MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Eldon on October 27, 2015, 08:39:27 PM
-
https://gma.yahoo.com/nba-cheerleader-files-1st-lawsuit-against-basketball-team-142659383--abc-news-personal-finance.html#
While NBA players and coaches receive multi-million dollar salaries, one former NBA cheerleader is claiming she earned less than minimum wage.
Former Milwaukee Bucks cheerleader Lauren Herington is suing the team over the alleged low pay, the first lawsuit of its kind in the NBA. There have been similar lawsuits in the NFL.
"They hold you to such a high standard but yet that's not what they pay you," Herington told ABC News' "Good Morning America." "So it is disheartening and they expect you to put in so much time and effort for it."
Herington filed the lawsuit in federal court in Milwaukee on Sept. 24 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The NFL faced similar lawsuits last year claiming teams violated minimum wage laws, starting with a former cheerleader who sued the Oakland Raiders. Suits against the Buffalo Bills, New York Jets, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Cincinnati Bengals followed. The lawsuits against the Bills and Jets are still pending, while the others have settled.
Herington claims dancing for the Bucks was like a full-time job with part-time pay. During the 2013 to 2014 season, she said she spent hours preparing and performing but was paid only $65 dollars per home game, $30 for practices and $50 for special appearances. She claims that she was paid an average of $3 to $5 an hour for the time she worked, well below Wisconsin's $7.25 minimum wage. She also claimed she was paid nothing for the required personal upkeep.
"They didn't pay for the haircuts, the nails, the tanning," her attorney Ryan Stephan said. "We're dealing with women who are 19, 20, 21 years old. They really don't have the resources to pay for those things."
The Milwaukee Bucks said in a statement, "We treat all of our employees fairly, including our Bucks dancers, and pay them fairly and in compliance with federal and state law."
The NBA said that it works with its teams "to ensure that they comply with all applicable wage and working condition laws."
So basically: 'I did a lot of off the clock work and I should be compensated for that work.' This woman must not know any lawyers. I mean when you factor in law school debt, plus undergrad debt, plus low pay (for quite a few of them), plus the long hours...
-
I hate it when people put guns to people's heads and force them to work.......
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tsCSEMUboak/UDKcrsMsQRI/AAAAAAAAEmk/P_s9IrNX9F8/s1600/new+york+casting.bmp)
She can't be a victim by the way....Pakuni will tell you why.
-
I hate it when people put guns to people's heads and force them to work.......
She can't be a victim by the way....Pakuni will tell you why.
Sorry, Chicos, but you are off base here. If you are requiring your paid staff to be present somewhere for a certain amount of time, you have to give them at least the minimum wage. That's the law.
If pro sports teams don't want to do that, they would be better off making cheerleaders a strictly volunteer position.
-
I hate it when people put guns to people's heads and force them to work.......
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tsCSEMUboak/UDKcrsMsQRI/AAAAAAAAEmk/P_s9IrNX9F8/s1600/new+york+casting.bmp)
She can't be a victim by the way....Pakuni will tell you why.
So long as Chicos can go into her locker room everything is fair, people.
PS, siting a public post by a college aged male student athlete = creepy.
Needing to go find a picture of the cheerleader who is suing for being paid less than the minimum wage = perfectly normal.
Anybody think Chicos would've gone and found pictures of the guy if this were Bango the Buck filing the lawsuit? Just asking for equality here is all, really.
-
BeeJay, whatda ya say, Bro? I could fix up that smile line with a little electrosurgery or laser gingiplasty, hey?
-
I hate it when people put guns to people's heads and force them to work.......
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tsCSEMUboak/UDKcrsMsQRI/AAAAAAAAEmk/P_s9IrNX9F8/s1600/new+york+casting.bmp)
She can't be a victim by the way....Pakuni will tell you why.
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/8a66391f8fb8133850104fee48bd8c40/tumblr_mn5jzi4yr91rixwdqo1_400.gif)
-
Chicos has become a parody of Chicos.
-
Sorry, Chicos, but you are off base here. If you are requiring your paid staff to be present somewhere for a certain amount of time, you have to give them at least the minimum wage. That's the law.
If pro sports teams don't want to do that, they would be better off making cheerleaders a strictly volunteer position.
Even that is problematic. DOL doesn't look too kindly on for-profit companies having "volunteers." I vaguely recall the Vikings having to change their plan to have "volunteers" shovel snow at the stadium -- presumably after someone advised them it would be illegal as hell.
-
Sorry, Chicos, but you are off base here. If you are requiring your paid staff to be present somewhere for a certain amount of time, you have to give them at least the minimum wage. That's the law.
If pro sports teams don't want to do that, they would be better off making cheerleaders a strictly volunteer position.
It's part of the job. The benefits of being a cheerleader go beyond the pay. I've had a Baltimore Ravens cheerleader intern for me as well as two Laker girls, so I have a bit of experience in this. For some, it is to get noticed for modeling jobs, acting jobs, etc. Some, literally, want to catch a guy....words directly out of their mouths. Others, because they just love sports or want to be part of the community.
Point is, they know the pay sucks, but they know there are other benefits that go along with it. Travel, exotic trips to shoot calendars, linkage to other jobs, etc. They know going in what the requirements are and NO ONE is putting a gun to their head to take these jobs. It is a means to an end for bigger, better stuff.
Now, where I would agree with you is if they didn't disclose the other requirements in advance to her, but if they didn't then that is piss poor on the Bucks. Typically they outline that you will be required as part of your gig to be at X number of outside functions during the season. Don't like it? Don't be a cheerleader.
-
It's part of the job. The benefits of being a cheerleader go beyond the pay. I've had a Baltimore Ravens cheerleader intern for me as well as two Laker girls, so I have a bit of experience in this. For some, it is to get noticed for modeling jobs, acting jobs, etc. Some, literally, want to catch a guy....words directly out of their mouths. Others, because they just love sports or want to be part of the community.
Point is, they know the pay sucks, but they know there are other benefits that go along with it. Travel, exotic trips to shoot calendars, linkage to other jobs, etc. They know going in what the requirements are and NO ONE is putting a gun to their head to take these jobs. It is a means to an end for bigger, better stuff.
Now, where I would agree with you is if they didn't disclose the other requirements in advance to her, but if they didn't then that is piss poor on the Bucks. Typically they outline that you will be required as part of your gig to be at X number of outside functions during the season. Don't like it? Don't be a cheerleader.
Of course you have experience with this. You always seem to.
And none of the first two paragraphs matter. We have minimum wage laws in this country. They should be upheld. Having "side benefits" doesn't excuse them. And most especially the "no one forces them to take the job" line. What a bunch of crap. My kids didn't have to take jobs in high school, but I damn well expected them to receive minimum wage. You know. The law.
-
So long as Chicos can go into her locker room everything is fair, people.
PS, siting a public post by a college aged male student athlete = creepy.
Needing to go find a picture of the cheerleader who is suing for being paid less than the minimum wage = perfectly normal.
Anybody think Chicos would've gone and found pictures of the guy if this were Bango the Buck filing the lawsuit? Just asking for equality here is all, really.
Her picture came with one of the articles smart guy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Lauren+Herington&oq=Lauren+Herington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.231j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=Lauren+Herington&tbm=nws
I'd be happy to pose a picture of Bango, do they show who is under the costume? Or are they all like this?
http://www.nba.com/bucks/community/madison-childrens-hospital-fireman-rob-foundation
-
Chicos,
I generally agree with what you wrote about the cheerleaders knowing what they are signing up for. If there is full disclosure, and they sign up for it, then what's the problem.
On the other hand, the DOL are fanatics about investigating big name targets for the publicity. Also, non-payment of overtime is punishable with fines that are triple the infraction. Lawyers salivate for these kind of lawsuits because of how lucrative they are. This likely won't go away unless the Bucks settle.
-
Even that is problematic. DOL doesn't look too kindly on for-profit companies having "volunteers." I vaguely recall the Vikings having to change their plan to have "volunteers" shovel snow at the stadium -- presumably after someone advised them it would be illegal as hell.
Cut their pay to zero and relabel them interns in the performing arts department of the Bucks. No?
-
Of course you have experience with this. You always seem to.
And none of the first two paragraphs matter. We have minimum wage laws in this country. They should be upheld. Having "side benefits" doesn't excuse them. And most especially the "no one forces them to take the job" line. What a bunch of crap. My kids didn't have to take jobs in high school, but I damn well expected them to receive minimum wage. You know. The law.
The article in the OP doesn't state how many hours each event/practice/game is, but I agree that if she worked X number of hours, she needs to have at least $7.25 for each of those hours. I mean that's just the law. There are no if ands or buts.
Now, regarding outside "work" like getting your nails done, staying in shape, etc., those things are part of the uniform of being a cheerleader. I have to dress nice when I work. Does my employer buy my dress shoes? Does my employer compensate me for the two hours I stand in line at Wal-Mart while I buy new blazers?
This woman is in for a rude awakening when she gets a full-time, salaried job and isn't compensated at time-and-a-half when she works that 41st hour.
-
Of course you have experience with this. You always seem to.
And none of the first two paragraphs matter. We have minimum wage laws in this country. They should be upheld. Having "side benefits" doesn't excuse them. And most especially the "no one forces them to take the job" line. What a bunch of crap. My kids didn't have to take jobs in high school, but I damn well expected them to receive minimum wage. You know. The law.
In this case I do. This is a sports board, I've been in the sports field for decades, so yes....by the very nature of it, I'm going to have a lot of experience in these areas.
Sorry, the first two paragraphs you don't like, but they do matter because they provide real context into the WHY people take these jobs.
Her upkeep claims? Laughable. Do I get a clothing allowance? A haircut allowance? Do 99.9% of people in this country? No. It's part of the gig. Don't like it, don't be a cheerleader. Don't be a Hooters girl. Don't be a model. Appearance is part of the gig.
You want to know what truly doesn't matter, the opening lines in the article talking about how much athletes make? A throw away line. It has zero bearing on this. Not one iota, but for some reason the author thought it appropriate to put it in.
Now, you've gone on to make this a legal argument, citing state and federal law. You've already made the conclusion the Bucks have violated this. Guess what, the Bucks don't agree....this is why we have a legal process. Didn't know that while you are in Indiana you are also an expert on wage law in Wisconsin and have already adjudicated this case.
-
This woman is in for a rude awakening when she gets a full-time, salaried job and isn't compensated at time-and-a-half when she works that 41st hour.
Yup...or the 42nd through 60th either. Or taking calls at 4:00am because your clients are in London, or so on and so forth. A rude awakening indeed.
-
I often agree with Chicos, but I really don't understand why the NFL and NBA don't pay their cheerleaders more, and not just minimum wage, which apparently they often don't even do. To give them a living wage would have virtually no effect on their bottom line, especially in the NFL. Just a strange way to go about doing business. Such unnecessary bad pub.
-
In this case I do. This is a sports board, I've been in the sports field for decades, so yes....by the very nature of it, I'm going to have a lot of experience in these areas.
Sorry, the first two paragraphs you don't like, but they do matter because they provide real context into the WHY people take these jobs.
Her upkeep claims? Laughable. Do I get a clothing allowance? A haircut allowance? Do 99.9% of people in this country? No. It's part of the gig. Don't like it, don't be a cheerleader. Don't be a Hooters girl. Don't be a model. Appearance is part of the gig.
You want to know what truly doesn't matter, the opening lines in the article talking about how much athletes make? A throw away line. It has zero bearing on this. Not one iota, but for some reason the author thought it appropriate to put it in.
Now, you've gone on to make this a legal argument, citing state and federal law. You've already made the conclusion the Bucks have violated this. Guess what, the Bucks don't agree....this is why we have a legal process. Didn't know that while you are in Indiana you are also an expert on wage law in Wisconsin and have already adjudicated this case.
As long as the Bucks follow the law, the rest is legitimately "know what you are getting into" type. If they didn't follow labor laws then her lawsuit has merit. She can be right about wage laws and wrong about the auxiliary stuff (mostly for legal posturing and winning sympathy in the public for a better settlement).
It is somewhat funny that you hammer on Sultan for coming to a conclusion on a non-binding internet sport forum, when you yourself have already concluded it is without merit with your first post.
-
I often agree with Chicos, but I really don't understand why the NFL and NBA don't pay thier cheerleaders more, and not just minimum wage, which apparently they don't. To give them a living wage would have virtually no effect on their bottom line, especially in the NFL. Just a strange way to go about doing business. Such unnecessary bad pub.
I agree with this, the sports leagues just don't make any sense on this. Same thing with Pink October stuff....especially the NFL has a female issue(very poor track record of supporting women) and things like this cheerleader stuff just feed that narrative. Pay them living wages or at least comply 127% with labor laws and move on. Can't hurt, only help.
-
I often agree with Chicos, but I really don't understand why the NFL and NBA don't pay thier cheerleaders more, and not just minimum wage, which apparently they don't. To give them a living wage would have virtually no effect on their bottom line, especially in the NFL. Just a strange way to go about doing business. Such unnecessary bad pub.
Should the beer concession guys get a living wage? How about the guys painting the lines? What is a "living wage"? How much do they folks end up making because of their jobs as a cheerleader that leads to their next job, their next "date", etc? There are many reasons to take these jobs as stated earlier. As for the minimum wage comment, again we'll let the courts sort out if any legal violation occurred or you can ask Sultan who apparently knows the answer.
How do we all feel about the Green Bay Packers.....they don't even employ full time cheerleader. Cheapskates!!
-
As long as the Bucks follow the law, the rest is legitimately "know what you are getting into" type. If they didn't follow labor laws then her lawsuit has merit. She can be right about wage laws and wrong about the auxiliary stuff (mostly for legal posturing and winning sympathy in the public for a better settlement).
It is somewhat funny that you hammer on Sultan for coming to a conclusion on a non-binding internet sport forum, when you yourself have already concluded it is without merit with your first post.
Disagree on your last sentence. If they violated the laws, then I'm all for her winning. Hopefully that clarifies thing if I was too vague prior.
What I don't think has "merit" is the part about having to do all these other gigs, expecting to be paid for her nails to be done, so on and so forth. If they disclosed that up front and she took the gig anyway, then I believe there is no merit. If the Bucks didn't disclose, then they will pay the consequences.
-
In this case I do. This is a sports board, I've been in the sports field for decades, so yes....by the very nature of it, I'm going to have a lot of experience in these areas.
Sorry, the first two paragraphs you don't like, but they do matter because they provide real context into the WHY people take these jobs.
Her upkeep claims? Laughable. Do I get a clothing allowance? A haircut allowance? Do 99.9% of people in this country? No. It's part of the gig. Don't like it, don't be a cheerleader. Don't be a Hooters girl. Don't be a model. Appearance is part of the gig.
You want to know what truly doesn't matter, the opening lines in the article talking about how much athletes make? A throw away line. It has zero bearing on this. Not one iota, but for some reason the author thought it appropriate to put it in.
Now, you've gone on to make this a legal argument, citing state and federal law. You've already made the conclusion the Bucks have violated this. Guess what, the Bucks don't agree....this is why we have a legal process. Didn't know that while you are in Indiana you are also an expert on wage law in Wisconsin and have already adjudicated this case.
WTF Chicos. You are bashing the cheerleader saying "no one puts a gun to her head," yet you bang on me for not knowing if the Bucks have violated labor law?
Do you know?
-
I agree with this, the sports leagues just don't make any sense on this. Same thing with Pink October stuff....especially the NFL has a female issue(very poor track record of supporting women) and things like this cheerleader stuff just feed that narrative. Pay them living wages or at least comply 127% with labor laws and move on. Can't hurt, only help.
The NFL has a female issue? Please define what that means to you.
-
WTF Chicos. You are bashing the cheerleader saying "no one puts a gun to her head," yet you bang on me for not knowing if the Bucks have violated labor law?
Do you know?
If they told her what the job entails, which I would be SHOCKED if the contract she signed did not, then that is exactly correct. No one is putting a gun to her head or anyone else's.
Here is the job, here is what it entails. Do you accept the job....sign on the line which is dotted. If you do not wish to adhere to the specifics of this job requirement, then we wish you well.
We'll let the courts decide wage issue or not.
-
If they told her what the job entails, which I would be SHOCKED if the contract she signed did not, then that is exactly correct. No one is putting a gun to her head or anyone else's.
Here is the job, here is what it entails. Do you accept the job....sign on the line which is dotted. If you do not wish to adhere to the specifics of this job requirement, then we wish you well.
We'll let the courts decide wage issue or not.
"Violating the law is totally OK if someone signs a contract," said no court ever.
-
The NFL has a female issue? Please define what that means to you.
-A gajillion domestic abuse cases (Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, etc)
-Bad PR around their Pink campaign (proceeds go to breast cancer programs....roughly 8% after the NFL and it's vendors get their cut)
-William Gay is being fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for DV instead of pink (mother was killed in a domestic violence event)
-Multiple lawsuits from cheerleaders regarding their employment conditions (potentially exploitative)
The NFL appears to not care about women and women's issues. Not a good look in the modern age....that's what it means to me.
-
-A gajillion domestic abuse cases (Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, etc)
-Bad PR around their Pink campaign (proceeds go to breast cancer programs....roughly 8% after the NFL and it's vendors get their cut)
-William Gay is being fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for DV instead of pink (mother was killed in a domestic violence event)
-Multiple lawsuits from cheerleaders regarding their employment conditions (potentially exploitative)
The NFL appears to not care about women and women's issues. Not a good look in the modern age....that's what it means to me.
Not to mention condescending crap like this.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/the-buccaneers-launched-an-embarrassingly-sexist-initiative-to-help-women-understand-football
-
Not to mention condescending crap like this.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/the-buccaneers-launched-an-embarrassingly-sexist-initiative-to-help-women-understand-football
Correct, didn't want to feel like I was piling on :)
-
Correct, didn't want to feel like I was piling on :)
Let's not forget Deangelo Williams being fined $5,700 for writing "We will find a cure" on his eye black.
-
Let's not forget Deangelo Williams being fined $5,700 for writing "We will find a cure" on his eye black.
How dare the NFL enforce their uniform code!
-
How dare the NFL enforce their uniform code!
But we got a great headline from Yahoo: NFL fines DeAngelo Williams for raising breast cancer awareness during breast cancer awareness month
-
It's part of the job. The benefits of being a cheerleader go beyond the pay. I've had a Baltimore Ravens cheerleader intern for me as well as two Laker girls, so I have a bit of experience in this. For some, it is to get noticed for modeling jobs, acting jobs, etc. Some, literally, want to catch a guy....words directly out of their mouths. Others, because they just love sports or want to be part of the community.
Point is, they know the pay sucks, but they know there are other benefits that go along with it. Travel, exotic trips to shoot calendars, linkage to other jobs, etc. They know going in what the requirements are and NO ONE is putting a gun to their head to take these jobs. It is a means to an end for bigger, better stuff.
Now, where I would agree with you is if they didn't disclose the other requirements in advance to her, but if they didn't then that is piss poor on the Bucks. Typically they outline that you will be required as part of your gig to be at X number of outside functions during the season. Don't like it? Don't be a cheerleader.
So you had a girl tell you, directly out of her mouth, "I worked as a dancer for [enter professional sports team] just so I could sleep with their players," and your response was, "Perfect, you'd fit right in here! Welcome to the company, you'll report directly to me."
Well done!
-
Her picture came with one of the articles smart guy.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Lauren+Herington&oq=Lauren+Herington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.231j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=Lauren+Herington&tbm=nws
I'd be happy to pose a picture of Bango, do they show who is under the costume? Or are they all like this?
http://www.nba.com/bucks/community/madison-childrens-hospital-fireman-rob-foundation
So you couldn't just leave it at the text of the article? Felt the picture of the girl was necessary? If she was uglier would she have a case since the dancing probably wouldn't be helping her future opportunities? If she were hotter would she have a case because she should get paid more for the added eye candy it brings for male fans?
-
How dare the NFL enforce their uniform code!
Missing the point, of course.
-
So you had a girl tell you, directly out of her mouth, "I worked as a dancer for [enter professional sports team] just so I could sleep with their players," and your response was, "Perfect, you'd fit right in here! Welcome to the company, you'll report directly to me."
Well done!
(http://herbookthoughts.reads-it.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/I-m-so-happy-o.gif)
(http://media.giphy.com/media/8VrtCswiLDNnO/giphy.gif)
-
Missing the point, of course.
One of us is. Its a horrible example.
-
One of us is. Its a horrible example.
Sure, sure.
In order to enforce a draconian and 100 percent profit-driven uniform code, the NFL is fining players for heartfelt tributes to their mothers, whose lives were taken by two issues women in particular care very much about - breast cancer and domestic violence.
Explain to me how this is anything but a bad look for the NFL, especially among female fans.
-
Look, the NFL is run by conservative old men. They just got a Youtube channel in January. Self-expression is frowned upon. The uniform is the three-piece suit of their workplace.
Is it really that incredible that they don't quite know how to handle the female demographic?
-
Look, the NFL is run by conservative old men. They just got a Youtube channel in January. Self-expression is frowned upon. The uniform is the three-piece suit of their workplace.
Is it really that incredible that they don't quite know how to handle the female demographic?
I don't think the NFL owners/leadership understand their players let alone the female demographic. Sad to say MLB is light years ahead of NFL when it comes to engaging the modern world and the NBA is in a whole other galaxy.
-
Sure, sure.
In order to enforce a draconian and 100 percent profit-driven uniform code, the NFL is fining players for heartfelt tributes to their mothers, whose lives were taken by two problems (not the best word) women in particular care very much about - breast cancer and domestic violence.
So I'm clear...you want this oganization with a history of poor judgement and women problems to now legislate which uniform code violations are acceptable and which are not. Got it. Let's try a few others...
Hope and Change
Trump 2016
Hillary 2016
Love wins
Wendy's Eat Fresh
FU Goddell
All lives matter
Abortion is murder
John 3:16
What could possibly go wrong?
Beyond that, how dare a private business that exists to make money, be profit driven?
You guys do know what the word 'uniform' means, right?
-
So you had a girl tell you, directly out of her mouth, "I worked as a dancer for [enter professional sports team] just so I could sleep with their players," and your response was, "Perfect, you'd fit right in here! Welcome to the company, you'll report directly to me."
Well done!
Chico's did not claim he heard them say " just so I could sleep with their players"; he said they "want to catch a guy". Huge difference. Never specifically mentioned players, and "catching a guy" usually means "finding a serious relationship", not answering booty calls. As a professional sports team cheerleader, I am sure you meet a lot of men you wouldn't normally meet, including those fans in the front rows.
-
So you had a girl tell you, directly out of her mouth, "I worked as a dancer for [enter professional sports team] just so I could sleep with their players," and your response was, "Perfect, you'd fit right in here! Welcome to the company, you'll report directly to me."
Well done!
Well done by you, Wades.
-
So I'm clear...you want this oganization with a history of poor judgement and women problems to now legislate which uniform code violations are acceptable and which are not. Got it. Let's try a few others...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Beyond that, how dare a private business that exists to make money, be profit driven?
That's some Chico's-level disingenuousness there.
You guys do know what the word 'uniform' means, right?
Cute.
I know the NFL is more than happy to violate its uniform codes when it serves its bottom line ... so let's not be naive and pretend that this is somehow about the integrity of its uniform code.
-
Sure, sure.
In order to enforce a draconian and 100 percent profit-driven uniform code, the NFL is fining players for heartfelt tributes to their mothers, whose lives were taken by two problems (not the best word) women in particular care very much about - breast cancer and domestic violence.
Explain to me how this is anything but a bad look for the NFL, especially among female fans.
It makes the NFL look bad because of the way that it's presented: "NFL Fines Player for Paying Tribute to His Late Mother/Father/Aunt/Friend/Etc"
The NFL doesn't want players to personalize their uniforms. Period. Whether that's a message on their eye black, different colored shoes, low socks, whatever. If they allow Williams, Gay and Heyward to personalize messages to loved ones on their uniforms, that opens the door to other players who want to express their feelings/opinions about gun control, Syria, abortion, gay marriage, Ferguson, etc. The NFL quite simply doesn't want that and they don't want to have to deal with players appealing to do something and then sorting out what's "worthy" and what isn't. These players are willing to pay the fines and, honestly, the fact that they're fined brings more attention to their cause than if it was allowed.
As far as Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the NFL's campaign, much like many other Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns, essentially does nothing to help cancer research. However, Breast Cancer Awareness is big business for a lot of people, including the NFL. The league doesn't want to take the focus off of their Pink campaign and put it on Iron Head's bone cancer or Gay's mother's murder. After all, there are no clever t-shirts to sell to "raise awareness" for brain tumors or domestic violence.
-
So I'm clear...you want this oganization with a history of poor judgement and women problems to now legislate which uniform code violations are acceptable and which are not. Got it. Let's try a few others...
Hope and Change
Trump 2016
Hillary 2016
Love wins
Wendy's Eat Fresh
FU Goddell
All lives matter
Abortion is murder
John 3:16
What could possibly go wrong?
Beyond that, how dare a private business that exists to make money, be profit driven?
You guys do know what the word 'uniform' means, right?
You do realize that the NBA and MLB have players making similar "memorials" by putting initials on their shoes, gloves, etc., and it has never been a problem. I have never considered a player to not be "uniform" because of these innocuous statements.
A common sense approach to this (instead of zero tolerance) would be easy. Personal statements that don't stray into politics. If someone wants to put John 3:16 on their eye black...who cares? But you are right, this is an organization that has trouble making common sense decisions.
-
The idea of just dismissing this as frivilous seems less credible when other professional teams have had cheerleaders sue them recently and get favorable results. I think it happened the Bengals very recently.
-
A common sense approach to this (instead of zero tolerance) would be easy. Personal statements that don't stray into politics. If someone wants to put John 3:16 on their eye black...who cares? But you are right, this is an organization that has trouble making common sense decisions.
Someone will care enough to make a big deal about it. You know that, Sultan.
-
The idea of just dismissing this as frivilous seems less credible when other professional teams have had cheerleaders sue them recently and get favorable results. I think it happened the Bengals very recently.
Yep.
Bengals cheerleaders got a $255K settlement.
Raiders cheerleaders got a $1.25 million settlement.
Bucs cheerleaders got a $855K settlement.
Cases against the Bills and Jets are pending.
Maybe those settlements were only for the women forced into cheerleading at gunpoint.
-
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
That's some Chico's-level disingenuousness there.
That's cute and all, but the question remains, do you really want the NFL legislating acceptable uniform code violations on a case by case basis? Why should they have to? When one player is allowed to do something they consider ok, and another is not, even though though they consider it ok, what then? Let me guess, if Tim tebow had some sort of Christian/pro-life/etc message, you'd be condemning that fine too, right?
Of course, they fine them, they don't kill them. Deangelo Williams can do whatever he wants. It's just going to cost him. The NFL does not exist for players to provide tributes. They can do that any other way they want.
-
Cute.
I know the NFL is more than happy to violate its uniform codes when it serves its bottom line ... so let's not be naive and pretend that this is somehow about the integrity of its uniform code.
What is the purpose of the NFL?
When has the NFL ever violated its own uniform code?
-
A common sense approach to this (instead of zero tolerance) would be easy. Personal statements that don't stray into politics.
According to whom? Who's definition of politics?
-
What is the purpose of the NFL?
When has the NFL ever violated its own uniform code?
Every time they tell players to wear pink socks.
-
That's cute and all, but the question remains, do you really want the NFL legislating acceptable uniform code violations on a case by case basis?
The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:
PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8
Throughout the period on game-day that a player is vis ible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf
The rules also specifically ban political messages.
-
According to whom? Who's definition of politics?
Exactly.
What if a player writes "Pro Life" on his eye black. Is that his religious belief or is that political?
-
Every time they tell players to wear pink socks.
Really? They're violating their own uniform code by telling the players to that. That might be one to look up.
-
Chico's did not claim he heard them say " just so I could sleep with their players"; he said they "want to catch a guy". Huge difference. Never specifically mentioned players, and "catching a guy" usually means "finding a serious relationship", not answering booty calls. As a professional sports team cheerleader, I am sure you meet a lot of men you wouldn't normally meet, including those fans in the front rows.
"Catch a guy" in modern vernacular equates to a previous generations "baby momma". Kayne even wrote a song about it and half of VH1s evening programming is dedicated to reality shows in which women from various pursuits in life had occasion to meet a rich athlete and "catch" them. So if by serious relationship, you mean that, then yes "catch a guy" refers to a serious relationship.
-
The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:
PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8
Throughout the period on game-day that a player is vis ible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf
The rules also specifically ban political messages.
Here's the question, did these players seek permission before hand? If they didn't, I get the NFL's position; still bad PR but I get what they are trying to do. If the players didn't ask, the NFL can pretend they did and let it slide but make sure they do so in the future.
No matter what, the NFL looks dumb with this whole approach given the subject matter.
-
The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:
PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8
Throughout the period on game-day that a player is vis ible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf
The rules also specifically ban political messages.
So what's the problem? Did Deangelo Williams seek pre-approval? I don't know? Do you?
Even if he did, what happens if they say yes to him, but no to someone else who wants to display some other message they think should be ok, even though you and the league may disagree?
I'll ask again, would you condemn the NFL in the same way if they fined Tebow for writing "Pro Life" on his eye black? You may consider it political while Tebow believes it's a deeply held religious sentiment. Is Williams' message more valid or important that Tim tebow's?
-
According to whom? Who's definition of politics?
Really it's not that hard. The NBA allows personal messages on shoes. Even touts it online. They don't seem to have a problem.
-
The rules already allow for this.
From the NFL Rule Book:
PERSONAL MESSAGES
Article 8
Throughout the period on game-day that a player is vis ible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/8_Rule5_Players_Subs_Equip_GeneralRules.pdf
The rules also specifically ban political messages.
It's very possible that the league office just rejects all requests. Several years ago, Peyton Manning requested to wear black high tops to honor Johnny Unitas after he died, but the league rejected it. A franchise's greatest QB paying tribute to its second-greatest QB is about as non-controversial as it gets but the league still said no.
-
Really it's not that hard. The NBA allows personal messages on shoes. Even touts it online. They don't seem to have a problem.
That's great for the NBA. The NFL doesn't agree. They seem to be doing just fine.
To that point, there is a real easy solution for those folks who don't like the way the NFL conducts its business, or those who feel the for-profit business is too profit driven. Of course it's much easier and more fun on Sunday's to just bitch about it instead.
-
That's great for the NBA. The NFL doesn't agree. They seem to be doing just fine.
To that point, there is a real easy solution for those folks who don't like the way the NFL conducts its business, or those who feel the for-profit business is too profit driven. Of course it's much easier and more fun on Sunday's to just bitch about it instead.
Ah, I'm sorry, I had thought I was on an internet message board where things like poor PR management could be discussed. I clearly stumbled into the part of the internet where pointing out poor decisions doesn't belong.
My apologizes good sir.
-
So what's the problem? Did Deangelo Williams seek pre-approval? I don't know? Do you?
Both Gay and Williams asked permission.
Even if he did, what happens if they say yes to him, but no to someone else who wants to display some other message they think should be ok, even though you and the league may disagree?
Not understanding your question.
Is it your contention that if the NFL allows Deangelo Williams to write a tribute to his deceased mother, it's then obligated to allow every player to write whatever they want?
That's silly and wrong. The league rule book clearly states it has discretion here.
My criticism here is of the NFL's stubborn refusal to take these matters on a case-by-case basis because they fear it might affect sponsorship revenues.
I'm OK if they deem some messages/displays inappropriate. My issue is with them deeming every message/display inappropriate, except the ones from which they profit.
I'll ask again, would you condemn the NFL in the same way if they fined Tebow for writing "Pro Life" on his eye black?
Pro Life is a political message and a political stance, and therefore I'd agree with it being barred. One may base their political stance regarding abortion ontheir religious beliefs, but that makes it no less of a political issue.
I suspect you already know this, though.
-
That's great for the NBA. The NFL doesn't agree. They seem to be doing just fine.
To that point, there is a real easy solution for those folks who don't like the way the NFL conducts its business, or those who feel the for-profit business is too profit driven. Of course it's much easier and more fun on Sunday's to just bitch about it instead.
Clearly the NFL is doing fine. That wasn't up for debate.
What we were talking about was exceptions to the uniform code and poor PR decisions that come from its enforcement.
-
It's very possible that the league office just rejects all requests. Several years ago, Peyton Manning requested to wear black high tops to honor Johnny Unitas after he died, but the league rejected it. A franchise's greatest QB paying tribute to its second-greatest QB is about as non-controversial as it gets but the league still said no.
No, they do grant requests.
Just rarely and haphazardly.
-
"Catch a guy" in modern vernacular equates to a previous generations "baby momma". Kayne even wrote a song about it and half of VH1s evening programming is dedicated to reality shows in which women from various pursuits in life had occasion to meet a rich athlete and "catch" them. So if by serious relationship, you mean that, then yes "catch a guy" refers to a serious relationship.
Well, if Chico's confirms that any of those women told him that she became an cheerleader to become a player's baby momma, I will withdraw my statement.
-
No, they do grant requests.
Just rarely and haphazardly.
Who has been granted a request?
-
Who has been granted a request?
William Gay.
He was fined for his purple cleats last year. Allowed to wear them this year.
-
William Gay.
He was fined for his purple cleats last year. Allowed to wear them this year.
Nope. He was just fined for them this week.
-
Nope. He was just fined for them this week.
Weird, in that they previously announced they would not fine him.
So, does this make sense to you? Does a league with serious issues regarding domestic violence really need to be seen as coming down hard on a guy who stands on the right side of the issue?
-
Clearly the NFL is doing fine. That wasn't up for debate.
What we were talking about was exceptions to the uniform code and poor PR decisions that come from its enforcement.
And aside from giving people something to complain about, what is the impact from those "poor PR decisions," financial or otherwise?
-
And aside from giving people something to complain about, what is the impact from those "poor PR decisions," financial or otherwise?
Nothing substantial in the short run. Perhaps in the long run, but who knows?
I think allowing some of the personal messages is a better PR move.
-
Ah, I'm sorry, I had thought I was on an internet message board where things like poor PR management could be discussed. I clearly stumbled into the part of the internet where pointing out poor decisions doesn't belong.
My apologizes good sir.
Discuss it all you want, but I wasn't aware I was in the section of the Internet, where defending those same decisions and (likley) logical rationale behind them wasn't allowed.
My bigger question is why do you care about those poor decisions? Who has been negatively affected in any way by the deangleo Williams thing (remember, he made the choice to do it, knowing he would be fined)? What is the negative impact on you or anyone else, that makes you qualified to deem them poor decisions?
If the NFL feels they are avoiding future issues, and ultimately protecting their brand, their on-field product and their revenue streams, are they really poor decisions? You can certainly say you don't like it, and I might even agree with you. You can bitch about it, but unless you can show me some sort of tangible negative impact on someone or some thing, the NFL's position on this is pretty easy to defend.
-
My bigger question is why do you care about those poor decisions? Who has been negatively affected in any way by the deangleo Williams thing (remember, he made the choice to do it, knowing he would be fined)? What is the negative impact on you or anyone else, that makes you qualified to deem them poor decisions?
If the NFL feels they are avoiding future issues, and ultimately protecting their brand, their on-field product and their revenue streams, are they really poor decisions? You can certainly say you don't like it, and I might even agree with you. You can bitch about it, but unless you can show me some sort of tangible negative impact on someone or some thing, the NFL's position on this is pretty easy to defend.
I care, and the NFL should care, because they have an opportunity to try and reverse the trend of domestic violence within this country. As you've pointed, the NFL is a huge revenue monster and very visible within communities and a lot of kids look up to/want to be in the NFL.
Imagine if the NFL really cracked down on domestic violence perpetrators within their control and made it a point of emphasis to eliminate it from their culture? Do you think that trickles down to the rest of society, especially the next generation of NFL fans? I do. Whether that's fair to the NFL or not, I don't care, it's an opportunity for them to participate in society in a positive way.
Right now, on these issues, they continually operate in a negative way within society.
-
Ummmm...we were discussing uniform code violations, not the domestic violence stuff. At least I was. The domestic violence stuff is an entirely different animal. Of course amidst all the feigned indignation, the money keeps flowing like water, so who is really the problem, the NFL, or those of us who fund it? I don't disagree with your assessment of the role they could play.
That said, I don't buy that we can file DV and deangleo Harris eye black both under the broad category of women's issues. Not saying you said that necessarily, I just don't believe one really has anything to do with the other.
-
Ummmm...we were discussing uniform code violations, not the domestic violence stuff. At least I was. The domestic violence stuff is an entirely different animal. Of course amidst all the feigned indignation, the money keeps flowing like water, so who is really the problem, the NFL, or those of us who fund it? I don't disagree with your assessment of the role they could play.
That said, I don't buy that we can file DV and deangleo Harris eye black both under the broad category of women's issues. Not saying you said that necessarily, I just don't believe one really has anything to do with the other.
William Gay was fined this week for wearing purple cleats to bring awareness to DV (in honor of his mother). That's part of what I was referencing, not necessarily Harris.
-
Weird, in that they previously announced they would not fine him.
Hmmmmmm...wonder why they may have felt it necessary to change their position on this (assuming above version is accurate). Could it possibly be because they had previously said no to someone elses request, and perhaps someone complained about it? Complete speculation on my part, but seems like a logical conclusion to me.
Of course given the last year or so, may just be that they don't want any mention/attention to DV that isn't on their terms or within their control. Equally logical conclusion.
-
expecting to be paid for her nails to be done
I don't know about this. Whenever I was cashing out at either Hugo Boss or Kent and Curwen I simply said to send the bill to GE in Fairfield, CT. The shareholders had every right to expect that GE Cap staff expressed their sartorial tastes eloquently.
-
-A gajillion domestic abuse cases (Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, etc)
-Bad PR around their Pink campaign (proceeds go to breast cancer programs....roughly 8% after the NFL and it's vendors get their cut)
-William Gay is being fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for DV instead of pink (mother was killed in a domestic violence event)
-Multiple lawsuits from cheerleaders regarding their employment conditions (potentially exploitative)
The NFL appears to not care about women and women's issues. Not a good look in the modern age....that's what it means to me.
With all due respect, women are following football as strong as ever. I get where you are going with it, but I interpreted your statement as if it is causing women to not consume their brand, so on and so forth. That is simply not the case.
In fact (not opinion), women are growing the NFL pie at a much faster rate than men (not surprising) and the upward trend continued last year and again this year. The numbers aren't lying, I see them every week.
It is popular myth to suggest these issues with those incidents you state are impacting the NFL and female fans. That is simply not the case in the numbers. Honestly, it isn't close.
-
So you had a girl tell you, directly out of her mouth, "I worked as a dancer for [enter professional sports team] just so I could sleep with their players," and your response was, "Perfect, you'd fit right in here! Welcome to the company, you'll report directly to me."
Well done!
LOL. You even put it in quotes as if someone said that...ever.
Well done!
This just in, there are some women that want to meet a certain kind of man. That may not fit your outlook on life, but it happens every day. Guess what, there are some men like that too. Again, you may not feel that way, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But to answer your question, long after she was interning for us one of the gals on our team asked her why she became a cheerleader. Didn't she feel it was beneath her, etc? The response was she liked sports, hoping it would land her a job, and it gave her access to men she could never have access to....because certain guys wanted to be able to say they were dating a cheerleader.
-
This just in, there are some women that want to meet a certain kind of man.
Back in the day at Marquette we said she was working on her MRS Degree...
-
Look, the NFL is run by conservative old men. They just got a Youtube channel in January. Self-expression is frowned upon. The uniform is the three-piece suit of their workplace.
Is it really that incredible that they don't quite know how to handle the female demographic?
Except the marketing of the NFL is run by a woman, Dawn Hudson. She knows her stuff. As for the "conservative" old men. Wow, could you paint things with a broader brush? Some are quite liberal, some are not "old" but I guess that all depends on your definition of old.
At any rate, been in several conversations with Dawn, and she was quite concerned about the impact of these things on the NFL. The numbers, have allayed her concerns. Now, that doesn't mean the NFL is just saying no big deal, they certainly aren't. They aren't stupid and will address them, but the predictions of doom and gloom about the NFL from concussions, to upsetting women (hey, let me try a broad statement here Sultan...most people "offended" by this are liberals, many of them liberal women who never watched the game to begin with), etc, and the numbers don't reflect it. She's obviously keeping an eye on things as is the rest of the NFL office, but they are very happy campers right now.....which alienates a bunch of people
-
Yep.
Bengals cheerleaders got a $255K settlement.
Raiders cheerleaders got a $1.25 million settlement.
Bucs cheerleaders got a $855K settlement.
Cases against the Bills and Jets are pending.
Maybe those settlements were only for the women forced into cheerleading at gunpoint.
Funny you didn't mention the lawsuits that weren't won....must have slipped your mind. That's why we have courts to go through this and decide. It's a good thing the Bengals are located in Wisconsin, same for the Raiders, Bucs, Bills and Jets. :D
Awesome sauce.
That's a special kind of Pakuniesqe disingeniousness.....reminds me when 500 economists once said something....
-
Settlement or judgement?
Which ones were lost?
-
Every time they tell players to wear pink socks.
That's part of the uniform for that given month, just as wearing throwbacks may be the official uniform of a specific game.
So, quite frankly, you are just wrong...again.
Ultimately, the only folks that get to decide what is UNIFORM are those that say what the UNIFORM is.
-
Really it's not that hard. The NBA allows personal messages on shoes. Even touts it online. They don't seem to have a problem.
The NBA can run their league how they want to run their league. The NFL, which is vastly more popular and profitable, will run theirs how they see fit.
Really it's not that hard.
-
Well, if Chico's confirms that any of those women told him that she became an cheerleader to become a player's baby momma, I will withdraw my statement.
Nope, never mentioned the word player at all, that was Wadesworld doing what he does best. Most teams, in fact, do not allow fraternizing with the players and is a fireable offense. There are a few exceptions for some teams, but only a few.
No need to withdraw your statement. Instead WW should issue one of his own.....
-
Nope, never mentioned the word player at all, that was Wadesworld doing what he does best. Most teams, in fact, do not allow fraternizing with the players and is a fireable offense. There are a few exceptions for some teams, but only a few.
No need to withdraw your statement. Instead WW should issue one of his own.....
Wait, that's not possible. According to you, I'm incapable of "original thought." So what you're now saying by stating, "That was Wadesworld doing what he does best," is that I was taking your thought (a woman wants to sleep with a player, let's hire her!) and regurgitating it.
At least that's what I'm told I'm doing, I can't create "original thought" myself, so I have to have someone tell me what to write in here.
Not sure why you'd ask me to issue a statement of my own when you yourself told everyone it's not possible for me to issue my own statement. I can't create "original thought." Duh.
-
Nope, never mentioned the word player at all, that was Wadesworld doing what he does best. Most teams, in fact, do not allow fraternizing with the players and is a fireable offense. There are a few exceptions for some teams, but only a few.
No need to withdraw your statement. Instead WW should issue one of his own.....
PS What's your buddy hoopaloop up to nowadays? Made any SoCal visits lately? Did you ever ask him why he went into hiding around here the minute your ban was lifted? Was the breakup that ugly that he even had to avoid Scoop?
I'll hang up and listen.
-
PS What's your buddy hoopaloop up to nowadays? Made any SoCal visits lately? Did you ever ask him why he went into hiding around here the minute your ban was lifted? Was the breakup that ugly that he even had to avoid Scoop?
I'll hang up and listen.
Where's BMA, where's Brad Forester, etc.....I'll hang up and listen
-
Wait, that's not possible. According to you, I'm incapable of "original thought." So what you're now saying by stating, "That was Wadesworld doing what he does best," is that I was taking your thought (a woman wants to sleep with a player, let's hire her!) and regurgitating it.
At least that's what I'm told I'm doing, I can't create "original thought" myself, so I have to have someone tell me what to write in here.
Not sure why you'd ask me to issue a statement of my own when you yourself told everyone it's not possible for me to issue my own statement. I can't create "original thought." Duh.
Outstanding
-
With all due respect, women are following football as strong as ever. I get where you are going with it, but I interpreted your statement as if it is causing women to not consume their brand, so on and so forth. That is simply not the case.
In fact (not opinion), women are growing the NFL pie at a much faster rate than men (not surprising) and the upward trend continued last year and again this year. The numbers aren't lying, I see them every week.
It is popular myth to suggest these issues with those incidents you state are impacting the NFL and female fans. That is simply not the case in the numbers. Honestly, it isn't close.
OK, got it. Good for them and it's good to know that the NFL doesn't really have a moral compass. That isn't an indictment per ce, just a statement of fact that they really don't care as long as their numbers continue to stay the same or go up. That's fine, that's their prerogative as a private organization just don't expect me to be thoroughly disappointed and to bring it up as much as I can.
If they are assuming they can shrug off these types of things continually I think they are setting themselves long term for failure.
-
Where's BMA, where's Brad Forester, etc.....I'll hang up and listen
Wouldn't know. Have never claimed to have been personal friends with them, taken pictures at games with them, given them and their wives beer in my back yard, given them and their families Disney tickets for free, etc.
I'll take it as the breakup was that bad.
-
The NBA can run their league how they want to run their league. The NFL, which is vastly more popular and profitable, will run theirs how they see fit.
Really it's not that hard.
Once again you are arguing a different argument. Shifting goalposts.
Stick to the topic at hand. The question wasn't if the NFL shouldn't run itself how it wants to. Of course it should. The argument is *should* it run itself the way it does. Navin seems to think that if you allow one personal statement, you wouldn't be able to figure out where to draw the line. Yet I pointed out that another professional sports league doesn't have that problem.
And the popularity of the NFL v. the NBA has little to do with the personal messages the latter allows on its uniforms. But you know this, but somehow think that popularity equals a trump card of some sort. That just because it is more popular, it's judgement cannot be questioned.
-
Funny you didn't mention the lawsuits that weren't won....must have slipped your mind. That's why we have courts to go through this and decide. It's a good thing the Bengals are located in Wisconsin, same for the Raiders, Bucs, Bills and Jets. :D
Awesome sauce.
That's a special kind of Pakuniesqe disingeniousness.....reminds me when 500 economists once said something....
Which lawsuits weren't won? Which have I failed to mention?
-
That's part of the uniform for that given month, just as wearing throwbacks may be the official uniform of a specific game.
So, quite frankly, you are just wrong...again.
Ultimately, the only folks that get to decide what is UNIFORM are those that say what the UNIFORM is.
Ah, Chicos ... saying someone is wrong doesn't actually make them wrong, you know?
Read the uniform code that I previously linked. It clearly states teams are only allowed to wear their primary colors and white.
Here's the direct quote:
Pursuant to the official colors established for each NFL club in the League Constitution and Bylaws, playing squads are permitted to wear only those colors or a combination of those colors for helmets, jerseys, pants, and stockings; provided that white is also an available color for jerseys and mandatory color for the lower portion of stockings.
Nowhere in the code is there any mention of pink being part of the official uniform for the month of October.
By requiring players to wear pink, the NFL is violating its own code.
-
Ah, Chicos ... saying someone is wrong doesn't actually make them wrong, you know?
Read the uniform code that I previously linked. It clearly states teams are only allowed to wear their primary colors and white.
Here's the direct quote:
Pursuant to the official colors established for each NFL club in the League Constitution and Bylaws, playing squads are permitted to wear only those colors or a combination of those colors for helmets, jerseys, pants, and stockings; provided that white is also an available color for jerseys and mandatory color for the lower portion of stockings.
Nowhere in the code is there any mention of pink being part of the official uniform for the month of October.
By requiring players to wear pink, the NFL is violating its own code.
"...players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office."
Apparently the league office approved their own request in advance that the wearing of pink was allowed to convey a message.
-
"...players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office."
Apparently the league office approved their own request in advance that the wearing of pink was allowed to convey a message.
So, wearing a different color doesn't fall under the "Team colors" subsection of the uniform code, but it does fall under the "Personal messages" subsection? Even though there's no mention of colors in the "Personal messages" subsection, which defines a personal message as a "writing or illustration," aka not a color?
Despite the fact that there's nothing personal about wearing pink, in that they're required of all players?
Interesting theory. Not especially credible or likely, but interesting.
-
So, wearing a different color doesn't fall under the "Team colors" subsection of the uniform code, but it does fall under the "Personal messages" subsection? Even though there's no mention of colors in the "Personal messages" subsection, which defines a personal message as a "writing or illustration," aka not a color?
Despite the fact that there's nothing personal about wearing pink, in that they're required of all players?
Interesting theory. Not especially credible or likely, but interesting.
Wearing a specific color falls under the category of an illustration of a personal message.
-
Wearing a specific color falls under the category of an illustration of a personal message.
But it's not a personal message. It's a league requirement of all players. There's absolutely nothing personal about it.
And again, I find it highly unlikely the league would choose to address an issue regarding team colors under "personal messages" and not at all under "team colors."
-
But it's not a personal message. It's a league requirement of all players. There's absolutely nothing personal about it.
And again, I find it highly unlikely the league would choose to address an issue regarding team colors under "personal messages" and not at all under "team colors."
Why do you care SO much that you feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink?
-
Why do you care SO much that you feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink?
Why do YOU care SO much that feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink? Need I remind you that it was you who responded to me in this thread with an argument, not vice-versa.
Why do any of us care about any of this?
It's all meaningless distraction.
-
Why do YOU care SO much that feel it necessary to argue about the semantics of NFL teams wearing pink? Need I remind you that it was you who responded to me in this thread with an argument, not vice-versa.
Why do any of us care about any of this?
It's all meaningless distraction.
Good one ::)
You made a ridiculous comment about the NFL violating its own rule. I pointed out that you were wrong. You tried it again but were still wrong. I just don't understand what your point is...and I'm not sure you do either. Oh well.
Cheers.
-
Good one ::)
You made a ridiculous comment about the NFL violating its own rule. I pointed out that you were wrong. You tried it again but were still wrong. I just don't understand what your point is...and I'm not sure you do either. Oh well.
Cheers.
OK, fine. Your claim that the NFL is choosing to govern its team colors rules under "Personal messages" rather than under "Team colors" is the totally logical, credible claim here.
I mean, why would they include rules for team colors under the subsection entitled "Team colors." That would be silly.
p.s. You saying I'm wrong does not, in fact, make me wrong.
-
OK, fine. Your claim that the NFL is choosing to govern its team colors rules under "Personal messages" rather than under "Team colors" is the totally logical, credible claim here.
I mean, why would they include rules for team colors under the subsection entitled "Team colors." That would be silly.
p.s. You saying I'm wrong does not, in fact, make me wrong.
So your conclusion is that the NFL is forcing players to violate ITS OWN uniform code, and has not addressed it in some way, perhaps outside of the specific code you cited. Ok, great. Let's assume you are correct and you have a better handle on NFL rules and uniform code, than the multi-billion dollar NFL themselves do. Congratulations. Big day for you. What's the point?
-
So your conclusion is that the NFL is forcing players to violate ITS OWN uniform code, and has not addressed it in some way, perhaps outside of the specific code you cited. Ok, great. Let's assume you are correct and you have a better handle on NFL rules and uniform code, than the multi-billion dollar NFL themselves do. Congratulations. Big day for you. What's the point?
No.
My conclusion is that the NFL enforces its uniform code in an inconsistent, hypocritical, unfair and cynical manner that needlessly punishes players for trying to use their standing to do good.
I find the response that you and others have offered, i.e. "The NFL can do whatever it wants" to be incurious, unnecessarily deferential and lacking. As is your appeal to authority above.
I'm not sure why you guys are searching for some larger point here. There is no larger point here. We're discussing a mostly trivial topic on an Internet message board filled with mostly trivial topics. If you're looking for a larger point and great meaning, you're in the wrong place.
-
Where's BMA, where's Brad Forester, etc.....I'll hang up and listen
Are those more of your alter egos?
-
Except the marketing of the NFL is run by a woman, Dawn Hudson. She knows her stuff. As for the "conservative" old men. Wow, could you paint things with a broader brush? Some are quite liberal, some are not "old" but I guess that all depends on your definition of old.
At any rate, been in several conversations with Dawn, and she was quite concerned about the impact of these things on the NFL. The numbers, have allayed her concerns. Now, that doesn't mean the NFL is just saying no big deal, they certainly aren't. They aren't stupid and will address them, but the predictions of doom and gloom about the NFL from concussions, to upsetting women (hey, let me try a broad statement here Sultan...most people "offended" by this are liberals, many of them liberal women who never watched the game to begin with), etc, and the numbers don't reflect it. She's obviously keeping an eye on things as is the rest of the NFL office, but they are very happy campers right now.....which alienates a bunch of people
Even if I believe that you have had "several conversations" with the head of NFL marketing, none of what you are saying has anything to do with what I said.
So....thanks???
-
Are those more of your alter egos?
Alledgedly. Some probably think I am Trekyfoil, too, but he's actually dead (RIP). WW is a bit inconsistent on this, among other examples.
-
Even if I believe that you have had "several conversations" with the head of NFL marketing, none of what you are saying has anything to do with what I said.
So....thanks???
Actually it does. You said it is run by a bunch of old, conservative men. You are not accurate. Yes, Dawn is a great marketer and a woman, she knows what we is doing. Yes, I have several connections to her. She is not only not old, not a man, but also not conservative...neither are some of the owners.
My transition to "at any rate" was to address the perception that the NFL is losing favor with women. That isn't true.
And you are welcome.
-
OK, got it. Good for them and it's good to know that the NFL doesn't really have a moral compass. That isn't an indictment per ce, just a statement of fact that they really don't care as long as their numbers continue to stay the same or go up. That's fine, that's their prerogative as a private organization just don't expect me to be thoroughly disappointed and to bring it up as much as I can.
If they are assuming they can shrug off these types of things continually I think they are setting themselves long term for failure.
Don't have a moral compass? I think that's a reach. Look, as we all know with sports and often with life, decisions are made for the more talented than the less talented. I think it sucks, but it happens. It happened at Marquette in basketball when I was there, it has happened in the last few years, it happens with the Rams, Cowboys, Lakers, Yankees, Louisville, IBM, Morgan Stanley, Dept of the Treasury, POTUS, etc, etc. The more talent you have, the more crap you get away with. That leads to teams bringing on players of questionable character, so on and so forth.
It sucks, it happens. Not excusing it, just calling it what it is.
There are definitely people over there with a moral compass, at least with my dealings with them over the last 15 years. That doesn't mean universally that is the case nor are their exceptions. It's that type of business where the talent is often uneducated or undereducated, phyiscally gifted, have been coddled since they were 10 years old, have women throwing themselves at them at every turn and it does some really goof things to their heads. And it isn't exclusive to just the NFL.
-
Once again you are arguing a different argument. Shifting goalposts.
Stick to the topic at hand. The question wasn't if the NFL shouldn't run itself how it wants to. Of course it should. The argument is *should* it run itself the way it does. Navin seems to think that if you allow one personal statement, you wouldn't be able to figure out where to draw the line. Yet I pointed out that another professional sports league doesn't have that problem.
And the popularity of the NFL v. the NBA has little to do with the personal messages the latter allows on its uniforms. But you know this, but somehow think that popularity equals a trump card of some sort. That just because it is more popular, it's judgement cannot be questioned.
The NFL is running their league the way they are running it, and with tremendous skill. They make mistakes like anyone else, they also are the big dog and thus will take many arrows. Sure, they could run it differently, and they certainly make modifications every year in all sorts of facets from rules, marketing, character development, etc, etc, but there are also realities involved with who some of the players are, their backgrounds, how they were brought up, etc that the NFL nor anyone is is going to change.
And I have news for you, this stuff is happening in spades with the NBA as well, it just doesn't get near the attention or coverage.
-
Ah, Chicos ... saying someone is wrong doesn't actually make them wrong, you know?
Read the uniform code that I previously linked. It clearly states teams are only allowed to wear their primary colors and white.
Here's the direct quote:
Pursuant to the official colors established for each NFL club in the League Constitution and Bylaws, playing squads are permitted to wear only those colors or a combination of those colors for helmets, jerseys, pants, and stockings; provided that white is also an available color for jerseys and mandatory color for the lower portion of stockings.
Nowhere in the code is there any mention of pink being part of the official uniform for the month of October.
By requiring players to wear pink, the NFL is violating its own code.
No Chuckles, you are just flat wrong on this. Amazingly wrong, and I'm guessing you will double down on your wrongness all night on this one.
The NFL can also, at its discretion, provide a UNIFORM exception. Which is what they did to allow pink into the games. And when the did camo for the military, same thing. See, the thing is they get to decide, and as long as the policy is UNIFORM (no pun intended) it fits within the guidelines of the league.
You may not like it, you may find it hypocritical, and that is fine. Nevertheless, they are absolutely within the guidelines to dictate what the uniform policy is and what exceptions exist. They control the enforcement, thus they control the rules.
For 9/11, the NFL allowed red, white and blue apparel. That is in their right to do so. Same with pink, etc. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8221586c/article/nfl-eases-rules-to-let-players-wear-gear-to-honor-sept-11
-
Cheerleaders aren't doing it for the money.....status, dating opportunities, better jobs, etc
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-25/nfl-cheerleaders-don-t-do-it-for-the-money
-
Alledgedly. Some probably think I am Trekyfoil, too, but he's actually dead (RIP). WW is a bit inconsistent on this, among other examples.
Inconsistent on...what, exactly?
-
Don't have a moral compass? I think that's a reach. Look, as we all know with sports and often with life, decisions are made for the more talented than the less talented. I think it sucks, but it happens. It happened at Marquette in basketball when I was there, it has happened in the last few years, it happens with the Rams, Cowboys, Lakers, Yankees, Louisville, IBM, Morgan Stanley, Dept of the Treasury, POTUS, etc, etc. The more talent you have, the more crap you get away with. That leads to teams bringing on players of questionable character, so on and so forth.
It sucks, it happens. Not excusing it, just calling it what it is.
There are definitely people over there with a moral compass, at least with my dealings with them over the last 15 years. That doesn't mean universally that is the case nor are their exceptions. It's that type of business where the talent is often uneducated or undereducated, phyiscally gifted, have been coddled since they were 10 years old, have women throwing themselves at them at every turn and it does some really goof things to their heads. And it isn't exclusive to just the NFL.
All the more reason for the NFL leadership to be the adults in the room and make decisions that do more than maximize profit.
Again I get it, it's a business and they've made their decisions. As a free marketer I support there ability to do so and face the repercussions(if any) of their decisions. And as a free marketer I will continue express my displeasure at their decisions in this area.
-
Actually it does. You said it is run by a bunch of old, conservative men. You are not accurate. Yes, Dawn is a great marketer and a woman, she knows what we is doing. Yes, I have several connections to her. She is not only not old, not a man, but also not conservative...neither are some of the owners.
Hint: She doesn't "run the NFL."
-
Cheerleaders aren't doing it for the money.....status, dating opportunities, better jobs, etc
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-25/nfl-cheerleaders-don-t-do-it-for-the-money
Doesn't matter. It still has to pay minimum wage.
-
No Chuckles, you are just flat wrong on this. Amazingly wrong, and I'm guessing you will double down on your wrongness all night on this one.
The NFL can also, at its discretion, provide a UNIFORM exception. Which is what they did to allow pink into the games. And when the did camo for the military, same thing. See, the thing is they get to decide, and as long as the policy is UNIFORM (no pun intended) it fits within the guidelines of the league.
You may not like it, you may find it hypocritical, and that is fine. Nevertheless, they are absolutely within the guidelines to dictate what the uniform policy is and what exceptions exist. They control the enforcement, thus they control the rules.
For 9/11, the NFL allowed red, white and blue apparel. That is in their right to do so. Same with pink, etc. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8221586c/article/nfl-eases-rules-to-let-players-wear-gear-to-honor-sept-11
1. Grow up.
2. Please point out where in the NFL uniform code it states that teams can wear something other than their official, approved colors or white.
3. Still waiting for your list of all the many cheerleader suits that have been lost. You know, since you assured us there were many such cases out there.
Thanks
-
Doesn't matter. It still has to pay minimum wage.
If everyone read this the first time you said it, we could have eliminated about 3 pages in this thread.
-
If everyone read this the first time you said it, we could have eliminated about 3 pages in this thread.
Actually, I believe the majority of this thread has to do with whether it was okay to wear pink socks, along with a lot of wienie-waving about who said what.
-
Actually, I believe the majority of this thread has to do with whether it was okay to wear pink socks, along with a lot of wienie-waving about who said what.
I take it you're impressed!
-
Actually, I believe the majority of this thread has to do with whether it was okay to wear pink socks[random off-topic rants], along with a lot of wienie-waving about who said what.
With this minor modification, you've managed to effectively summarize about 98% of Scoop threads. The remaining 2% are in-season prediction threads.
-
I take it you're impressed!
What exactly gave you that impression?
-
What exactly gave you that impression?
The lash marks on my back from waving my Mk 1 Mod 1 4' cold-rolled steel weinie?
-
The lash marks on my back from waving my Mk 1 Mod 1 4' cold-rolled steel weinie?
Based on that sentence, it appears that the impression was left on you.
-
Based on that sentence, it appears that the impression was left on you.
I used to shake like a dog when I got out of the shower until my wife complained i was knocking all of her stuff off of her sink counter...
-
I used to shake like a dog when I got out of the shower until my wife complained i was knocking all of her stuff off of her sink counter...
As well she should have. Anyone who knows anything about a woman's anatomy knows that length is basically irrelevant, or in your case (I'll play along), a nuisance.
-
length is basically irrelevant
I remember the Cessna pilot telling me that he really appreciated the seat of the pants feel of his aircraft and that's why he wouldn't want to fly F 16's...
-
Doesn't matter. It still has to pay minimum wage.
Perhaps, but I would ask you to consider why Califirnia and Jerry Brown passed the cheerleader law a few months ago here, because legally they didn't have to pay to that level as contractors and the way in which it was setup. So they have changed that now, but only recently with a new law, which many people have panned. To my knowledge, that is not the law in Wisconsin currently which is why the Bucks have said they are abiding by the laws governing this.
Time will tell.
-
Perhaps, but I would ask you to consider why Califirnia and Jerry Brown passed the cheerleader law a few months ago here, because legally they didn't have to pay to that level as contractors and the way in which it was setup. So they have changed that now, but only recently with a new law, which many people have panned. To my knowledge, that is not the law in Wisconsin currently which is why the Bucks have said they are abiding by the laws governing this.
Time will tell.
The IRS is really cracking down on the whole "independent contractor" thing. Based on the amount of control these pro teams exert over these cheerleaders, I don't think it would hold up to a serious challenge.
-
The IRS is really cracking down on the whole "independent contractor" thing. Based on the amount of control these pro teams exert over these cheerleaders, I don't think it would hold up to a serious challenge.
We'll find out, but again I would ask if the laws were already there, why did California have to pass a NEW law? Why didn't the old laws cover this? ;)
The new law THEN made it law that they were entitled to minimum wage, etc, not before. This is what I was also trying to explain to Sultan. I believe Wisconsin has no such law, and thus right now, the Bucks are in compliance with the law. Ultimately we'll find out when it goes to court.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/13263516/new-california-law-recognizes-cheerleaders-employees
-
We'll find out, but again I would ask if the laws were already there, why did California have to pass a NEW law? Why didn't the old laws cover this? ;)
The new law THEN made it law that they were entitled to minimum wage, etc, not before. This is what I was also trying to explain to Sultan. I believe Wisconsin has no such law, and thus right now, the Bucks are in compliance with the law. Ultimately we'll find out when it goes to court.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/13263516/new-california-law-recognizes-cheerleaders-employees
A business practice can be illegal, but still exist, simply because no one has challenged it. I think that I'd what is happening in Wisconsin.
-
I like the part where a mostly Irish group of men started bragging about size.
-
A business practice can be illegal, but still exist, simply because no one has challenged it. I think that I'd what is happening in Wisconsin.
This is true....or it can be undefined, and thus a new law passed to help define it.
-
http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/nfl-teams-may-have-to-stop-ripping-off-their-cheerleaders/
-
http://nypost.com/2016/01/08/nfl-teams-may-have-to-stop-ripping-off-their-cheerleaders/
Big deal. It's New York. A state with a ton of bad case law.
-
Simple...don't have cheerleaders at games any more. Problem solved. Then they can complain about their bad pay.
As for the judge's ruling, how ridiculous. So they had to follow rules...big deal. Independent contractors have to follow rules all the time in the real world. When I was at DIRECTV and at DISNEY we had independent contractors that had to adhere to OUR dress code. Our hours. Etc. This is hardly new, so I have no idea how the judge is saying because they had to adhere to rules that made them any less an independent contractor.