As a general rule, unions are empowered to sacrifice the best interests of an individual member for the best interests of the membership as a whole. Therefore, if the NFLPA believes that harsh penalties for off-the-field conduct are in the best interests of all players, then I do no see a problem. Similarly, the NBPA is justified in taking the opposite view.

 Anonymous -- 7/16/2007 9:46 AM  

Great post, Rick.

My impression is that a lot of fans and media don't like it when players' associations challenge league-imposed player punishments. There are a number of reasons for that, including, I suspect, the motive for closure, which psychologists have identified (i.e., even though we believe otherwise, we often care more about obtaining closure in a matter than finding justice for it). More generally, the motive for closure relates to why people often dislike attorneys who aggressively, perhaps zealously, defend their clients' innocence, even though that is their job and the ability of a defendant to obtain justice in some cases is almost completely reliant upon the competence of his or her attorney.

Another reason: a lot of people probably better identify with those in sports management positions than those playing in NBA and NFL games. If that is true, then those same people will likely be prone to interpreting ambiguous or contestable facts in favor of the league when a dispute emerges with a player.

One other point: I think there is value for a players' association in the very act of challenging a league-imposed punishment. I believe doing so enables the players' association to send a message that it too will impose a cost--be it time, money, energy, emotion--on the league and its officials when those officials engage in unilateral decision-making that adversely affects players without the consent of the players' association.

 Michael McCann -- 7/16/2007 11:08 AM  

Following up on Prof. McCann's post, another likely reason why fans don't like challenges to league punishments is that most fans have no recourse from their own employers' disciplinary policies. Most fans are at-will employees who must either submit to their employers' demands or quit. Thus, its annoys fans when athletes -- who most fans see as having dream jobs -- also have the ability to flout their employers' rules with near impunity.

 Anonymous -- 7/16/2007 11:23 AM  

At least part of the NFLPA initiative is due to the team representatives, who apparently approached Upshaw as a group and demanded that the union take some action to deal with the rising tide of player misconduct issues. So to some extent the NFLPA's stance is a reflection of the concerns of its members. Whether the union is too deferential is another issue--but the union continues to strongly challenge disciplinary forfeitures relating to reachback provisions in the player contracts, so the deference only goes so far.

 Anonymous -- 7/16/2007 12:46 PM  

This will be a PR nightmare for the league either way.

Thugs have rights, even when their behavior infringes on the sullying their employer. The union would be wrong not to look into this situation, as it was established to challenge and protect players from actions just like this.

 Jarrett Carter -- 7/16/2007 2:31 PM  

I agree with Jarrett, the Players Association would be wrong not to look into to the suspensions. As a general principle, the union should always look into player discipline in order to serve their clients needs. However, the fact that they look into it does not mean that they nessecarily have to challenge the ruling.

Personally, I prefer the NFL / NFLPA approach to this problem. There is a need to clean the sport up, and they are taking drastic but justified steps to do so. I have always looked at the NBA disciplinary actions as somewhat of a joke, they are rarely for any significant period of time, and really does little to discourage disruptive and illegal behavior.

 Jimmy H -- 7/16/2007 3:40 PM  

Anon 9:46,

It's obvious that each union has a different "belief" (as you put it). I just think it's interesting (and rare) for each union to take the extreme opposite view on a fundamental issue regarding what's in the best interest of the players. For example, all unions are in agreement that it's in the best interest of the players to get as large a share of the "revenue pie" they can get. How that gets accomplished may take a variety of forms and combinations that gets heavily negotiated (i.e. free agency, salary cap or no salary cap, revenue sharing, minimum salaries, luxury tax, etc.), but the basic understanding and objective of the unions on the fundamental issue is the same -- to maximize revenue for the players.

With league discipline, the unions disagree on whether it's in the best interest of the players to do so. How can it be in the best interest of the players under both situations --aggressively fighting the commissioner whenever he imposes discipline vs. affording the commissioner complete discretion to impose any discipline he wants -- when the two are diametrically opposed? Which one is in the best interest of the players, and why?

Michael and Anon 11:23,

You both comment on the fact that fans don't like it when the PA challenges league discipline. Another way of saying it is that player off-field misconduct impacts the league's product. My personal view is that player off-field misconduct does not impact the league's product, but let's assume for sake of argument that it does. Generally speaking, do you think it is the role of a certified union to be concerned about the employer's product in serving the best interest of its members? A union's basic role and reason for its existence is to negotiate with the employer to get the most favorable "wages, hours and working conditions" for its members. Let's face it, labor unions have never fared well in the public opinion polls, and that's because the positions taken by labor unions naturally tend to conflict with the interests of the consumer of the employer's product. But if the league's product and public sentiment are in fact valid concerns of the union, where do you draw the line on that? I mean, the fans also think that players are grossly overpaid spoiled brats, and so I suppose one could argue that it would be better for the league's product if players made less money.

Anon 12:46,

It's interesting how you say that the team representatives "apparently" approached Upshaw on this issue. All I think we can say for certain is 1.) that the commissioner unilaterally implemented the new personal conduct policy and 2.) Upshaw and a committee of only 6 players consulted with the commissioner about it. The player representatives of the teams did not vote on it. I don't think we even know how the committee of 6 players was formed -- if somebody has backup on that I would appreciate it.

Jimmy H,

You said there is a need to clean up the sport and the NFLPA/NFL are "taking drastic but justified steps to do so". I agree that they are taking drastic steps, but why is it justified? Is it justified because you think it will deter players from engaging in off-field misconduct and thus it benefits society as a whole? [Because I seriously question whether it acts as a deterrent.] Do you think that it sends an important message to young athletes of the world that it's wrong to shoot a firearm outside a strip club? The justification can't be a concern over safety in the workplace.

 Rick Karcher -- 7/16/2007 4:43 PM  

I think it's being overlooked that the players have interests other than strictly financial ones. If, for instance, they find people treating them as drug crazed thugs, they'd have an interest in changing public perception of their profession. Lawyers might have some sympathy for such efforts.

MTR

 Anonymous -- 7/16/2007 6:51 PM  

Rick @ 4:43...Great Post!

I just don't think the NFLPA's partner-like dynamic with the League is in the best interests of the players. I think this dynamic leads to a pattern of eroding due process and strangley enough...it mirrors the rest of society in my opinion.

I have absolutely no legal background, just a sports loving layman here.
Checks & Balances from a common sense standpoint, not even a nuanced or informed legal one, seems like one of the most important, impressive & ingenious components to our system of governance and justice.

The NBAPA stance honors that, the NFLPA's doesnt.

 SportsDiva -- 7/17/2007 11:41 AM  

Rick:

You ask: "How can it be in the best interest of the players under both situations --aggressively fighting the commissioner whenever he imposes discipline vs. affording the commissioner complete discretion to impose any discipline he wants -- when the two are diametrically opposed?"

Two responses:
1) The situations are different. Football players have more to lose (whether financially or otherwise) from the continued malfeasance of their colleagues, so harsher punishments are needed. Further, football players want to make clear that they collectively support the overall view of the Commissioner, and thus refuse to second guess him at every turn.

2) We cannot know what's best for players; therefore, we should defer to their representatives. Even if one union is "right," (to the extent there can be one "right" solution when every situation is necessarily different) we cannot know which one that is, so both unions should be allowed to do what they're doing.

 Anonymous -- 7/17/2007 1:40 PM  

Post a Comment