That sport leagues should not suspend players for off-field behaviour

There is a hypothetical scenario in which a winning team refuses to suspend their franchise player for repeatedly calling the League into disrepute in various public appearances. The player is claiming that matches are fixed, Referees are corrupt and the whole system is rigged. The League can fine the team, but as it's being funded by a wealthy Russian oil baron, the team simply pays the fine and refuses to sanction the player. The team knows that the League needs its winning teams to keep competing so there's no fear of a whole team suspension.
In this scenario, the League needs to exercise its right to suspend the player.

There's another hypothetical scenario where an individual player has been caught and convicted of running dog fighting rings. He goes to jail and does his time. Upon his release from jail, one of the League's teams hires him as their new star player. Having this player appear in every game is going to massively damage the League's reputation with its target community. Again the team insists on its right to hire him, so the League needs to exercise its right to suspend him.

Some qualifying points:
 1. Team sanctions have more effect on players than League sanctions do, and the "normal" course of action should always be that sanctions for off-field behaviour should follow this route. PRO is not disputing this fact at all, in fact we'd support it. What we are saying is that since the ultimate party that suffers is the League. It's reputation is affected and therefore, its product or profits. It deserves to have the ultimate say over who can represent it.

2. A preemptive strike against the idea that sanctions should be imposed on the team rather than the player. In Checkers, there is a rule that players MUST jump a piece if there is an option to do so. In social games, sometimes players agree to a sanction for failing to do so. The normal sanction is that the piece which COULD have jumped but didn't is removed from the board. This process is called, "Huffing" and is banned in professional competition. The reason for the ban is that it gives the player an option to cheat the rule. If he calculates that it is more advantageous to him to lose a single piece by not jumping than it is to lose multiple pieces as a result of his forced jump, he can elect to take the penalty. Allowing Huffing to take place removes a lot of the skilled game play from the match and reduces it to a spectacle not worth watching.
The same principle applies here. By being forced to impose sanctions on a team for an individual's actions, the League is put in a situation where it can't control its own fate. Either the League is forced to damage its own product by suspending an entire team, or the Team can opt to buy its player's freedom - making the League look like a toothless tiger.

Even if it's not something that it uses very often, if at all, the League MUST retain the right to sanction any of its employees, (direct or indirect) if the need should arise.  

Vote PRO - we have half price hot dogs.  

Due to this mix up, I would like to extend my opponent's argument in favor of my case and add a few points of my own. 

1. Players Are Employees 

An entity has the right to hold their employees to a certain set of standards. If a player gets into criminal activity or acts in such a way that is deemed detrimental to the league or the league's image, they are within their rights to suspend players for such behavior. As an employee you must hold yourself to the standards that your employer expects of you. 

If you worked for a different company such as a bank or Fortune 500 and you got a DUI or were found to be slandering the company's image you would be necessarily disciplined. Sports leagues should be able to maintain this power. Not giving leagues this power gives the players free reign to act in whatever manner they choose. From my opponent's dog fighting example, the league would be within their right to suspend such a player. Without these types of controls criminals, drug addicts and slanderers could become the face of the league and be entrenched in their position without league oversight. 

As my opponent stated: "Even if it's not something that it uses very often, if at all, the League MUST retain the right to sanction any of its employees, (direct or indirect) if the need should arise."

I couldn't put it better myself. Perhaps next round my opponent will argue for his own side, but until then I will use his own arguments, hypothetical situations and bolster them slightly with my own. I will respond when necessary in the next round.

Thank you. 

The hierarchy in a Sports League goes like this: 
Sports League >>> Sports Teams >>> Individual players and coaches

It's obvious that the person who is responsible for the actions of the players is the Sports Teams. Not the League. 

First let's address the weak scenarios my opponent is supporting and then I'll address one or two other points.

Scenario 1:
In this scenario, financially penalising the team has not had the desired result. The League's next move MUST be to impose a harder sentence. It has other penalties at its disposal and they WILL work. It begins by assigning points for wins to the opposing side regardless of the actual outcome. This is accompanied by a great PR campaign in which Jennifer Love Hewitt walks the media through every facet of the League checks and balances and proves that the whole process is clean. Other teams in the league publicly condemn the player as well, since his comments reflect badly on their performance also, claiming that they're only winning because the League is corrupt. 

The backlash from all this is reigned directly on the head of the Russian Oil Baron who is now exposed as someone simply paying his way out of a situation. Internally the player's team mates are getting increasingly frustrated with him. As the team falters, so does the Russian's profits and reputation. Finally he makes the correct call. No suspension needed from the League. Justice has been done and the balance restored. Fade to black.

Scenario 2:

In this scenario, the League would be potentially opening itself up for a legal case. On what grounds is the player being suspended? He has already been tried, convicted and sentanced for his crimes. He's done his time and is now a free man. The League has no grounds to suspend him, even the team has no grounds to suspend him.
Having this guy play will reflect badly on the League, it's true - but it will reflect worse on the Team that employs him! How are their supporters going to react to that? They don't want this guy representing them!
No reaction is required from the league here except for a public distancing campaign. Again, run by the delightful JLH.
At the next board meeting, a ruling is passed, setting minimum standards for employees of the teams that make up the League. No convicted dog-fighters is top of that list. Problem is resolved peacefully with minimum blowback on the League and the hierarchy is maintained.  

Simple. The league does this by setting minimum standards for the Teams in terms of their players. Regular drug screenings must take place. Any player found to fail a drug screening is not allowed to play. Drug taking is an off-field offence. The League doesn't need to suspend the player, the rules already forbid him from playing. Therefore the TEAM suspends him.

1B. Who employs the players?

I think you'll find that it is the TEAM that employs the players. In the same way that the CEO of a company can't directly fire a sub-contracted cleaner staff member, the League shouldn't be able to be judge and executioner for an employee of one of its sub-contractors.
When a member of a team calls the League into disrepute, there is already a well established protocol for the complaints process. The Team is responsible for its employees and must take the punishment.

2. Huffing?
This point has already been addressed. The League is not a toothless tiger. It has a ton of sanctions available to it, and they WILL work. With JLH's help, the public perception will be favourable, with the bulk of the blame being shouldered by the team that employs this shmuck.

This point is critical in this debate. The league does not employ the players and as such it has NO jurisdictional rights over them. 
Legally, in employment law - it CAN'T suspend a player directly, even if my opponent can convince you that that would be a good idea.

As a business, delegation of responsibility is a fundamental principle. It makes money and it only works when the guy on top, trusts the guy in the middle to handle the guys under them. The Sports League is no different.

I urge you to vote PRO - we had a ground breaking strategy in this debate and have argued our side convincingly. In this round anyway.