I’m not making a value judgment, merely noting that the closest analogue works the same way.
I look at it like the NFL is making a product to sell for entertainment. The players are more like “machines” for the “factory”. Off the job actions affect the public’s view and therefore the value of the product. This analogy also explains their salaries that don’t make sense in any traditional labor situation but anyone would buy a machine for $1 million to make something they can sell for $2 million. The analogy works for any entertainment industry.
Their salaries make perfect sense from a labor standpoint. There are fewer than 3,000 NFL players. There are maybe another 3,000 who could play at the NFL level but don’t have roster spots. There are a handful of players who can play at a level that justifies a $100 million contract.
On the other hand, just about anyone can operate a machine press with a little training.
Which brings us back around to where this thread started - Why the NFL is uniquely held responsible for the private sins of its employees.
Let’s step through that.
The NFL generates a tremendous amount of cash. Because of their product, football, which is played by their labor, the players. The players are compensated at different levels, but generally speaking extraordinarily well compared to vast majority of people on the planet.
The NFL would like to keep generating money. People in general seem willing to overlook a tremendous amount of poor conduct on part of entertainers, including athletes. The NFL voluntarily sets disciplinary standards across the league, as Spiderman and others have referenced, to try and maintain some sort of levels of fairness. Ordinarily, oddly, this seems to pertain to actual football matters.
Every now and then, some nitwit, say Michael Vick, or Ray Rice, does something so outrageous that the NFL brand is impacted. That’s money. So the NFL steps in. “Bad Player. We condemn that!” (Or suspend/fine/fire him!) Those 3000 players are entitled to their unique position and salary because the NFL protects the brand all day, every day, even against the actions of the players themselves.
So, no, the NFL is not unique in protecting its brand. It is unique in that its players are synonymous with its brand, a clearly uncomfortable situation when private matters become public.
Can’t address the “sins” portion. I think the NFL is non-denominational. At least in theory. 
Beating the dead horse but this reminds me of the old Mozilla CEO thread, remember, the guy, Eich, had to step down because he had made a private donation in support of a gay marriage ban?
The NFL is far from unique. Those who are the public face of a company, who represent the brand in highly significant ways, are often in this circumstance in many industries. To no small degree their personality and personal and/or so-called “private” beliefs are part of the product being publicly sold. Maybe especially in sports, but not exclusively in sports. If your now public formerly private beliefs, or actions, significantly upset the target demographics, then you are a damaged product and need to be removed as part of qulaity control.
Maybe we (Americans) should be asking ourselves why we demand a certain level of off-field behavior from our athletes. I know that sounds revolutionary but we’re fairly unique in this regard. The major European soccer leagues, for instance, limit their disciplinary authority to on-field actions and the public generally is ok with it.
Players get sacked from NRL clubs just for getting on the piss and other juvenile antics, as the image of said club takes a fearful beating from the media if they don’t.
Often they sit out the season then join another club, everything forgotten.
I scanned that thinking that the sentence was missing a verb.
Seriously? European clubs discipline their fanssometimes.
Generally for transgressions against visiting teams or players. When it comes to club disciplinary actions against players the biggest voice is that of the club’s supporters. But not that of other teams’ fans.
Beware of zoos bearing bears!
Yeah, its the brand. The NFL likes their players to be an example for the kids. I know I’ve been to many events where players come out to be with the kids.
Nope. Nobody remembers that guy.
We have another case:
"Jonathan Dwyer of the Arizona Cardinals has been arrested on suspicion of domestic violence, police have said.
The 25-year-old running back, facing charges of aggravated assault and preventing someone from calling 911, has been suspended from the team.
The charges are from two altercations at his home in July involving a woman and an 18-month-old child."
Sorry I had missed that.
I do find it interesting that the Vikings organization came out stating that:
as they reinstated Adrian Peterson. Which was, frankly, an outrageous statement to come out and say.
And that shortly after that Anheuser-Busch expresses itself on the general subject:
Suddenly the Vikings’ position changes.
The NFL sells the hero worship of its players and teams it receives from public to companies eager to associate their products with those emotions. These behaviors and even more so these responses by the teams make that sale a bit tougher to make. Describing the hitting of a small child with a tree branch in the manner that he hit his child as “discipling a child” makes the Vikings a toxic brand. What brand wants their logo associated with that? The damage is done. Commercials for Vikings games will be sell for lots less this year.
I was referring to this:
“So there is no specific rule against using the n-word, but the NFL competition committee has made it a “point of emphasis” to flag that word, and possibly homophobic slurs, during games. It’s all under the umbrella of unsportsmanlike conduct, and remains very vague.”
From here…
It appears that to call it a specific N-word penalty was over-stating the case though.