And an employer has the right to fire employees for any legal reason in an at-will state....and for cause in other states. This may well fall under 'cause,' esp. if he gets charged.
Edit: sorry, didnt process the last part of your post earlier. Concur but also still see the League having vested business and image interests.
I am not saying the league acted illegally...I am quite sure that the labor agreement stipulated that they can do exactly what they are doing.
I simply do not personally believe that any large corporation has any business dictating the private lives of it's employees...no matter how disgusting their actions.
Were I the player's union head there is no way (imo) I would have given them that power in the labor agreement.
The rest is not directed at you per se - just a general statement.
Also, the NFL does not even own the Ravens. They are a seperately owned franchise.
Only the owner of that team - imo - should have the power to suspend a player for his/her off field activities if they could make a case that those activities were hurting the profits of the franchise.
Additionally, what if the owner of the team AND the fans had no problem with something a player did (granted, it would probably not be this case)? What if they were prepared to forgive and forget OR they thought it was none of their business? They have no say but the league - who do not own the team - can arbitrarily state what a player can and cannot do.
That is not the bottom line any longer - that is a moral issue.
I mean, where does this end?
Will the NFL eventually not allow it's players to go to certain bars? To gamble? To date women that have criminal records or who have 'iffy' backgrounds? To be involved with certain religions? To engage in S&M (or other unusual) sex with consenting adults? TO have political opinions that the majority of Americans do not agree with? The list could be endless.
IMO, it should be none of the NFL League Office's business what a player does in his/her spare time. NONE.