I guess the part where we disagree is that for whatever reason, the NFL thinks players should have to talk to the media, or they buy their way out of it, via a fine. The players association (the players union) also agrees with it, or they wouldn't have allowed it into the collective bargaining agreement. So both sides agreed to it, therefore it is part of the players duty for their job. I feel if you don't do your job, then you either lose it, or get penalized for it and when the time comes for the next collective bargaining agreement make sure you get that out of the contracts. there are parts of my job that I don't like doing, but it is part of my job so I do them. No job is 100% ideal.
And I don't know if you know this, but the players don't have to answer the questions given to them. After the loss to the Bucs, at RG3's press conference, no matter what the reporters asked, his answer was, we are focused on the 49ers. So if you don't want to do the press, just hire someone to write a line for you to say to every question. You do that enough times and the reporters will no longer want to interview you.
Re: paragraph one, I was thinking about that yesterday, that rather than traditional contract, this is a collective bargaining situation. So I take your point. I, personally as an individual would have a hard time with that sort of provision in a contract I had really no choice not to sign if I wanted to play though. I guess that is the problem with collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is necessary for other reasons though, and therefore I take your point. I still think it is a stupid thing to have in a contract though. One's expression is a very personal thing, and though these guys are entertainers, they are mostly athletes. I don't think most of them attend speech classes or obtain communication degrees while in big football colleges. And just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right. (my Dad, the judge, used to always say that). Also, the control that the NFL uses to force athletes to represent one brand over another, (or more accurately, not be wearing or promoting their own brand during certain times), bothers me. If I needed to get pumped up to go out and do what they do, I would want to be able to wear the headphones I like, not what the NFL told me to use. Do union pipe fitters have to use a certain brand of tool? Not sure. That is even more relevant about shoes or other personal athletic equipment I would think. And the irony regarding the beer sponsorship is interesting too. I like that Sherman and Baldwin were making their points known. Perhaps it will be taken into account by the players' union in bargaining next time.
With regard to the second paragraph, yes, I know. And Lynch's recent interview was a version of RG3's play. He answered all questions with one word answers, and plugged a charity effort he is undertaking. Less eloquent I suppose. But I don't think Marshawn is much about eloquence, for whatever reason that is. Lots of speculation about that.
So you and I don't disagree all that much. Upon reflection, and due to collective bargaining, I agree it is legal. But I do think it is stupid. Always good to talk to you, Chad. I was pulling for the 'Skins over the Niners. was disappointed to see that the Niners pulled it out in the end.
Ok, back to getting excited to see the Seahawks take on the Niners in SF tomorrow night. It will be tough, I am sure.
@335clone , I haven't heard much from you this year. I am too nervous to wager, but hope for a good game!
Happy Thanksgiving, Weiner football fans!
...just saying.
