates. Evidently, Sherman has no problem mocking the industry that is feeding him.

So yes, Sherman is biting the hand that feeds him in the pursuit of media time.

This is so incredibly bizarre.

Let's extend this logic. If sports media followed your completely insane rules of conduct and refused critique of any part of the product, the only writer would be Peter King.

The players definitely shouldn't sign a collective bargaining agreement, either. Just biting the hand that feeds.

 

[ausbacker]

This is so incredibly stupid.

Let's extend this logic. If sports media followed your completely insane rules of conduct, the only writer would be Peter King.

Rather than make a blanket statement as such, please provide the appropriate reasoning to demonstrate your own position or to counter the forwarded position.

At this point, your reasoning isn't sound enough.

Further to the point, I'll ask you a simple question. Is a journalist as important to the NFL as a player?

 

[primetime]

Rather than make a blanket statement as such, please provide the appropriate reasoning to demonstrate your own position or to counter the forwarded position.

At this point, your reasoning isn't sound enough.

Your forwarded position is just nonsensical mental diarrhea, but let me boil it down to the basics: Without the NFL, Richard Sherman and fellow players wouldn't have jobs, ergo they should just shut up and take what the league gives them.

If the league didn't exist, football writers wouldn't have a job either. By your logic, anyone whose job depends on the existence of football should be rallying around the shield.

 

[ausbacker]

Your forwarded position is just nonsensical mental diarrhea, but let me boil it down to the basics: Without the NFL, Richard Sherman and fellow players wouldn't have jobs, ergo they should just shut up and take what the league gives them.

If the league didn't exist, football writers wouldn't have a job either. By your logic, anyone whose job depends on the existence of football should be rallying around the shield.

No, that's not the position I put forward and you're purposely misrepresenting it because you don't appear to have a counterargument to what I have put forward.

Here's the answer to my question. The NFL can exist without journalists, it can't exist without players.

 

[primetime]

No, that's not the position I put forward and you're purposely misrepresenting it because you don't appear to have a counterargument to what I have put forward.

Here's the answer to my question. The NFL can exist without journalists, it can't exist without players.

So your point is that Richard Sherman is biting the hand that feeds him. However, the hand that feeds him wouldn't be able to feed him... without him. Ergo, Richard Sherman shouldn't "bite the hand that feeds him" because... well, not really clear on that.

Got it. Sure makes a lot of sense, ausbacker.

 

[ausbacker]

So your point is that Richard Sherman is biting the hand that feeds him. However, the hand that feeds him wouldn't be able to feed him... without him.

Got it. Sure makes a lot of sense, ausbacker.

If that's what you believe @primetime, despite it being pointed out to you that your inference is incorrect, that is your prerogative.

 

[primetime]

If that's what you believe @primetime, despite it being pointed out to you that your inference is incorrect, that is your prerogative.

You keep telling me I'm reading it wrong but can't seem to explain why, other than saying that players are more important than journalists - which is only true depending on what player or journalist we're talking about - Skip Bayless for instance matters magnitudes more to the league than Brandon Bolden, but somewhat less than Richard Sherman... maybe. Journalists are around much longer than players.

If Skip Bayless said Thursday games were bull, would you shout him down for biting the hand that feeds?

 

[mosi's man]

It may be biting the hand that feeds him (it was), but what Sherman said/did wasn't hypocritical. Sherman pointed out that the NFL is hypocritical in two ways: first, it takes huge money from the alcohol industry while recommending to individual players not to endorse it's use. Second, the league has recently made a big deal about player safety while creating a structure that inherently puts players at higher risk (next will be more games/teams in Europe and an 18 game schedule). These are hypocritical. Sherman was not railing against corporate sponsorship per se, just certain types that are clearly in conflict with the leagues clearly stated goals. Sponsoring Campbell's soup or Beats headphones is not hypocritical to what he had to say. Creating a structure that is inherently dangerous for players while stating that you are making player safety a priority is hypocritical.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

There are obviously some stupid things going on in the NFL and the players have every right to call them out. Maybe they should handle it in other ways, but maybe the NFL is like a locker room devoid of leadership (Goodell). In a tight locker room, issues are dealt with internally. When there's no respect for the guy at the top or there's a feeling nothing will change, then **** gets dealt with in the media and other outlets.

There's really no other way for the players to address these issues with the league because they don't trust Goodell and they know he won't bother listening. If they trusted him, if they trusted they could go to him with these types of issues, this dirty laundry wouldn't get aired.

 

[livinginthe past]

One of the most insidious aspects of recent human behavior is the whole 'if you get paid, then keep your mouth shut' attitude.

Richard Sherman should be able to talk about subjects he wants to - I think we've seen enough with the Raiola situation to know that the NFL basically wings it from case to case (Ray Rice anyone?) and doesn't actually care too much about being consistent.

Goodell and the owners he represents (Lets be real, its Kraft etc who are really pulling the strings here) are making quite the mockery of this sport.

 

[ausbacker]

You keep telling me I'm reading it wrong but can't seem to explain why, other than saying that players are more important than journalists - which is only true depending on what player or journalist we're talking about - Skip Bayless for instance matters magnitudes more to the league than Brandon Bolden, but somewhat less than Richard Sherman... maybe. Journalists are around much longer than players.

Apologies for taking so long to reply. Electrical storms knocked out the power here today. I'm not going to repeat myself and go over issues I have already raised and addressed so I'll narrow in on the journalist/player/revenue component.

You're right in that journalists are around for a lot longer than players. Employees, including industry employees are transient in the NFL. Players have a short window to play the game. That short window represents their NFL related earning potential. Where exactly does this money come from? I imagine it would be industry related revenue. Sponsorship is a large component of that pool. In 2013, the 32 teams split $6 billion in revenue. This year, that number looks closer to 9 billion. Sponsorship related revenue is in the vicinity of $1 billion. That's a big slice of the revenue pie.

In 2011 during the NFL lockout, the players held out and collectively bargained to improve their share of NFL revenues. Sherman is arguing against the hypocrisy of the NFL and league sponsors versus individual sponsors. The thing is, sponsors pay for the right to be associated with the NFL. They pay for the right to have their name and products promoted by their association with the NFL. Individual player sponsors do not. The NFLPA went to great lengths to get you a greater slice of the pie and now you're going to complain about the manner in which the NFL does so? C'mon man. Further to that, having an alcoholic sponsor has no relationship to the avoidance of DUIs. That's an absurd connection. The NFL may have a tractor sponsor. Big deal. Personal responsibility Richard.

Now, here's where I do agree with Sherman. Unless it expressly states in Marshawn Lynch's contract that he has to spend a certain amount of time in front of the media, fining him absurd amounts for not doing so is ridiculous. Further to that, I agree with Sherman about player safety and the NFL's hypocrisy when scheduling games with short breaks.

The simple truth is Sherman is being hypocritical complaining about the NFL and sponsorship. He's free to plug his personal sponsors on his own time. The sponsors that are plugged by the NFL have paid for the right to do so. Those dollars help maintain the financial health of the NFL, its related parties and have helped to make Richard Sherman a wealthy man.

Now, NFL administration and the many stuffs ups they make, well that is an entirely different story/discussion all together.

 

[MassPats38]

I took their act as payback for punishing a notoriously camera-shy player like Lynch for not wanting to talk. Play the game as BB does in press conferences, offer platitudes, or respond to the frequently stupid media questions. What is the value of those sessions? Not $100k. Want to make these sessions meaningful? Here are some solid discussion topics instead of the canned media questions typical of the sessions (implying the media serve as lackeys of the NFL as well I guess).

I agree with the comment that Sherman's act is for Sherman, not an attempt to bring those issues to light (the short layoffs with Thursday games and beer company endorsements already have been discussed in articles, but obviously the NFL is not hot to talk about them). He is thumbing his nose at a term of the CBA, while accepting the endorsements he has and big contract money that are attributable to the same CBA. There is plenty of hypocrisy with the NFL policies and practices, and Sherman, while articulate at times, is not some mutant super genius uniquely capable of discerning those hypocrisies. He loves the spotlight, and that act boiled down to reprisal for perceived unfairness to one of his crew. Nothing more.

 

[obgod3]

So think about this before you flame me. The rules of engagement (not fines) for anything in the NFL are clearly stated in the CBA, a contract and agreement that the players not only agreed to but allowed their representatives being the NFLPA and player representatives to sign. It is a contract. They had a chance to change it and disagree but now want to go back on "their" agreement. I signed a contract when I was employed that said I can't even speak negatively about my company, can't recruit, can do anything disparaging against my company. If I violate those rules I will be terminated from my employment.

I think the parody is funny. I really do.

But while everyone hacks on the NFL head office no one goes after the NFLPA for not supporting the agreement they signed. I don't care if the agreement is fair or not, they signed it. When people finally get that this is a business and nothing else maybe they will see it differently, some of the same controls the players have are the same controls I have to live by in corporate America, I would have been fired for doing the same thing as this.

The fines being imposed may not be defined in the CBA but the responsibilities of the players most certainly are, in detail. What I can't stand is when folks say that it shouldn't matter, that's just wrong, it is a contract they agreed on by their current and former players representing them. If they didn't like it then they should either stop playing and get a real job or abide by the rules they agreed on. When they get that real job they will most likely find that for higher paying gigs they will still sign an agreement that talks about acceptable behavior and duties. It is about taking responsibility for what you agreed on when you were employed.

I still think it is funny, I just couldn't do it without getting fired.

 

[VrabelJr]

Richard Sherman is interested in progressing the cause of Richard Sherman. He's not making a stand for the greater good. He's making a stand for Richard Sherman.

As mentioned, if he truly feels that strongly about it, give up all of your endorsements. All he is doing is drawing attention to an issue and quietly benefitting in the background. That sir, is hypocritical.

I don't follow your logic that you keep repeating in the second paragraph. The players make the NFL, not the other way around. If you disagree, try watching an Arena or CFL game some time.

 

[VrabelJr]

So think about this before you flame me. The rules of engagement for anything in the NFL are clearly stated in the CBA, a contract and agreement that the players not only agreed to but allowed their representatives being the NFLPA sign. It is a contract. They had a chance to change it and disagree but now want to go back on "their" agreement. I signed a contract when I was employed that said I can't even speak negatively about my company, can't recruit, can do anything disparaging against my company. If I violate those rules I will be terminated from my employment.

I think the parody is funny. I really do.

But while everyone hacks on the NFL head office no one goes after the NFLPA for not supporting the agreement they signed. I don't care if the agreement is fair or not, they signed it. When people finally get that this is a business and nothing else maybe they will see it differently, some of the same controls the players have are the same controls I have to live by in corporate America, I would have been fired for doing the same thing as this.

I still think it is funny, I just couldn't do it without getting fired.

The NFLPA signing a deal that isn't favorable to the people they represent wouldn't be the first time in history a labor union misrepresented the people they are supposedly trying to protect.

 

[obgod3]

The NFLPA signing a deal that isn't favorable to the people they represent wouldn't be the first time in history a labor union misrepresented the people they are supposedly trying to protect.

Your right 100%

But I don't care because the players allowed it, they choose to have a union and they choose the people that represent them. That's their fault not the NFL, not us, not the sponsors.

Why are people so willing to let people off without those same people accepting the responsibilities they agree to? No answer needed but this is a bigger problem in our society than just the NFL.

 

[Fencer]

Sherman may be mocking the NFL but he's also the beneficiary of sponsorship money and personal endorsements. He's a hypocritical, attention seeking idiot attempting to present himself as a voice of reason.

If Sherman really feels that strongly about the NFL's pursuit of money, give up your endorsements and use generic branded products.

How do you feel about Jay Leno and David Letterman mocking NBC and CBS?

 

[ausbacker]

How do you feel about Jay Leno and David Letterman mocking NBC and CBS?

I don't care about either of them so I don't have an opinion on the subject. That said, feel free to apply my same rationale in this thread if you should so choose.

 

[Fencer]

I don't care about either of them so I don't have an opinion on the subject. That said, feel free to apply my same rationale in this thread if you should so choose.

OK. Then we quite disagree.