We disagree. This is not new, although we have agreed on almost all football issues lately.
I think we agree a lot, but we have good discussions when we do not.
THE PLAYERS WORK FOR THE TEAMS
You seem to disagree, and think that the NFL is an employer. The NFL is an association of owners. The players, through their union, have agreed that the NFL has the right to punish certain actions.
Semantics. The league represents the owners, and the league is, in practice, employed by the owners to represent them on certain matters that are to be handled collectively.
NFL
If the union agrees to a max 6 week suspension for spousal abuse, even if not adjudicated in any way by the courts, then so be it. The have not and will not agree to unlimited punishment for any conduct that Commissioner, in his sole discretion, determines damages the good name of the NFL. Such action is being appeal, and will continue to be appealed within the NFL process and in the courts.
The union has agreed to the current system. Punishment is at the discretion of the commissioner if not otherwise spelled out. Grieving the decision is, of course an available remedy.
TEAMS
The teams are free to fire people based on pressure from sponsors. Again, I do not believe that depriving a person a livelihood at the whim of an owner is sustainable in court
You seem to think the players are entitled to a job.
That is not the case. Please show me all of the court cases where a team was taken to court and needed to justify, or even have a reason for releasing a player.
Incognito wasn't charged with anything, and you saying he should go to court and claim it was illegal to suspend and cut him?
. Obviously you disagree, thinking that owners have an unlimited right to fire a player.
How don't they? They fire 37 players from every team in every camp. Players are consistently cut.
No reason is ever required.
In any case, this is NOT the real issue. If MINN chooses to fire Peterson, he can get a job for another team. Unlimited suspension without pay is not allowed under the law.
But Peterson is being paid.
MY EMPLOYER
would almost certainly suspended most of these players without pay. Counseling would have been required for some of these players, likely Rice and Peterson.
So why are you saying it is wrong for the NFL to do so?
I find the Vick case especially ridiculous. Denying a person a livelihood because he abused animals seems very strange for those who do not live on the coasts, or those influenced by their media.
How was he denied a livlihood? He is employed today. He was fired from his job because he committed a morally bankrupt crime and went to prison.
Are you saying the Falcons should have kept paying him while he was in prison?
Do you think that allowing Peterson to report to work and play under these circumstances would be in the best interest of his employer?
Do you not recognize that the negatives he brings now far exceed his value to his employer? Why should they be forced to employ him if doing so has a negative impact on the organization?