How to Fix the National Felon League?

[BZBot]

It’s easy to be on top—when you’re not. The latest issue of Sporting News just arrived in my mailbox today. After an excellent review of the Super Bowl, and a nice preview of next year’s season, there was an interesting article by Paul Attner about Roger Goodell’s obligation to clean up the NFL.

Source: http://www.bengalszone.com/article.php?sid=520

[Kirkendall]

Let's see, if Goodell really wants to make the league improve their image, I suggest the following...

1. Convicted of a felony, lifetime ban.

2. Convicted of a misdemeanor, 2 year suspension with loss of free agency rights for 2 additional seasons after reentry into the sport. Perhaps lifetime loss of free agency rights, if you REALLY want to be tough.

All cases of a player charged, but not convicted, with a felony is suspended from the league without pay until the courts resolve the issue.

Anyone wanna guess if the league will take these steps? I know, I know, union, blah blah blah.

I will always maintain that NASCAR, the one professional team-based sport that doesn't have a union, has maybe a hundredth of the conduct issues -- unless you got a jolly good laugh at Martin Truex pissing on his own car. Then again, it is HIS car. See, the thing about NASCAR is -- whether you like it or not is not the point -- if they have a problem, they fix it... right there! No consolation with union drivers. Nothing. They just do it. The founder of the sport said one thing, "You need NASCAR, NASCAR doesn't need you." If only more leaders in respective professional sports entertained that model.

Unions in sports -- perhaps life in general, but that's for another forum -- is an outdated model. Unions will drive sports into the ground. Unions allow Barry Bonds to play baseball. Unions allow players the right of privacy when that right is only a myth within their own minds. Unions allow MLB to continue to get out of control with payroll and a lack of salary cap. Unions prevent teams from cleaning up their own roster of problematic players because of their conduct off the field -- WTF is that?!

Unions are the death dealers of professional sports.

Discuss.

[BengalByTheBay]

And how many professional drivers are there in all of NASCAR? There are hundreds of NFL players, so there will be exponentially more issues with conduct. I don't think that's a valid comparison.

[Kirkendall]

And how many professional drivers are there in all of NASCAR? There are hundreds of NFL players, so there will be exponentially more issues with conduct. I don't think that's a valid comparison.

Well, that's true. So I'll wait for the next driver that has a mobile arms factory stored in his home, murdered from a drive-by shooting, laced up cigarettes while confronting on off-duty cop about the hour the club closes down or the next spousal abuse charge or the next grande theft stereo charge. How about a driver waving a loaded pistol while wearing his flame retardant drivers suit. That would make news, surely! Anyway, you were way off my point.

My point is the difference between sports run with unions and sports run without unions. I drew the NASCAR reference because they're the largest sporting entity I could compare with that doesn't have one. Without the union, the sport has all the power to make the wrong right. Would Bonds already have retired? Would the home run record ever have been broken if MLB acted on suspected steroids use? Could we take out the garbage that some of you want to take out so desperately?

Honestly, I believe, it's a tricky question and the counter-arguments are justified -- too much power, players getting low-balled and shafted. Then again, the media and the fans having so much access to real-time reports and this craving for insta-reaction, insta-analysis and insta-opinion, would be a suitable replacement. IMHO.

Anyway, I'm just starting, what I think, is an interesting debate.

[HairOnFire]

Anyway, I'm just starting, what I think, is an interesting debate.

But how can that be when there's nothing interesting about NASCAR?

[Kirkendall]

Anyway, I'm just starting, what I think, is an interesting debate.

But how can that be when there's nothing interesting about NASCAR?

I guess you're right. I suppose the popular topics remain: Madden-video-game armchair GMs, subjective opinion of overpaying without knowing the demands of those players and purging those that are charged with salary cap abuse.

[BengalByTheBay]

And how many professional drivers are there in all of NASCAR? There are hundreds of NFL players, so there will be exponentially more issues with conduct. I don't think that's a valid comparison.

Well, that's true. So I'll wait for the next driver that has a mobile arms factory stored in his home, murdered from a drive-by shooting, laced up cigarettes while confronting on off-duty cop about the hour the club closes down or the next spousal abuse charge or the next grande theft stereo charge. How about a driver waving a loaded pistol while wearing his flame retardant drivers suit. That would make news, surely! Anyway, you were way off my point.

My point is the difference between sports run with unions and sports run without unions. I drew the NASCAR reference because they're the largest sporting entity I could compare with that doesn't have one. Without the union, the sport has all the power to make the wrong right. Would Bonds already have retired? Would the home run record ever have been broken if MLB acted on suspected steroids use? Could we take out the garbage that some of you want to take out so desperately?

Honestly, I believe, it's a tricky question and the counter-arguments are justified -- too much power, players getting low-balled and shafted. Then again, the media and the fans having so much access to real-time reports and this craving for insta-reaction, insta-analysis and insta-opinion, would be a suitable replacement. IMHO.

Anyway, I'm just starting, what I think, is an interesting debate.

Fair enough -- except it would seem to me that there are so few "athletes" in NASCAR versus almost any other professional sport that it defies comparison. Unions exist because the employees believe they have so little negotiating leverage that to collectivize provides some degree of bargaining power. In NASCAR there are so few drivers, and it is my understanding that they are typically pretty closely associated with the ownership already, that it's hard to see how a union even could work. That may be why it's the only pro sport that you were able to find without one. That was my point.

[HairOnFire]

See, the thing about NASCAR is -- whether you like it or not is not the point -- if they have a problem, they fix it... right there! No consolation with union drivers. Nothing. They just do it.

I'm at a disadvantage in any discussion about NASCAR since I care nothing for the sport and know almost nothing about it. That said, is the above statement really true? Didn't NASCAR's season lasy year begin with a cheating scandal involving Jimmah Johnson, the driver who eventually won the final championship? If true, and I'm pretty sure it is, I'd argue that NASCAR doesn't seem to have a firm grip on how to adequately punish teams who deliberatly cheat.

More? My morning paper was filled with headlines about four or five NASCAR teams attempting to cheat THIS season...proof enough that all previous attempts to punish cheating were inadequate. Granted, this year NASCAR is said to be taking a more hardline stance, but each of the teams involved are still being allowed to compete in the very race where their acts of cheating were discovered. So how hardline can any stance against cheating really be when the teams involved can still win the race? In addition, even the stiffer punishment handed out this year aren't enough to disqualify the teams for the championship. They simply start the season at a small disadvantage.

So has NASCAR fixed their problem immediately? Well no, I don't think so. Cheating is said to be rampant in NASCAR and it's still being done deliberately....in this case with plasma cutters.

[Kirkendall]

Fair enough -- except it would seem to me that there are so few "athletes" in NASCAR versus almost any other professional sport that it defies comparison.

For one thing, there's hundreds of drivers under the NASCAR umbrella. Also, most of the bigger organizations double to triple the amount of employees of an NFL football team. But that's not the point. I'm NOT comparing sports. I'm asking YOU, are unions needed in professional sports. In fact, just for a moment, take NASCAR out of it. Don't don't say it, don't spell it, in fact, don't think it.

Unions exist because the employees believe they have so little negotiating leverage that to collectivize provides some degree of bargaining power.

My point, again, is whether they're needed in sports? To go one further, do unions benefit the sport (not the players) or damage it?

In NASCAR there are so few drivers, and it is my understanding that they are typically pretty closely associated with the ownership already,

No different than Palmer being associated with Mike Brown. Drivers, like football players, sign contracts to perform a service.

That may be why it's the only pro sport that you were able to find without one.

No, it's not. They don't want a union because they are intrusive and it damages the product. Wouldn't you agree that unions damaged Major League Baseball? In fact, ask many around here why they hate baseball today.

So watcha think, Unions. Are they needed in professional sports today with the oversight of the media, the fans' ability to voice their opinion and the ability for players to get word out about their "problems"?

[BengalByTheBay]

Well, you started off saying that car racing (I didn't say the "N" word) doesn't have any problems because they're not unionized. I pointed out the major difference that I see and now you're changing your question to whether I think that unions should exist in sports because they are detrimental.

(BTW -- Are there really "hundreds" of drivers in the "N" word? Really, it looks like there couldn't possibly be more than 100 to me. How many cars can start in the same race anyway? Also, if you're saying under the "N" umbrella -- I'm at a disadvantage because it starts to look like boxing to me with an alphabet soup of different organizations, none of which I have any understanding of.)

Asking whether I think there should be unionized anything is kind of like asking me whether I think Hillary Clinton should run for President -- it doesn't really matter what I think because she/they will do whatever they want regardless of my opinion. As a rhetorical question, I tend to think that the utility of unionized labor, while certainly relevant through periods of history, has somewhat run its course. I see unions being useful mainly to union leadership and, almost nominally, to their membership. I think it is a wasteful, generally corrupt system that enjoys a degree of legal protection exceeding its benefit to its members. But, hey, what do I know anyway?

Like it or not -- the CBA is a part of the NFL and it's not going anywhere soon. I tend to think car racing looks a lot more like pro bowling than the NBA, MLB or any other type of team sport.

[HoosierCat]

Specific to the NFL, I have little sympathy for an anti-player's union sentiment, simply because the No. 1 reason the player's union still exists is...the owners.

The player's union did decertify itself once, over the refusal of the owners to allow free agency. It then filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the league...and the owners caved. They would rather allow FA then lose their antitrust exemption.

Had the new CBA not been agreed upon, a similar scenario would have played out. In short, the owners had their second chance to kill the union -- but at the cost of having to compete in an open market. A market that might or might not be as lucrative as the current monopoly, but one that would certainly be more complicated. And let's face it, many (if not the majority) of owners haven't demonstrated any ability to make money in the "real world." Including our own beloved Mikey.

So you think the NFL players union stinks, kirk? Well, go take it up with the NFL owners, they're the ones keeping it alive.

[Kirkendall]

So you think the NFL players union stinks, kirk?

I'm asking if you guys think it's needed, not if it stinks. It's one of those topics that adds to the fodder of boring off-season talk. Hopefully more people add to the discussion. I'm thinking of doing a piece for it, but wanted to get other's opinions.

[HoosierCat]

I'm asking if you guys think it's needed, not if it stinks.

If you take the position that it isn't needed and creates problems (which appears to be the way you're leaning), then the difference is only rhetorical.

However, you are right that semantics are an appropriate topic regarding the NFL player's union, since IMHO it isn't really a "union" at all. It's more like the NFL's Human Resources Department. And it's a critical part of football as we know it continuing to exist (which may or may no be a good thing). Were the union to decertify, as it threatens to do often if its demands aren't met, the league's antitrust exemption would quickly follow.

I don't know of any other union in any other industry that has the power to commit suicide and take management down with it. In fact, in most industries, management would welcome the demise of unions. As just one obvious example, look at the way Wal-Mart routinely fights like a bastige to keep them out of its stores.

Yet in the NFL, the player's "union" threatens to go away -- and management works overtime to save it! In doing so, they give up increasing amounts of money and power. Again, think about that: in what other industry does management routinely concede money and power to a union which says that, if they don't, they'll dissolve themselves? I would submit that there are none.

In short, the problem isn't the "union" per se, it's the monopolitic NFL structure that it's a crucial part of. If the union causes the downfall of the NFL as it now exists, it will be because the whole structure was inherently flawed from the start, not because the union killed it.

[BengalszoneBilly]

But how can that be when there's nothing interesting about NASCAR?

Nascar is obviously not for everyone. I know many people who have no interest in it. Of course they're mostly women. You could call it the red headed step-child of the sports world.