Goodell's Slippery Slope, an Editorial

One thing you can say about Roger Goodell is it’s not a surprise what he is doing regarding the  (his) NFL’s personal conduct policy.  After taking the commish’s  job in 2006 the NFL was in the midst of a rash of  scandals, mainly by players, concerning poor off-field conduct.  This rash was undoubtedly embarrassing to the NFL and it helped to create the personal conduct policy in 2007 that we’ve all become well aware off; thanks to Ben Roethlisberger of late.  For that reason I understand what Goodell is trying to do.  The NFL is a major brand, huge revenue generator and the sport is growing in popularity at a high rate both in the U.S. and abroad.  Goodell is trying to keep the reputation of the NFL intact or at least favorable to the public.  This is nothing new.  Most leaders don’t want their organization in the news gaining negative press since it can result in lost business.  Organizations want to make money.  In the NFL’s case it requires fans and sponsors to bring in the revenue.  The President of Lockheed-Martin doesn’t want bad press and most likely has a policy similar to the NFL.  The problem is employee X at Lockheed that beats his girlfriend does not make the papers like a NFL player does.  In this decade of instant communication, blogs, TMZ and journalists that create the news rather than reporting the news, the flash to bang time before an incident is out there is instantaneous.  Goodell is trying to prevent that.

While I understand Goodell’s intent, that does not mean that I agree with it.  Goodell is taking the NFL down a slippery slope because his policy is vague,  subjective and attempts to hold his employees to a higher standard; a standard that he decides what is right or not.  While his intent may have been to establish some sort of employee code, he has created a zero tolerance for poor personal conduct.  If you walk the moral high ground, you’ll like this policy.  But, zero tolerance is subjective and extremely difficult to manage in a consistent manner.  In this case consistency equals fairness.  A zero tolerance policy works well for black and white issues like drug use.  You are either positive or negative.  If you are positive expect to be suspended/fined for x games for the first offense and suspended or fined xx for a second offense.  If you are found guilty of a felony-3, expect to be suspended for x games.  It is very hard to quantify something like Ben has created.  Take Ben and Jeff Reed for example.  Ben does his thing, makes the news and is fined six or less games.  Skippy does his thing, makes the news, is formally charged, pays his penance (community service) and will be kicking in the opener.  Both violated the vague policy but Ben generated more news.   Until Roethlisberger’s media frenzy, suspensions have resulted for players that have been arrested, charged or convicted.   His latest exploits with the two women have not produced an arrest, plea, further interviews or convictions.  Ben is guilty of piss poor judgment, he embarrassed himself and the Steelers but that is it based off the facts presented and released.  Ben’s  only formal charge since entering the NFL was his failure to wear a helmet and failure to operate in his license class from his wreck on June 12, 2006.

Goodell and the NFL look inconsistent and hypocritical.  Goodell gets to determine what is suspension worthy, fine worthy or not worthy.  This is a dangerous slope.  (See Brian Cushing's developing story)

Ben was suspended, most likely, four regular season games.  He is not likely to be suspended during a game that is on national T.V.  and will have a bye and a game or two to get ready for the first prime time game.  Goodell is not going to jeopardize prime time ratings.  He has already turned the draft into a prime-time party.  Ben and Drew Brees will generate a lot of viewership, more so than Dixon vs. Brees.  Stars playing against star make more money and Goodell on his moral mountain certainly understands this and is not likely to jeopardize it.

In 2007, when the PacMan was in the midst of being suspended, his attorney listed in their appeal 20 plus pages of “poor conduct” by NFL players. Eight of them were Steelers (granted, Goodell, wasn’t the commissioner for some of them).  See report:  http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN7239256.PDF  What is striking amongst the players that found the law was the number of alcohol related offenses.  Even the incidents where the player wasn't cited for alcohol they had impaired judgment (like Ben) due to alcohol consumption.  Yet last week, the NFL awarded Bud Light a $1.2 billion sponsorship deal as the official beer of the NFL.  How many fans get drunk at the stadium and end up beating their wives/sexually assaulting someone/getting arrested?  See the hypocrisy? 

The race card is likely to come up as well and Goodell has signed up to play judge, jury and executioner.  Wait until punishments begin to be compared and they will be compared.  The player’s union has been castrated and that leaves Roger to determine, who really did something bad; arrested, charged, convicted or nothing.  What happens if Donovan McNabb gets arrested for driving his Porsche 120 mph going down Interstate 95?  Is that suspension worthy?  Is it poor conduct?  Roger gets to decide.  As the Examiner sports writer, Paula Duffy,  said  “In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the league and a player's team look at the facts and decide they don't pass the smell test, that person is going to be sitting down for a number of regular season games.” 

It is not unreasonable for an employer to draw the line with his workers and have some sort of policy established regarding behavior  but it is a messy can of worms that Roger opened.

You can read the NFL Personal COnduct Policy here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2798214