In Dan Wetzel’s column on this issue he wrote:
That would imply that there’s nothing the team owner can do in this situation without risking a big labor response.
I can’t see any upside for the Ravens if they were to do anything to stifle Ayanbadejo’s advocacy. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a “citizenship” or “morality” clause in his contract that could be used if the owners really wanted to, but I don’t see how they’d benefit. He may not be a starter (he’s second on the depth chart), but he’s a regular player (16 games in 2012), necessary backup, seasoned veteran, and former Pro-Bowler. If he’s cut for his advocacy, he’s likely to be picked up by somebody else. They might fine him, but I think that would only make the team look bad; he’s been an advocate for years, so they clearly didn’t have a problem until Burns brought it up. It would make the Ravens look like political tools rather than managing their own team.
Clearly, the NFL encourages some advocacy (United Way, Toys for Tots, etc…). The 49ers have even participated in the It Gets Better campaign, so sexual orientation is clearly not off the table.
So, as somebody who votes Democrat more often than not, I’m Burns on the trading block. Maybe the Republicans can offer a moderate Republican that they seem intent on forcing out. They don’t seem to have much use for Olympia Snow. Maybe we can get her for cheap off the waiver wire.
I said in my first post that the football team shouldn’t be involved if the guy does this on his own time and out of uniform. I agree they have the right to tell him he can’t go in uniform or act in any way as a representative of the team. But they can’t tell him not to go at all.
To break it down simply:
Representing his employer => employer gets a say.
Representing himself => he should be free to express whatever opinion he wants.
Where were all you free speech supporters when John Rocker was suspended from baseball for making some unkind comments about New York City and the people you find on the 7 train back in 2000?
Good point. I was … not a member of the SDMB.
Rocker’s comments were made in an interview that was part of his duties as a player - that seems like a pretty substantial difference right there.
John Rocker and Ozzie Guillen should be able to say what they want, too. Rocker was a douche, but he shouldn’t have been suspended.
I don’t think there are a lot of hypocrites here. The people who demanded that Rocker be suspended aren’t the same people who defend free speech even when they disagree with it. It doesn’t matter if the player supports NAMBLA, they shouldn’t be fired or censored for doing so, as long as they aren’t representing the team.
His duties included appearing in Sports Illustrated? Was that in his contract?
You’d have a point if his comments occurred in the locker room in uniform after a game.
The team, at most, had a right to a disclaimer that Rocker’s opinions were his own and did not reflect the opinions of his employer. Beyond that, they shouldn’t get to dictate what people say on their own time and to third party magazines. The local sports press is a different story, but they shouldn’t be printing non-sports-related opinions on immigration anyway.
Huh. This may be my ignorance of sports, but I don’t see how a team needs an ambassador in the first place. If it’s seeming like he’s an ambassador, I’d say that the team ought to set some standards in place. One of the following options would do:
- Tell players that when they’re wearing their jerseys, they’re on the job and representing the team and may not say things management dislikes.
- Tell the public that team members’ politics are their own business and do not necessarily reflect the view of management.
- Set up rules for the free tickets given away by members: for example, they may not be donated to charities. This one would probably get complicated, though, as players find loopholes (give them to family members who then give them to charities, or something).
If none of those rules are in place, then I’m not sure why there’s any problem.
I have a friend who’s an investigative reporter, and he’s very clear about his ethical limits: he won’t even answer anonymous political polls. His position makes sense, as he wants to maintain both the fact of and the appearance of nonpartisanship. But I don’t see why I should give a crap about a football player’s opinion: if the player is a raging Democrat or a raging Republican or a milquetoast Constitution Party guy, wouldn’t what really matters be how many points he can score?
If his bosses have a problem with his speech, the appropriate response would be for them to issue a public statement that the opinions of their players do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the team as a whole, and that the team as a whole takes no official stance on the subject of gay marriage. There, now the player has spoken, and the employer has spoken, and everyone gets their say.
When you do things that embarrass your employers, or worse, cost them money, which was the case for Rocker and Guillen, there will be repercussions.
Think of the guy who put up a YouTube video of himself harassing a Chik-Fil-A waitress who got fired as a result.
Having the wrong politics is different than publicizing your politics. Publicizing your politics might affect the business negatively. No business owner should be criticized for terminating an employee who’s actions negatively affect his business.
Uh … Wow.
For those who want to know before clicking – Minnesota punter Chris Kluwe has written a public letter to Burns tearing him a new one in rather colorful language.
Well, I was a member here then, but I don’t think I participated in any debates about it.
The difference is that Rocker’s actions would certainly have led to costing the team lots of money. If the player in this current story did something that would cause fans to stay away in droves, then the owner would have a leg to stand on in firing/punishing him.
That’s one difference. Another huge difference for me personally is that Rocker was promoting hate, while Ayanbadejo is opposing it.
Now, that is an Epic rant! Nice work.
Holy cow, that letter from Vikings punter Chris Kluwe was a thing of beauty.
By the way - I did have to look up one word in the letter: “fromunda.”
I must say that was pretty awesome of Chris Kluwe to stick his neck out like that when others are stepping back away from the issue in light of the publicity.
On the original letter from Burns, how did it become public to begin with? Did Burns make a copy and say I sent this? Did Bisciotti receive it and send a copy to a news agency?
Whoa. Kluwe posts to a football forum that I am a member of, and he’s helpful in explaining the rules and giving us a behind the scenes viewpoint, so I already thought he was cool.
But whoa! 
I enjoyed the most, “Holy fucking shitballs.” And speaking of shitballs, Kluwe has balls of steel, because he’s going to catch a lot of shit over this.