It seems to me you have a very blinkered way of thinking. Football isn't just a sport for entertainment, it makes every effort to try to improve society with its various programs. They understand that without taking a positive stand on societal issues, they could end up becoming the WWF. This is a serious sport, that takes such issues seriously. Why else would they have the Rooney rule? Why else would every team you can think of have programs where their players and the team officials participate in uplifting community programs?
Arbitrarily enforce the law? Nobody expects them to enforce any law. We have a Justice system for that, don't we? We expect the NFL (based on their own actions societally speaking), to promote the good in society and tamp down the bad. That is exactly what they've done with the personal conduct policy. If you were in charge, there perhaps would be no such policy because you'd make the NFL just a morally void sport.
I get that the NFL is a private enterprise. However, this enterprise wholly depends on society for its income. It is in their best interests (based on every action they take morally speaking), to be involved in the upkeep of its players living up to the high standards of society. Why? Simply because they tend to be role models for the young people across this country. They do have a moral obligation in this instance, the Browns being a private enterprise notwithstanding. Heck, even several private enterprises take morality among their employees quite seriously. That does have an effect on how they're perceived by society as an organization. Why? Because those very people tend to make them profitable or not. They trade their stocks on the stock market too and their market capitalization depends on how they're perceived by regular people,
As for supporting the Ravens being the same as supporting the Browns, I vehemently disagree. This is not about supporting a football franchise. It is bigger than that in this instance. I get the economics of the NFL, the pot sharing bit too. However, don't forget the possibility that if there is a franchise that tends to upset the apple cart, the other owners have several ways to amend the situation to their satisfaction. Such as forcing this crook of an owner to sell his team. As long as the majority of owners are not crooked, he can be removed from participating in that big pot of money you so eloquently spoke of.
I am sorry but I do not accept your response at all.
1. They take societal positions against obvious problems (like racial injustice and beating women) because a) there's no other position to take, other than being against it, and b) because it's good PR for them to do so.
Do you honestly believe the NFL gives any shits at all about solving actual societal problems? Like if I gave you a year you couldn't give me examples of them doing anything other than publicly supporting obvious positions so that they're perceived to be caring.
It's almost impossible to argue they care about the health and safety of their own employees. Literally. And you naively think that social injustice is an actual priority for the NFL, the entity? LOL. It must be nice to live in that fantasy land.
You mentioned the Rooney Rule. It's a total joke. Even black people have publicly said its a joke. The Rooney Rule exists so that it APPEARS they're making an effort to have a level playing field of hiring. APPEARS being the key word. Not actually doing it, but just appearing to be doing it.
2. LOL, the personal conduct policy? Have you actually read the personal conduct policy? It covers practically nothing that doesn't involve on-field performance. Why do you think everybody mocks them for their weak-ass stances and positions on domestic violence, child abuse, and crime in general. Name for me a punishment the NFL has levied in the name of "promoting positive societal structure" that makes an ounce of sense to you. They blackball players for kneeling for the flag and for being chronic marijuana users, who use for pain management instead of popping opioids (that NFL doctors promote), and they give fractional season suspensions to women beaters, child abusers, and all around just terrible human beings.
THAT personal conduct policy? LOL.
If I were in charge, I'd have a policy that actually meant something, and not one that's just looking like we're just trying to stay out of the media spotlight.
3. The NFL doesn't care if it's players are role models... not their problem. That's on the parents of young children who allow total strangers that they'll never know be role models in their lives. The closest most people will ever get to a pro athlete is via the TV screen, and they're your role models? LOL. Talk about bad parenting 101.
You want to fix some societal problems? How about parents try being role models for a change, and stop outsourcing it to people that neither the parent nor the child will ever know personally. Just because they can throw TD passes and give a good sound bite doesn't make them a great person.
Some of the biggest role models on this planet commit adultery frequently. They frequent strip clubs, do drugs, and commit crimes. Why are you looking up to them?
4. You keep talking about the fans being the one's driving the business, and you're right. Problem is... fans don't give a shit if Watson is a serial rapist or not. Not a single action you've ever seen from a fan gives you any indication whatsoever that they give a shit. All they do is talk. Yack, yack, yack. Watson isn't the first person to do this. Domestic violence isn't new to the NFL. Ray Rice didn't kill the NFL. Neither did Tyreke Hill or Adrian Peterson or any of the other lengthy list of "role models" who commit crimes, publicly. You know what fans did about it? Bitched about it on social media, then tuned in Sunday. Same bat time, same bat channel.
And the NFL knows this. They've been calling bluffs for decades, and making bank while doing it.
5. If you think the Browns owner trading for Deshaun Watson is anywhere near the stratosphere of "upsetting the apple cart" to the point when owners would even entertain the possibility of him selling, you're delusional. The NFL approved the trade. They have no issue with it whatsoever. If he's going to be forced to sell, he better do a hell of a lot worse than trade for a player with civil sexual assault claims against him.
They didn't force Dan Snyder to sell, and all he did was oversee a corporate-wide culture of this stuff. I doubt they even force to Stephen Ross to sell for potentially trying to throw games.
The only thing that's making an Owner sell these days is to be a racist, and that's because it's something the majority of fans, coaches, and employees actually don't tolerate.
You don't have to accept any response from me. But my response is the same one the NFL's been showing you (via actions) for decades. So as long as you continue to support the NFL, it's pretty clear you continue to accept their response, via your actions.
