My question is, why is the senate getting involved in this?
I am not a fan of the NFL, I don’t like professional football, and I think their players get paid waaaay too much. I am also not a fan of the tax-exempt status of the NFL.
And I’m not saying some (maybe a lot) of these players aren’t scumbags. I really don’t follow sports. But this McCarthy-esque witch hunt to shun and punish anyone who employs someone accused of domestic violence seems unnecessary to me. If these football players are bad people and have broken the law, then why aren’t they in jail? It isn’t up to the public, the NFL, and now senators to punish them if the criminal justice system hasn’t. If these players should be in jail and aren’t then revamp the criminal justice system that convict them.
If you notice who is testifying, it is not Ray Rice or other athletes accused of domestic violence. It’s executives of the major sports leagues and players unions, so the OP’s claim that this is a McCarthy-like witch hunt is wrong from the beginning. Seems like a fine idea to me for someone to ask these executives what their businesses are doing in relation to a significant national problem.
If the leagues and the unions are doing a lot to enforce their own code of behavior for athletes, then they can explain that. If they do not believe it is the place of a business or a player’s union to police that sort of thing, then they have a forum to explain why they think they are different than other sports.
Because legislators will do anything to avoid doing their jobs. Even better if it distracts their constituents from the fact that they aren’t doing their jobs.
Ok, counseling or whatever. It should be a job for the criminal system and not the media or pundits or senators.
What does the senate have to so with ethics?
I don’t mean to come off as anti-politician but I simply don’t see what participating in the disciplining or taking away the job of a non-convicted person would help and why the senate should be involved in that.
And of course the NFL exec had to get up there and cry about it to appease the court of public opinion. That’s really what this is at this point, a court of public opinion.
No, the criminal justice system is not the sole way that we as a society address societal problems. It is perfectly reasonable for the Concerned Parents’ Committee or the American Paychiatric Association or the U.S. Senate or the public media or commentators to demand answers to societal problems and to use whatever social capital they have to try and effect changed. The difference is that the U.S. Senate has the authority to issue subpoenas.
While a abhor domestic violence, I don’t think it’s the NFL’s job to change society, even for the better. I don’t want society to look to athletes as role models for life. The are athletes…talented performers. That is all. The degree to which the NFL should put it’s nose in an employee’s off the field activities should be the same degree that H&R Block cares about their employee’s activities outside the office, or a McDonald’s employee outside the restaurant. If something is illegal, let the employee suffer the consequences. Otherwise, they should mind their own business.
Again, the reason I take this position is that we should not look to athletes, who have an extraordinary talent on the field to be extraordinarily good citizens. I’d like them to be, but I don’t want to promote the lie that because Player X is a great football player that that greatness necessarily translates off the field.
I do, however, think that the companies that endorse these athletes have a right to be active in an endorsee’s off-the-field activities. Part of the reason someone is asked to be an endorser is their off-the-field persona.
I wouldn’t lament the opportunity cost to Congress because really, do you want these guys messing up things that actually matter?
So what do you think, would they hold hearings for other industries? Like if it turns out, say, a couple Wall Street guys are beating their wives and girlfriends or going to prostitutes. I know this is ridiculous because Wall Street is a beacon of temperance and restraint, but humor me. Congress would haul everyone’s bosses up to ask what they’re doing to make their employees respect women and set a harmonious work environment. Right? That would totally happen.
I remember a couple years ago when Lance Stephenson threw his girlfriend down the stairs. No one gave a shit, and if they did it was mostly to analyze whether you’d want someone like that on your team. But oh my lawd, football you guys! And there’s video, so that makes it more relevant because seeing it leaves a bigger impact on your brain which means it’s more important because of reasons.
You could try to say it’s important because children see professional athletes as role models. That was their reasoning for making a big deal out of roids in baseball, wasn’t it? Nike and Charles Barkley found the solution to this problem a long time ago. Too bad it didn’t stick.
Where are you getting this idea that the hearing is intended to do that? Read the link in the OP, especially the paragraph describing the topic of the hearing, and tell me specifically where it talks about bullying sports leagues into firing athletes for no reason.
Really? What federal laws (as opposed to state laws) are involved here?
I’m not asking this as a “gotcha” question, I’m genuinely curious. If John smacks Bill and causes a concision isn’t that a matter for whatever state the action took place in?
The Senate may hold hearings, conduct investigations, request and issue reports, agree on resolutions, etc., on any issue, not just ones in which it is authorized to legislate over, if it believes that it is an issue of national interest or concern.
As Woodrow Wilson wrote, the informing function of Congress is preferred over even its legislative function.
Simply putting a spotlight on issues of significant concern, even if no bill is going to rest from it, serves a very important function. You think the press could gather these individuals around a table and ask them (hopefully) tough questions?
[Quote=Jeremy Spector]
Every dollar of income that is earned in the National Football League — from game tickets, television rights fees, jersey sales and national sponsorships — is subject to tax. None of this income is shielded in a tax-exempt entity. Instead, the NFL’s 32 clubs pay tax on all of these revenues.
Claims that the NFL is using a tax exemption to avoid paying the tax due on these revenues are simply misinformed. The confusion arises from the fact that there is one small part of the NFL, unrelated to all this business activity, that is tax-exempt: the NFL League Office. The league office is the administrative and organizational arm of the NFL and does things like write the rules of the game, hire referees, run the college draft, negotiate the collective bargaining agreement with the players, conduct player safety research, and run youth football programs.
The league office acts as a trade association for the NFL clubs. In the same way that other trade associations support companies in other lines of business, it establishes rules and standard practices for its members, develops programs to help them run their operations more efficiently and profitably, and promotes the business in the broader community. Trade associations are nonprofit organizations. They don’t engage in any business activity. As a result, they are exempt from being taxed under section 501(c)(6) of the federal tax code.
[/quote]
Yeah, I seem to remember trying to explain the NFL tax-exempt thing before but people just refuse to accept/understand it. No dollar of revenue in the NFL is tax-exempt, at least beyond various exemptions all profit generating entities can be exempt (i.e. certain deductions, special scenarios etc.) The teams collectively pay for expenses to a league office that exists as a non-profit entity, but it’s more like 30 businesses that share an HR department. The HR department isn’t a profit generating company, it’s administrative expense of the cooperative.
As for why this is perfectly acceptable for the Senate to hold hearings on:
The legislature is not designed to legislate from ignorance. They have broad powers to hold investigations and hearings to become informed on issues. This by necessity means they will sometimes learn about things on which they choose not to act, but that is far better than having them act on things they do not understand. The latter actually happens all the time, and is an unfortunate perversion of the intent of our legislative branch.
The investigatory power of the legislature has societal value independent of the legislating process. The Senate, beholden only to itself and their collectively constituencies represents a different branch of government separate from the normal investigative organs of the Federal bureaucracy. While the executive can and certainly does commission fact-finding missions, reports and etc, the Senate and the House retaining the ability to investigate matters is important. It gives them an independent ability to get information.
The legislature is supposed to be the heart of our democracy, and is supposed to be responsive to the pulse of the nation. Its job is to deal with things important to Americans, and the fourth estate–the media, does a pretty good job of highlighting what is and isn’t important to America. For better or worse the Senate is responding to something people care about. Additionally, they can do so in a way that no one else can. Powerful league officials can and do ignore reporters and various other entities, but then the Senate or House demands your presence, you have to show up. Fortune 500 CEOs, executive branch officials, sports commissioners, even foreign CEOs (Toyota’s CEO during the whole unintentional acceleration problem) have been called to task in Congress.
Additionally, it is all part of the public record, by proxy the Senate is giving us investigatory access to people that the ordinary citizenry, even the media, would have trouble getting in a room answering questions.
Is this entire process often abused, grandstanding, stupid politics? Sure. But that doesn’t mean its an illegitimate function, either. The way voting in the Senate works I’ve never heard of a hearing actually stopping the Senate from voting on an important issue.
Point taken, Congress can probably get/demand better answers than the press. I still question whether the media and pundits are concerned about the right aspects of this, and I still think we’ve gotten to the point where someone has to cry before the public is placated. But maybe having the authority of Congress getting involved could help.
If the Senate wants to take action against domestic violence, why single out the NFL? Why not go after the prosecutors who didn’t seek to impose any real punishment on Ray Rice?
SUPPOSE I was an abusive creep andI got arrested for punching my wife. Suppose then that the local DA let me off with a fine for disturbing the peace, and an admonishment to get some counseling.
At that point, would my boss fire me? Probably not. And why WOULD he? He’d figure it wasn’t his business. If the prosecutor thought I’d been punished enough (even if the “punishment” looks like a joke), why would anyone expect my boss to take any further action?
Ray Rice is scum. No artgument there. But how is it the NFL’s responsibility to punish him more severely than the state of New Jersey did?
If I ran a business and I had really good reason to believe that an employee of mine walked away from a very serious crime because he got cut a sweet deal, I would reserve the right to fire that guy because I don’t want such people around me.
Are you saying that if you saw a video of one of your hypothetical employees knock someone out cold, but that person was just given a slap on the wrist by the authorities, you wouldn’t think twice about welcoming that person back to work?
Okay, I’ll play. Suppose I owned a restaurant, one of my waiters beat up his grilfriend, and the DA elected not to charge him with any crimes. I MIGHT very well fire him, because I’d prefer not to have a turd like him working for me…
But if I didn’t, if I let him keep his job, why would anyone picket my restaurant? Why not picket the DA’s office? THEY’RE the ones who are supposed to punish evildoers.
