LIVING IN ROGER'S WORLD
By Scott Daniels, NFL Draft Bible
In an image driven league, the NFL took major steps to clean up its act this year when Commissioner Roger Goodell announced his new Personal Conduct Policy in April. The Policy is a measure of deterrence against the appalling off the field conduct by players that has plagued the league of late. With the Policy, Goodell made it clear that detrimental conduct off the field will not be tolerated. After countless arrests and numerous off the field incidents in 2006, Goodell, who got his start as an administrative intern under then NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle, is attempting to weather this storm by delivering harsh penalties and swift action. Just ask Pacman Jones and Chris Henry. A year long suspension for Jones and eight games for Henry sent shock waves throughout the league and Goodell's message was loud and clear: Tarnish my league and you'll suffer the consequences.
While Goodell's Policy sounds like an effective way to clean up the NFL's image problems, it raises numerous legal issues that have already spurned controversy throughout the league. I believe that a rigid conduct policy is necessary in a league that has seen its fair share of criminal activity off the field, but the legality of the policy is very suspect. Is Goodell's Policy legal? Does he have the right to suspend players before they are convicted in a court of law? The answer to both questions is Yes and players in the NFL are quickly realizing that their new Commissioner is not afraid to exercise his power.
I am not questioning the rationale behind the Policy. It's absolutely going to make players think twice before acting outside the law. But does it go too far? What happened to the notion of "Innocent until proven guilty?" What about a players' right to due process and his opportunity to defend himself in the court of law? Well, under this new conduct Policy, a player's innocence is no longer presumed.
The major issue I see with this Policy is that a player may lose his ability to be gainfully employed even before he is found guilty of anything. Under the new Policy, a player can be punished by the league before he is convicted of a crime. In fact, there is a clause entitled "Persons Charged with Criminal Activity." According to this section, if a player is simply charged with a criminal matter, he is required to undergo a clinical evaluation and possibly even counseling. During the player's evaluation and / or counseling, if that player is arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity, he has committed "conduct detrimental to the team" and can be suspended or fined at the discretion of the Commissioner.
Goodell has essentially tossed out the idea that some of these players might actually be innocent of the crimes they are charged with. A player who is arrested or charged several times certainly creates the inference that they might not be a model citizen, however, justice cannot be had without listening to all the facts. The presumption of innocence is a pillar of not only the American Legal system, but our society. To suspend or fine a player before he is convicted of a crime contradicts the longstanding idea that a man is always presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
As for the legality of the policy itself, since the NFL is a private entity, Goodell has complete autonomy to create such a policy. While Goodell did consult with Gene Upshaw, the head of the NFL Player's Association and established a six player advisory committee to discuss conduct and disciplinary measures, this Policy was not collectively bargained for, nor was it expressly agreed upon by the entire league. But it doesn't matter because the Policy didn't have to be.
Since the inception of Goodell's new Policy, 3 players have been suspended for off field incidents. The bottom line is, playing in the NFL is a privilege, not a right. Say goodbye to the days of twenty thousand dollar fines that mean nothing to the stud wide out who gets arrested, charged and convicted for driving under the influence. Say hello to Roger Goodell and an incredibly strict conduct policy that has the potential of damaging a truly innocent player's future in the NFL.
Scott Daniels is a NYC Attorney and Co-Founder of The Legal Line. Read about the legal perspective of football politics as one of New York’s premier lawyers provides you with insight and analysis that even Mike Vick would pay for.
Email: scott@nfldraftbible.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Good first article Daniels. You need a nickname or something to end each article with.
One disagreement..."the presumption of innocence is a pillar of not only the American Legal system, but our society"...I'm no legal analyst, but I can strongly say that our society does not employ these rules. If you're friends with a bunch of hoodlems, many people will say that you are a hoodlem also even if you did nothing wrong.
Even if Vick gets off (which he probabaly won't), he's still guilty in the eyes of the public and that will cost him millions in lost advertising revenue.
to sum it up...O.J. was innocent, yet you don't see him doing any more Naked Gun movies anymore....Nordberg.
srod - good point.
Daniels, great article, keep it going. Love the legal issues coming from the football leagues cuz dem dudes getting into trouble is entertainment for us, like the Cincy Bengals.
Good article. I agree, for the most part, that the policy oversteps its boundaries by penalizing players who have yet to be proven guilty in a court of law. However, what about players who commit bad or detrimental acts that are not necessarily "crimes," and will therefore never get a day in court? Should the league not be able to punish them simply because they have not officially been convicted of a crime?
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
(1) Good Job;
(2) Your cut & paste skills could use a little work
Thanks for the comments and keep them coming!
srod - while Vick is sure to lose millions in advertising and will probably be known as a problem for the rest of his career, I was stressing the fact that players lose their ability to be gainfully employed BEFORE a conviction (or a con"VICK"tion if you will) is handed down under the new policy. A player wrongfully accussed, then suspended by the league, and later rightfully acquitted, may be entitled to bring a lawsuit against the league. Only time will tell....
manus - great point.
Under Goodell's policy, he is extremely vague in defining "conduct detrimental to the team." I believe that was his intention. By being ambiguous, Goodell has given himself a great deal of leeway in analyzing off the field actions by players. The bottom line is, Goodell was fed up with the mulitple arrests and embarrassing conduct exhibited by numerous players within the league. Goodell saw the only way to clean up the NFL's tarnished image was to implement a hard-nose policy that gives him a great deal of power to punish at will.
arent these players suspended "with pay?" if so, then you can't really fight the power, right?
when is the next article?
Goodell has the power to suspend these players with pay, although he doesn't always exercise that power. Pacman Jones and Chris Henry were both suspended without pay after their numerous debacles. However, to my knowledge, although Michael Vick was told not to report to camp by the NFL, he has not been docked his pay just yet.
Good job Daniels. As we discussed this evening, I'd be interested to learn more of your thoughts regarding recompense. For example, I have heard thru the Duke grapevine, that the 3 LAX players who were tried and acquitted for rape, have been given multi-million dollar settlements payments by the university as an antidote for tarnishing their names. I wonder if the NFL will do something similar when making players sit out games or a full season for crimes of which they were not found guilty.
jbl - Its only a matter of time until a player is suspended without pay and then acquitted in a court of law. I believe that player has a valid claim against the NFL for lost wages and possibly even more money for any destruction to his character. A defamation suit is unlikely and they are extremely hard to prove, however, recovering for lost wages seems plausible.
I do not foresee the NFL reimbusing a player for lost wages PRE-LAW SUIT because as you can see from my article, Goodell can suspend / fine without a player's conviction. The NFL will most likely fight a suit to the bitter end but it is my feeling that they might not win everytime.
The Duke lax players situation was a disaster. DUKE knew immediately that they were wrong for kicking those boys out and frankly, I'm shocked that the school didn't standby their students - just thought I'd throw that in.
The picture is sweet. Very tough.
Do you think the Player's Union will be fighting against this in future negotiations? When is the union/league agreement set to be re-negotiated?
Go Bills! I just bought a Posluzny jersey.
Brian - I do not believe the NFLPA will be fighting hard against this Policy since Gene Upshaw, the head of the NFLPA, assisted in the creation of the Policy itself. Furthermore, many players in the league agree with the strict terms and want to see more done about guys who cannot stay out of trouble off the field.
Every time a player is arrested, it damages the image of the entire league. The NFL is a business and thrives on its fans to succeed financially. Although fans will continue to attend games and buy merchandise, any blemish by way of a player getting charged, arrested or convicted, means the possibility of less revenue in the long run.
As for the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, I believe it was extended for 3 years in 2004 so it will expire after the 2007 season. But remember, this Policy wasn't collectively bargained for. Goodell implemented this Policy on his own. Therefore, I believe that unless a player challenges it in a court of law, this Policy is here to stay.
Post a Comment