Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Players rights Vs Owners rights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Players rights Vs Owners rights

    In light of Big Bens banging his head on a cars windshield and things like the Kellan Winslow mess---

    Who's "rights" should be protected?

    Do the players rights to be "free" supersede the owners (and fans rights to some extent) rights to that players potential production?

    Thoughts?

  • #2
    Re: Players rights Vs Owners rights

    Originally posted by MDFAN
    In light of Big Bens banging his head on a cars windshield and things like the Kellan Winslow mess---

    Who's "rights" should be protected?

    Do the players rights to be "free" supersede the owners (and fans rights to some extent) rights to that players potential production?

    Thoughts?
    Whatever the heck the contract says.

    Comment


    • #3
      Since we still live in a free country, individual's rights would seem to be foremost. If Big Ben chooses to risk tens of millions of dollars by riding a crotch rocket without a helmet, God bless him. I suspect the team protected itself with contract language and/or insurance.

      Ben should probably have waited until his next contract to start riding his bike as he will cash in big time. He is still playing on his rookie contract, right?

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah seriously. I'd say the players' rights to be "free" supersedes damn near anything, being as we live in America. If a contract forbids it, that's a whole different story. And you could certainly make the argument that the player has a responsibility to the owner and the significant investment made by the company in his employment. But responsibilities are different from rights.

        Comment


        • #5
          Cue the Banner pic - it is my understanding though that if Big Ben never takes another snap but doesn't "retire" that the Steelers are on the hook for his prorated signing bonus. Imagine if one of the newly signed guys (say Andrew) all of a sudden had this issue. Sure - the Eagles don't have to pay him but they still have the issue of the signing bonus impact on the cap. Therefore - I think the teams have every right to make stipulations in the contract and it's up to the player and agent to gauge whether the reward is greater than the risk.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can "sign away" your rights so for the sake of this discussion there is no debate about "owner's rights" vs. "player's rights" - a team can't prevent someone from doing something that is legal. What they can do is hit them in the wallet.

            I think every team has a stipulation in their contracts that make a player responsible to repay the team part of the signing/roster bonus if they do something "hazardous" that leads to an injury that prevents them from fulfilling the contract. I don't think a team can out and out prevent a player from engaging in high risk activities like skydiving, bungee jumping etc. I remember last Fall when an employee of the Democratic Party (I thin it was the Dems but don't hold me to it!) was fired for wearing a Republican candidate button at a work function. Clearly they couldn't stop this individual from expressing their support for whomever they want, but they didn't have to continue to employ them either. It opened up a monir debate on talk radio about how much free speech people actually have in the workplace. The Clearly there are limits to what you can do or say while at work and obviously there are ramifications to your employment for what happens on your own time. Not that far off topic from this situation in that Ben's actions on his own time could impact his ability to play football again for the Steelers. Here's wishing him a speedy recovery and a return to his former glory - but this time as the losing Super Bowl QB when facing the Eagles!!
            Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
            Bleedin' Green since birth!

            "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

            ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

            Comment


            • #7
              I guess my question was too literal.... the gist of what I was getting at was that when doing a contract does the Owner/Employer have the right to restrict and impose limits on players and their personal behavior and what they can and can't do on their personal time?

              Or should the players "rights" to freedom from restrictions(within the law of course) be more of a priority?

              Seems to me that the owners should be able to impose restrictions to almost anything that puts his investment at greater risk. And that he should have an avenue to recoup his entire(or a % of it) investment if the employee disregards those restrictions.

              Comment


              • #8
                MD I agree. As I stated above, I think most of the teams put something in the contracts that allow them to recoup part of the signing or roster bonuses if a player's injury impacts their ability to perform as a result of elective "high risk" activities.
                Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
                Bleedin' Green since birth!

                "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

                ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

                Comment


                • #9
                  MD, a contract is a mutual agreement. The employer and player BOTH agree to the terms therein. No one has a 'right' to put anything or keep anything from being put in a contract. Any personal 'rights' are held or waived at the discretion of each respective party. Maybe I'm still missing what you're getting at.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MDFAN
                    I guess my question was too literal.... the gist of what I was getting at was that when doing a contract does the Owner/Employer have the right to restrict and impose limits on players and their personal behavior and what they can and can't do on their personal time?

                    Or should the players "rights" to freedom from restrictions(within the law of course) be more of a priority?

                    Seems to me that the owners should be able to impose restrictions to almost anything that puts his investment at greater risk. And that he should have an avenue to recoup his entire(or a % of it) investment if the employee disregards those restrictions.

                    By the way there are contracts written all the time that control what people can do privately.

                    Back in 1992-93 Roseanne (Barr) Arnold had a contract for $6m from slim fast contingent on her following the plan losing weight and then doing endorsments for the product she didn't follow thru and didn't get paid. I know because I was building her and Tom Arnolds house in Iowa and that's where the money was supposed to come from to pay for the House, needless to say they divorced and the house was never completed but that's another story.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      IMK, I guess my generic question is when doing the contract-- whose rights should hold more value... the owners or the players?

                      Of course I know how contract law works, of course I know either side can bargain to have any language put in and both sides agree-- I'm talking more in terms of "philosophical" terms.

                      It just seems to me that the players should be willing to almost give up any "freedoms" that the teams ask for,,, yet it doesn't happen that way.

                      Just look at Ben's rebuttal last year to Cowhers statements.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Interesting question being presented here but the answer to "who's rights should be protected" is clear to me.KFFL is reporting that Big Ben's contract has a default provision to protect the Steelers if he gets hurt in a non football related injury.It's unlikely but the Steelers could go after a prorated amount of the signing bonus(@$6mil).
                        Big Ben has the "right" to ride bikes without a helmet & the Steelers have the "right" to hit him in the wallet if he screws up on his own time.
                        Both sides have rights in a mutually agreed upon contract.Like I said,it's unlikely that the Steelers will go after the money but if this were a career ending injury it might be a different story.Sounds like Ben's going to able to play this year but IMO the guy's pretty damn lucky.Live & learn.
                        Just give me ONE before I go!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't beleive riding a cycle...with or without a helmet...is a "right", anymore than driving a car is. I believe it would be a "priviledge" granted by the state after one has met licensing criteria.

                          If I remember my Civics, "Rights" are granted by the constitution and certain of it's amendments.

                          We have the "Right" to PURSUE getting a cycle license, just as we have the "Right" to PURSUE happiness, but we have the "Rights" to neither.

                          Beyond what contractual and ethical obligations Ben may have to the Steelers, it is now being reported that he did not have the required license to operate a motorcycle.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            OK OK OK ,, I give,, youse guys are getting all hung up on the word "rights"... my bad, poorly worded question.

                            I know contract law, I was trying to talk more in a philosophical terms.... I blew it......I'll try again later to rephrase the question.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              IMO the owners should be able to have the right to put clauses in the contract that the player must follow DURING the season. In the off season the player should be allowed to do what he pleases as long as he understands what he will lose if he screws up.

                              The owners need to have the option of protecting their investments. Some players are pretty dumb(see Toothlesswonder, Ben).
                              FRESH > cancer

                              I hate everything the Cowboys stand for. If you think they are America's team, then you support everything that is wrong with America. The excess, the greed, the lack of maturity, the lack of responsibility, the lack of control. - Luzinski's Gut

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X