Yeah! Let him play. If a franchise has the guts to hire him…and lose all their PETArded fans in the process…I say “go for it!”

I do understand why the NFL might not want to fight the PR battle of reinstating him. But they represent “men, playing a man’s game.” If the NFL isn’t ballsy enough to stand up to the lefty media, and squishy pansy groups that might protest…well…before you know it, the NFL will become the PC joke that the NCAA is becoming.

I never liked Vick either. But, I have a gut feeling that I might like him a lot more after his visit to the big house. I know I was a lot more likable after I got out.

Well, Stallworth has been indefinitely suspended. It’s unlikely that he’ll ever play again.

Vick spent more time in jail than some who actually killed people.

I wouldn’t have a problem with the NFL letting him play again. But, I don’t have a problem with them deciding that their “brand” is more important than his right to work in that particular job.

Cosmic, I was making an obviously very lame joke. PETA types protesting outside NFL stadiums would definitely be a plus.

I can just see John Madden pulling up in his bus to interview naked, tiger-striped, PETA skags, protesting Vick’s first game in Cincinnati.

Might be more fun than the Super Bowl!

Andy, heh… too bad Madden has retired…

I guess y’all are under the impression that the NFL is a competitive business.

It’s not. It’s a collection of owners who sell the same product — you know — FRANCHISES?

In any franchise, there has to be someone (or a body of someones) who PROTECTS THE BRAND. Obviously, it can’t be someone who is an actual OWNER, because — you guessed it — it is ONLY an owner who can take an action which is detrimental to the BRAND. (A player can do bad things. But, an owner can cut him. Punish him. (At least insofar as the collective bargaining agreement allows…) But, if the owner DOESN’T, then there has to be someone who has the power to protect the BRAND — even to the detriment of the individual or the individual team.)

So, the commissioner has the power to punish players including barring someone from playing — SUBJECT to the collective bargaining agreement. He has the power to punish OWNERS — subject to keeping his job when the owners next meet.

All professional sports have a commissioner, and for the same reason. All of the owners in all professional sports have agreed to allow their individual commissioners to have certain powers — again, for the same reason. All players’ unions agree for the commissioner of their sport to have certain powers — again, for the same reasons.

And, the owners have the means to get rid of the owner if he gets too big for his britches. The players can appeal his decisions if they think that that decision exceeds the power allowed in the collective bargaining agreement.

Salary caps are there to encourage actual COMPETITION so that each team (at least on paper) has the opportunity to compete for the prize. (Works REAL well in the NFL — the greatest number of Super Bowl wins (6) is by Pittsburgh and FOUR of those came prior to the salary cap.) It has the additional benefit of keeping personnel costs under control so we don’t have the runaway costs which essentially broke the NHL.

As to the non-guaranteed contracts, you have the two extremes in that area… You have the MLB contracts where many ARE guaranteed and players who don’t perform (indeed, become so bad that NO ONE will hire them) continue to “earn” millions while sitting on their living room couch eating chips. Then you have the NFL where players who have 5 year “contracts” are cut in their first year and they have no recourse (but, they can’t “quit” even through no fault of their own — ask Vick — without the owner asking for some or all of his “signing bonus” back.) These are issues for individual players (in the NFL, you get as much up front as possible so you pocket a ton of cash regardless of whether you later get cut — and cutting that player tends to hurt the owner in salary cap numbers) These are also issues for collective bargaining. The stronger the union, the better the individual contracts. (Compare the MLB and NFL contracts…)

The NFL isn’t a “socialist state.” It’s a collection of FRANCHISES who employ UNION workers who each make their money as a result of the FAVOR of the PUBLIC.

Thus, the NBA began requiring their tattoo-laden employees to wear acceptable clothing to their (required) press conferences. (What…you thought that the losing players just volunteered to sit at that table after losing a heart-wrenching game 7?) Thus, the NFL decided that some “end-zone celebrations” went too far. And NO ONE gets to bad-mouth the refs.

I’m not sure where you get “socialism.” The government isn’t involved.

Is McDonald’s “socialist?” Each individual franchise is subject to the rules of the owner of the “brand.” Are car dealerships “socialist?”

Each team in the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB is a franchise. The organization SOLD the franchise to the individual owners. When the individual owners BOUGHT that franchise, they AGREED to abide by the RULES that the organization.

They agreed to the number of players allowed on the roster. They agreed to play who the Organization TOLD them to play WHEN they told them to play them. They agreed to how much money they would receive from televised events.

This is a matter of CONTRACT — not socialism. Each right/responsibility of every franchise is spelled out in the CONTRACT through which the owners of that FRANCHISE obtains the contractual right to “own” an NFL team.

And, that includes the existence of and the powers of the Commissioner.

Any owner who doesn’t want to live up to the contractual mandates of the contract doesn’t have to buy the franchise. However, once he becomes a member of the “family,” he has to adhere to the terms of that contract.

And, one thing that EVERY sport agrees upon is that there MUST be someone, some body who protects the BRAND.

And the BRAND isn’t the individual teams or the individual players — it’s the GAME ITSELF.

The NFL, NBA, MLB can get along without a team in Baltimore — or New Orleans (moved TWICE), or Los Angeles. The NFL can increase the number of teams. The NFL can move teams. The NFL can decide that an owner can no longer BE an owner. (Ask DeBartelo)

The powers of the Commissioner aren’t infinite — they are spelled out in the CONTRACT between the NFL and the Commissioner and have to be in accord with the terms of the contracts between the NFL and its franchises.

It is, indeed, the OPPOSITE of “socialism,” in that it is the free market working EXACTLY as intended with the owners of the NFL contracting with the owners of the franchises all working with unions of employees who all compete for their respective slices of the capitalist pie.

Old Goat: I just don’t understand where you’re coming from with the “socialism” view.

A group of entrepreneurs got together and started a company. (NBA, NFL, AFL, whatever) They incorporated it, then sought out people to invest in their business through the licensing of franchises. As with every franchisor, the parent company executed a contract with the franchisees. Those franchisees then hired employees to work in the franchise. As with every franchisee, they were able to do whatever hiring/firing they wanted to do under whatever terms they and their employees agreed upon SO LONG as those terms did not violate the licensing agreement the franchisee had with the franchisor.

After a while, the employees formed a union. They didn’t care about the contract the franchisees had with the franchisors; they just cared about getting a larger slice of a growing pie and protecting themselves from workplace injury.

The franchisor is responsible for national advertising. It negotiates the televised games. It negotiates with the sports card companies…the jersey companies…

I just don’t see any “socialism” here…just good old fashioned capitalism confronted with good old fashioned unions — with the franchisees in the middle.