April 19, 2007

*I just never thought wearing the 'wrong hat' would cause Roger Goodell to fine someone, let alone for $100,000. That seems a bit absurd but then again, maybe Goodell and David Stern (NBA Commissioner) are going tit for tat to see who can be more of a hardass. First, Goodell suspends Pacman Jones for the year and then David Stern basically fires official Joey Crawford. So, apparently feeling a little overshadowed, Goodell one-ups Stern and fines Urlacher for wearing a non-sponsored NFL product. All this did was give Vitaminwater more tv time anyways~ *Tongue in cheek

posted by BornIcon at 08:27 AM on April 19, 2007

From a union standpoint, the problem is that the NFL player's union has no balls. Dislike them for making a mockery of unions, not the league.

posted by tieguy at 08:46 AM on April 19, 2007

I could agree with the "no walking billboards" thing, but I wonder what that $100,000 is going to. A proper fine, it seems to me, should be in response to a real problem, should provide an effective deterrent, and should be used for something that makes sense (either to fix the problem supposedly caused by the behavior that occasioned the fine, or, I dunno, cure for cancer or something).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:30 AM on April 19, 2007

I agree with bornicon. Every commisioner in sports today have mental problems in my eys. Im just sayin that $100,000 is just BS. I never even noticed the hat untill i heard about the fine. And what players would take the time to look up everything u can and cant sponsor?

posted by TelamarketersBeware at 09:42 AM on April 19, 2007

And what players would take the time to look up everything u can and cant sponsor? See, these guys have these other people called agents. You may not have heard of them, but get this -- they receive a chunk of a player's salary for (among other things) making sure he's following the terms of his contract and the NFL's rules. I think Urlacher might be calling his right now, or he might just be laughing with him at the $500K VitaminWater slipped him for the xtra pub.

posted by wfrazerjr at 10:13 AM on April 19, 2007

Urlacher should hold a press conference to discuss the fine, wearing his Vitaminwater gear. And mention "Vitaminwater" at least once a sentence.

posted by stevis at 10:22 AM on April 19, 2007

It took a real set of ^%$s to wear the Vitaminwater Cap. If Vitaminwater helps to grow such big ones, where can we buy Vitaminwater!!!! Piscator

posted by Fly_Piscator at 10:34 AM on April 19, 2007

I agree with the fine. First of all, the Superbowl is a revenue generating machine for the NFL and the TV network. This is common knowledge for the past few years. Everyone talks about how much the commercial spots cost and what the commercials will be. That's part of the superbowl hype. If these sponsors have to pay multi-million dollar fees to have their commercials run, then why would the NFL and the network allow a player or anyone else that gets his mug put on tv to adverise some company's name and product without permission. I guarantee that Urlacher got paid alot of money to do that. Let's be honest here, why would a highly profiled player wear a hat and t-shirt for vitaminwater? does he love it so much that he wants the world to share in his love of this product? ....NO! it's all about money and don't fool yourself into thinking it's anything less, or an oversight on the Urlacher. If the NFL fined him $100K for that, be assured that Urlacher and Vitaminwater knew that was going to happen and that he was paid a heck of a lot more. Where would one even get a hat and t-shirt for Vitaminwater? their product is hard to find as it is, nevertheless to buy their t-shirts and hats. And for all those who think that the commissioner is trying to show everyone he is in charge and that fining a player that much is wrong, You guys don't fully realize that this is and always will be a business. Employees don't make up their own rules and they don't tell the employer how to run the business.

posted by koolhandvuk at 10:50 AM on April 19, 2007

I'm not against the fine, per se - I'm against the amount. $100,000 is not a drop in the bucket, not for anyone. Sure Urlacher can handle it, but if another player may not be able to absorb such a loss so quickly. This is just in line with the low, low non-guaranteed contracts, huge risks and forgotten pensioners that is the legacy of the NFLPA. And where does the money go? I assume to a worthy cause, and not lining the impossibly rich-textured pockets of the NFL.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:15 AM on April 19, 2007

We must remember; it's all about the money. Companies pay alot money to be official NFL sponsors, so when players wear or drink a non-sponsor product at an NFL event, it pisses-off the companies that pay. I agree with the fine; the NFL is a business like it or not. If I were "Commissioner" the fines would be greater; so little pea-on companies with short money could'nt get national exposure so cheap. Without this rule you would find adias, reebok, nike, puma, pepsi, coke, gatorade, budweiser, coors, lipton tea, cheerios...........hats and tee shirts on every sideline.

posted by fourthreeforty at 11:35 AM on April 19, 2007

Weedy, I think the fine has to be that prohibitive. If it were substantially less, it would be hard to find a company that wasn't willing to send players out there to break the rules with a promise that the company has their backs on the fine.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:35 AM on April 19, 2007

$100,000 seems like a bunch of money to most of us...but to these multi-million dollar athletes, that is chump change. That would be like most of us getting slapped with a $100 fine...not that much when you put it in perspective.

posted by txruncoach at 12:07 PM on April 19, 2007

I was just thinking that I hate paying $25 dollar for a fitted cap let alone having to pay a $100,000 dollar fine because the cap isn't a NFL sponsor. Just ridiculous~

posted by BornIcon at 12:24 PM on April 19, 2007

Quiet! You wanna get us in trouble or something? Whatever happened to our unions? I miss the days when bucking the union resulted in an accident involving somebody falling down an elevator shaft. Onto some bullets. Now they take away your blog?

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 01:25 PM on April 19, 2007

I don't get how these rules can pass constitutional muster, exactly. I guess the argument is you have to wear a "uniform" on media day, but since you're required to participate in media day or you get fined... yeah, yeah, yeah, I know all you bitter non-millionaire armchair Dershowitzes will chime in with "But if you don't want to sign a contract to play in the NFL you don't have to amirite?!", but then I guess we could start throwing around terms like "monopoly" and "collusion" and see how interesting it gets for the NFL. In any event, I always thought labor laws were structured such that you couldn't, voluntarily or otherwise, sign away your basic rights. I know the last few decades of the US history has shown a degrading of labor rights as stupid citizens piss away what took decades- or by some measures, centuries, for us as people to earn as rights and protections. But still: if I worked for Microsoft, and Microsoft was the only place a computer guy could work, and they required me to attend a "Software promotion day" and then took away part of my salary for wearing a Linux t-shirt... I think I'd have some grounds to sue that my first amendment rights were being violated, wouldn't I?

posted by hincandenza at 03:11 PM on April 19, 2007

From TBH's link. It awarded the USFL only one dollar in damages, which was tripled under antitrust law to three dollars. It later emerged that the jury incorrectly assumed that the judge could increase the award. Funny stuff.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:45 PM on April 19, 2007

Whatever happened to our unions? "You can't treat the working man this way. One day, we'll form a union and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and get corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!" Please accept this quotation posing as poignant observation in place of anything useful to say. Like all works of man, they replaced the old order, became the new order then got thick in the middle and gradually less and less relevant. There's a place for organized labor in this country, but it will require the organizations to be as agile and lean as the companies that employ them. Whatever happened to love of the game? It never, ever existed on a universal level. The average Sport Love % of players today is probably the same as it was Way Back When Things Were Right. You just didn't have the media coverage. The way we follow sport today is like Irish Alzheimer's, only remembering the bad times. If someone isn't The Greatest of All Time, they're a goddamn overpaid choker of a bum and we'd better sit on hold with talk radio for a few hours so we can say just what the last guy said 'cause we'll be goddamned if we don't all agree everything used to be better before we knew what we were talking about.

posted by yerfatma at 03:55 PM on April 19, 2007

In any event, I always thought labor laws were structured such that you couldn't, voluntarily or otherwise, sign away your basic rights. Wearing proper office attire isn't a basic right. Neither is attending a meeting in your office at the proper time and place. If you don't do that in a regular workplace, you can be fired. The league can't "fire" a player, but it can implement disciplinary action in accordance to the collective bargaining agreement it made with the players' union. If someone isn't The Greatest of All Time, they're a goddamn overpaid choker of a bum and we'd better sit on hold with talk radio for a few hours so we can say just what the last guy said 'cause we'll be goddamned if we don't all agree everything used to be better before we knew what we were talking about. What does Alex Rodriguez have to do with this? ;)

posted by grum@work at 04:10 PM on April 19, 2007

At this rate, John Sterling will be dead by the end of the month. You'll make me root for the Yankees yet.

posted by yerfatma at 04:47 PM on April 19, 2007

grum, Sousepaw: notice the key element of "Microsoft was the only place a computer guy could work"- this is why I and The_Black_Hand made not that the NFL has been ruled an illegal monopoly, so unlike your standard job it's like being told "You can't work in the United States as a football player except for the NFL". The idea being that players will be fined for not showing up at media day, so they don't really have a choice to not be there unless they don't want to play football at all- and yet even their clothing is regulated? It sounds more like indentured servitude than it does a contract, unless the media day is explicitly stated in their initial contract; or could the NFL just start making up things for the players to do which they couldn't refuse? The infringed basic right I was talking about was the freedom of speech, infringed when coupled with the inability to not be there and the levying of a fine out of money already paid. Also, if I don't show up at a meeting at work, or wear inappropriate attire, they can choose to fire me, but they can't really take back money they've already paid me for time I've already worked, which is what a fine is. Why does the NFL have the ability to levy fines at all, other than the claim that they signed a contract to play in the NFL and that contract gives apparently carte blanche rights to levy any fines imaginable? What if a player simply said "Fuck you, I won't pay the fine?" Do they actually have a legal right to force the player to pay the fine? I guess that's a union thing and a contract thing, so the argument would be "They signed a contract, and as every junior grade superdooper internet lawyer wannabe knows, a contract can contain any clause, no matter how unseemly- for example, the NFL could demand their firstborn child be given up for a rules infraction, and the player couldn't legally refuse!" Uh... yeah. But it still seems... unequitable. And if my workplace started pulling a Bill Lumbergh and requiring me to work extra days without pay... shouldn't I be free to refuse? Well in my case, Washington state law explicitly declares that certain executive positions, as well as those of computer professionals making more than $54,000 (it says this in particular- this professional class was singled out, presumably due to the influence of the likes of Microsoft) can be salary-exempt for work-hour rules and overtime pay. But I recall no mention of "linebacker" or "#3 starting pitcher" in those laws, so... if I played for the Mariners, and we had 5 games a week, and if practice plus pre-game, plus game, plus post-game time was greater than 40 hours, couldn't I just walk off the field when I hit the 40 hour mark? Are these players, between practices and the games and required media appearances, potentially putting in more than 40 hours per week- shouldn't they be getting overtime and/or comp pay, or be able to claim that they aren't an exempt employee under their state's laws, and therefore must be compensated at time-and-a-half for appearances at media day? I know, I know- just wave your hands and say "contract, contract" and somehow all worries will fade away. These sound like facetious questions, but they aren't: why aren't players challenging this bullshit? And I wish we had legislators with balls who would destroy these leagues, just decimate them in multi-billion dollar anti-trust lawsuits. I wanna see that fuckwad David Stern begging for mercy, or watch Bud Selig cry crocodile tears as he's told that his "I'll move a team" shell game to get a taxpayer built stadium is not only rejected but ruled unlawful! :)

posted by hincandenza at 06:36 PM on April 19, 2007

I wish we had legislators with balls who would destroy these leagues Something tells me "Vote Senator Incandenza, he destroyed the NFL!" is not a winning re-election slogan.

posted by Venicemenace at 09:25 PM on April 19, 2007

I am not sure how strong the NFLPA was back in 1956 when they were founded, but they sure need some help now. I know that I am a member of the IAFF and we are a union that can not strike by law. The old guys at the station say Reagan took alot away from us after the PATCO strike. Some even say that none of the unions have ever recovered from that move alone. I can't say personally I was only a kid when that happened. However, there are alot of closed mills around here, and the biggest complaint from the owners was wages.

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:10 AM on April 20, 2007

america the the land of the free? i dont think so, all this country has turned out to be is a modern day communist state

posted by coachhannon at 07:21 AM on April 20, 2007

So I take it that we're pretty much in the same boat then jojomfd1. Just don't stand up, it might tip over~

posted by BornIcon at 08:03 AM on April 20, 2007

Sorry grum but have you seen what A-Rod has done so far in the season (10 HR in 14 games)? I'm well aware of what he has done, and his general quality of play. My comment was a poke at those that derided him in the past. The Crafty Sousepaw got the joke.

posted by grum@work at 08:55 AM on April 20, 2007

Yeah, we're all aware of just how Mr. April has been hitting the ball lately. If we weren't, you told us. About a dozen times today, by my count.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:43 PM on April 20, 2007

america the the land of the free? i dont think so, all this country has turned out to be is a modern day communist state Stupidest. Post. Ever. This has nothing to do with the state of rights in America. Urlacher works for the Chicago Bears Football Club, a part of the National Football League. Therefore, he is subject to rules and regulations provided by the Chicago Bears, and the National Football League. This has nothing to do with communism, or your misguided political commentary.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:56 AM on April 23, 2007

Thanks for the lexicon, jojo. When the Communist America Thought Police come after him, perhaps you'll join me in a six-pack to celebrate. My treat, of course.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:20 AM on April 24, 2007