Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There may be no right to play on an NFL team, but 32 teams jointly act through the league to decide who can and cannot play would -- one might think -- raise some sort of antitrust flag. Presumably the justification for the league is that for the health of the enterprise as a whole, it needs to set some standards, or there will be a race to the bottom by the teams, and the entertainment value of the product as a whole will suffer. I don't see why it's the place of the league to punish Vick, per se -- that's the job of the criminal justice system. But the league will suffer if it's seen to welcome back an unrehabilitated criminal, and it seems legit to let it protect itself in that regard. Perhaps that's a fine line?
|
I don't disagree (and I think there is an antitrust problem with almost every major sport, but will defer to you on that point*). I just find it sickening that they take this hard line stance with him when the other players in the examples I mentioned walk back into the league without so much as a flinch from the commissioner.
My complaint may be more appropriately aimed at the society in which we live for weighing his crime heavier than others (like domestic violence, a very serious
human problem). I just think it's ridiculous and Goddell's strongly principled words ring empty when taken in the full context of what the league deems troublesome. Long story short: "If it affects revenue, you better damn well be publicly sorry. If it doesn't, we don't really give a fuck."
TM
*(And I realize baseball has an exemption.)
