Favre to Vikings, America shrugs; Vick’s back
Filed Under Dale Cooper, Sports
How many years back in time would we have to travel to find a nation of NFL fans who would care about this news? It’s less than five, surely. Two? One and a half?
It’s baffling how Favre’s waffling has let all the air out of what would have been the biggest sports story of the year, almost any year prior to this one. Brett Favre, the Anointed One, the toast of Cheeseheads everywhere (mmmm… cheese and toast) joining the Packers’ hated division rival? Unbelievable. Jaw-dropping even. But it would have only dropped jaws before Brett retired and came back and retired and came back, and went to the Jets, and bitched about the Packers, and on and on and on. There’s no part of the last couple years of the Favre story that aren’t tiresome and annoying, even in memory. No one is surprised by anything any more. Favre a Vike? Why the hell not? We all can fail to look forward to his throwing 25 picks this year and enjoying some perplexing ball-washing from the sportscasting old guard. Madden excepted, of course. And we all can fail to look forward to his next off-season retirement and team change. Going out with dignity is no longer an option.
–
Elsewhere in the NFL, the dog-killer is now an Eagle, and there are sure to be protests. Probably already have been. Personally, I can’t get too exercised about this. His crimes were loathsome, it should go without saying, but any more loathsome than this? Or this? Or – hell, it hurts to post this, as a Colts fan - this? The league has a long history of looking the other way on criminal offenses. As a business they will only look out for their bottom line. If enough fans protested the reinstatement of Vick, they would have kept him out – so clearly the NFL made what they felt was the best financial decision, and they will weather a small storm to get the pot of gold at the end of that dirty rainbow. I have no real analysis to offer on that except that the league knows their business better than I do.
Morally, we have a criminal justice system that has punished the quarterback-slash-puppy-murderer already. I don’t feel that the league is morally obligated to not hire felons who served their time and paid their due to society. Clearly they don’t either. Take a good look at that list of names – most of them continued as paid NFL employees after their crimes and time served (if any); a few of them are still employed today. Nobody is protesting the paychecks given to Ray Lewis or Raiders kicker Sebastian Janikowski, though possibly they should be. Ultimately I feel that our criminal justice system is built on the twin foundations of rehabilitation and punishment. As a recently-free man, Vick has been punished and (theoretically) rehabilitated. The only compelling reason for the NFL to prevent him from playing is if it will hurt their bottom line, which is the same reason many businesses don’t hire ex-cons. It’s almost never about morality, and almost always about dollars. And as already stated, the league will continue to stick to their policy of hiring felons if it will sell some tickets and jerseys.
If you want to react, I think we’re past the point where angry letters or petitions will make a dent. They probably dismiss most of that as the product of PETA-type whackjobs anyway, though that’s unfair to letter writers, animal lovers, and regular whackjobs. Want to make a difference? Don’t buy Eagles tickets. Don’t buy their merch. Boo when they play, and especially boo when Vick takes the field. Hit the business where it hurts. Or do what I’m gonna do: shrug, and console yourself with the knowledge that Vick is a 3rd string QB on a so-so team, and he’ll be back out of the league to continue paying for his transgression soon enough. His life will carry the taint of this crime whether he takes a few snaps this season or not.
Comments
5 Responses to “Favre to Vikings, America shrugs; Vick’s back”
I agree about the fact that Vick has served his time and should be given a second chance. The thing that bothers me about this (and I think you alluded to this) is that Vick was involved in some dogs being killed (and I love dogs) and people are throwing fits about his reinstatement. Where is the outrage at the fact that Donte’ Stallworth killed a person and received a harsher punishment from the NFL (one year’s suspension) than from the justice system (30 days).
Furthermore, as with Ray Lewis, Donte’ Stallworth will be back in one year and likely play and be back to making multi-millions and I dare say, few people with even make a murmur.
P.S. Farve should be suspended indefinitely for being so indecisive!
I agree with the gist of this post and only disagree on what is likely to be a semantic issue. The prison sentence and any league suspension or banning are two separate issues. Any punishment the league were to deliver unto Vick is not “extra” or “on top of the prison sentence.” The league can suspend or ban a player for unseemly behavior even if it doesn’t result in a criminal proceeding. They can also suspend or ban a player for committing a crime even if the criminal justice system looks the other way. Some of that is a way of controlling their players and maintaining their image. Some of that is bowing to pressures from the fanbase.
And, for what it’s worth, without sounding too much like a PETA whackjob, i think that Vick’s crimes were more loathsome than the other ones you linked too. For what it’s worth, the victims of those other crimes participated in the crime in some way. I’m not saying anybody deserves to get shot (at) or stabbed (at?)–but there was a freedom of action they took upon themselves in that situation. Vick maintained his hobby in the sobering light of day. I’m not trying to value dog life over human life here, but rather trying to suss out the anti-social behavior that makes these various actions criminal. And in my opinion, an angry (and perhaps intoxicated) situation gotten out of hand says a lot less about the character of the players involved than calculated cruelty for profit and bragging rights.
“Some of that is a way of controlling their players and maintaining their image. Some of that is bowing to pressures from the fanbase.”
That sums it up for me, Big Dog. The league almost never acts in a purely punitive manner, though they say (or imply) that they do. Their suspensions and fines are the result of good business sense. At best, the NFL’s moral element is a shadowy reflection of the code of conduct silently endorsed by most of their paying customers. As such, anyone hoping the NFL will suspend Vick indefinitely to punish him for his crimes is indulging in serious wishful thinking; they would only do that if his actions were so horrific that his reinstatement would result in widespread and prolonged boycotts of their products. Like any corporation, the NFL is a legal entity but not a moral one.
I totally agree and said as much to your SO just the other day in regard to this very case and I didn’t mean to imply that “controlling their players” was punitive in a moral sense But rather meant something more managerial in nature. For example, that a player that has earned a reputation of league fines, suspension and such is going to have a tougher road to hoe come contract re-negotiation day. It also makes it much easier for the league to institute a ban or a suspension on a player that consistently tarnishes the league image in a way that makes fans angry. It’s a business and it acts in a businessy. way. I don’t have any problems seeing that. Nor do I have any problems with Vick’s reinstatement insofar as I have no say in the manner unless I joined an NFL-wide boycott, which I would not do.