Right to privacy - Poll

[TrueBeliever]

I voted yes but I emphatically insist that players are tested for drugs and should be subjected to background checks.

That is the employer's right. Players are employees. Owners are employers.

Absolutely. I've been saying this for years. It's a big part of the reason I can't stand MLB. Don't give me the "invasion of privacy" BS. The owners are giving you a ton of money to perform a service, they have a right to ensure you aren't using drugs that could seriously damage the integrity of their business. If you don't want to do it, you can always go work somewhere else... except that just about anywhere else you work is going to require it anyway. Cry me a river.

As for the books thing, I don't know.

 

[TheComeback]

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the NFL isn't your typical employer. They share some of their revenue with the players, and the terms of that sharing is dictated by the CBA, which is a legally binding agreement. This isn't some regular joe working at a grocery store and getting paid by the hour.

Since the owners are claiming that revenue is falling, and therefore they have to cut up the player's share, I think the players are only being diligent by asking for proof. The players, in this case, absolutely have a right to look at the revenue numbers. They would be stupid to make any decision on revenue sharing without knowing what the financial situation is actually like.

Not to mention that NFL payrolls are already significantly smaller than other pro leagues.

 

[jmt57]

Who is trying?

Owners cite a right to privacy when it suits them and player cite a right to privacy when it suits them.

Oh, the naked Paul Perillo was a joke. (I needed that to get to three.)

So privacy is only OK sometimes. Who decides? You? Me?

An impartial third party? OK. Define "impartial."

Perhaps I misunderstood, but in your original post it seemed like you were trying to equate three topics: NFL owners not wanting to open their books to the players; athletes objecting to drug testing; and the concept of professional sports franchise's business dealings being scrutinized by the public.

Perhaps points one and three are the same.

Or perhaps that's the start of black and white becoming gray.



The owners are claiming they need more money off the top for expenses. That's fine, but they're not in an industry like the rest of us.

A carpenter gets paid x dollars per hour for the job. NFL players may get paid x dollars per year, but their collective salaries are determined by revenue - as agreed upon by the owners.

NFL players and carpenters have completely different situations and completely different work agreements; let's not compare the two. Based on their work/pay agreement, if the NFL is going to say they need more off the top then it stands to reason that they should show how their expenses have exceed not only what they are getting off the top, but their percentage as well.



Point number two about drug testing? Good gawd, I could easily send this thread into the political forum with that one. What exactly is black and white but not gray in that debate? That many are of the opinion that alcohol is ten times worse than marijuana? That private sectors won't hire people that test positive but the NFL does? Why other private or public companies backup some of their rationale for drug testing as part of their hiring process because the NFL does it? I could easily bring up a hundred more questions on the topic that all got started by Nancy Reagan's 'just say no' campaign.



Then there is the whole 'what should you expect as a public figure' debate. Should Tom Brady be expected to accept paparazzi as part of his contract? If so, why does he get those photographers but Nnamdi Asomugha doesn't? Here's another one that could have dozens of more questions blurring the black and white lines into a grayish area.



Point is that my opinion differs from yours: to me this is in no way a black and white debate with no gray area.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I voted yes but I emphatically insist that players are tested for drugs and should be subjected to background checks.

That is the employer's right. Players are employees. Owners are employers.

Players are unionized employees (well, not atm, but they will be soon enough), so the employer's right is pretty much what whatever the CBA says it is. Personally, I think testing players for non-performance-enhancing drugs oversteps privacy boundaries, but it's up to the union to decide if that's a worthwhile issue to take up (thus far, they haven't, and I doubt that'll change anytime soon).

As far as the owners' books, I don't really see it as a question of rights. Yes, they have the right to keep their books private, because they're private companies. If they want to pull the plug on the CBA and demand that the players make concessions, though, then they'll likely have to show that they're operating in good faith, and that's pretty much impossible if they refuse to open up their books. They have the right to that privacy, but if they want the players to play ball and make significant concessions, then it's entirely reasonable that they offer some transparency in the process.