Do you think Brian Ulracher should have been fined $100,000 for wearing a hat?

Question

Typical corporate bullcrap : The company logo on the hat was not a sponsor of the NFL, so it was "unauthorized" to wear?

What ever happened to freedom of speech?

James, youre 100% wrong.
A contract between parties does not take preference over FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights.
Are you insane? So if you and I signed a contract that i wont attend church this Sunday, but i want to go anyway, you have a right to stop me? Against Freedom of Religion? Cmon dude, use your head.

Do you all know for a FACT that he "waived" his rights to Freedom of Speech? You've all seen that written in his contract? You all have no idea whether or not that wording is there, so dont make stuff up, now....

GoldPerson: Yes, i DO remember the rozelle thing, but Jim McMahon got fined only $5,000.00.
Hundred Grand, though??

Answer 1

He should have been fined.

He is under CONTRACT, freedom of speech doesn't apply here.

He gets paid a lot of money to abide by the defined rules of his sponsers. He knows that and took a chance and now has to suffer the consequences.

It's part of his job. There's no excuse for these pampered professionals.

Answer 2

Yes. The NFL has always had strict rules about wearing endorsements. It may seem silly at first, but the NFL is protecting their investment. It has taken many years for the NFL to build itself up to this level. Why should it allow a company to pay players hundreds of thousands of dollars, instead of paying the league millions of dollars, for advertising rights.

When representing the league the players know they are not allowed to endorse products. If Urlacher does this again he should be suspended for a game.

He has not waived his Freedom of Speech rights by signing a contract. But, every (and I mean every) NFL player is bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In the CBA it does mention that no players will do anything that is considered an endorsement of a product, activity, or organization not sanctioned by the NFL. This happened to Jim McMahon in '85. Th player does not have the right to use the NFL platform to make personal endorsements.

If this rule was not enforced players could place advertisements on themselves for any sort of products. Nike, Vitamin water, Doritos, Pam's Porno Palace, would all be acceptable. The game would be turned into nothing but a fashion show of advertisers.

Call it what you want, but this isn't David and Goliath, or corporate greed. This is just a corporation protecting it business entity. Imagine Apple allowing its corporate representatives to wear shirts emblazened with the Microsoft Vista logos during a public event; never going to happen.

So climb out of your oak tree, take off your Birkenstocks, cut your hair and get a real job.

Answer 3

Actually look up Contract law. He STILL HAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. They also have the right to fine him for excercising that Freedom. Remember Jim McMahon and his infamous "Rozell" Headband? He got fined for wearing the wrong headband, had the wrong symbol or he wasn't allowed to wear it or whatever, so he put one on the next week with Pete's name on it since that was the Commish at the time. In other words there is precendence, even against the Bears. Yeah by THEIR rules he deserved to be fined. It was also TOTAL BS and the NFL needs to do something about their STUPID rules.

Just wanted to add something that is off topic. Someone said about the NBA suspending a "World-Class" Ref. I admit he has a storied history that indicates that he is truly a professional normally. On this though IF the story is true HE WAS OFFERING TO FIGHT TIM DUNCAN BEFORE EJECTING HIM. Ok he TRIES TO FIGHT A PLAYER and you are saying about him being a "world class ref"? Sorry but a World Class Ref WOULDN'T try to fight a player. Then you have to ask well was Duncan really ejected because he wouldn't fight the ref? I'm not sure if Duncan's story is true, but I would guess it is based on how the NBA handled it.

Answer 4

Freedom of speech is not an applicable piece to this situation. He was representing a company that he works for and thus must abide by the terms of his employment. Standard NFL contracts prohibits his promotion of unauthorized sponsors during the time that he is working for the NFL. He can promote that sponsor on his own time without discipline. This is the same situation as many NFL players face which is why you see players doing commercials with the blank helmets. They are not allowed to promote those sponsors since that company does not ahve a contract with the NFL.

Answer 5

In his contract, as with all NFL Players, he waived the Freedom of Speech with regards to NFL sponsored appearel and promotions, in order to get the Endorsement money from the corporations who do sponsor NFL gear. So let's not make this about evil corporations or Freedom of Speech. He made the choice himself, and does daily by accepting $ Millions to wear the products HE CHOSE TO.
And you know what NFL stands for right? No Fun League........

Answer 6

Yes, the league has the right to fine him. This is not about Freedom of anything. The man is an NFL player, he is expected to behave and oblige to the NFL rules. Enough said on that.

On a side note, The NFL players receive 60% of the profit from corporate sponsors. Bet you didn't know that.

Answer 7

I'm just wondering if he wore a Pepsi hat, would he have been fined? They are not an official sponsor, but their commercials are in the Super Bowl, as well as Coke. $100K is a bit much. If a player has a shoe deal with Addidas, they can get paid, but can't wear the shoes on the field. The NBA, NHL, and MLB don't have these kind of restrictions. The NFL just needs to loosen up and let the players get the endorsements that they can get.

Answer 8

I would say YES he should have and here's why. 1) He knew it was not a NFL sponsor and he was told he would be fined BEFORE he wore it 2) The company on the hat he wore he has financial interests in, so how much was he paid by them to wear it? So he purposely wore the hat knowing he would be fined....he shouldn't complain one bit for being fined. Bigger picture is if you start allowing players to wear whatever they wish or whoever they are being paid to promote it would be a circus.

Answer 9

no i don't it is ridiculous a 100,000 if anything a 10k fine but you know what this is a result of the super bowl was what 3 months ago way act now because it is a result of no comish wants to up by one of another sport. what started it was the NFL comish suspended pac man for a year so the NBA comish said well will suspended a world class ref for the rest the year. now the NFL wanted to make another statement on that. so this will go on ridiculous stuff for awhile just waiting for the mlb comish to step up and do something ridiculous. i just want to point out i do believe pacman should be out for a year i'm not saying he doesn't just making a point of the comishes trying to one up each other

Answer 10

He should of been fined. He signed the contract and didn't follow it. The dude gets paid millions of dollars so just do what the contract specifically states.

And what does freedom of speech have to do with it. I guess you'd also have a problem with Steinbrenner and the mandatory grooming of all their Yankee players