EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2816

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

(PRO)
WINNER!
14 points
(CON)
0 points
nzlockienzlockie (PRO)
I'd like to thank my opponent for what I'm sure will be a debate for the ages.

The topic is a very simple one and my argument in favour of  Sports Leagues having the right to suspend individual players for off-field behaviour will also be a simple one.

The Sports League is a business and has a public image which it needs to be positive in order to continue to make money. 
The Sports League is made of teams which are made up of individual coaches and players. The on-court and off-field actions of the teams, the players and the coaches all reflect on the public perception of the League. These people represent the League.

Some hypothetical scenarios:
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.  



Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-17 21:48:58
| Speak Round
TheCPTheCP (CON)
First off, it seems there has been some confusion. My opponent has made a point for my case. If we read the resolution: "That sport leagues should NOT suspend players for off-field behavior" my opponent has taken the affirmation of this resolution claiming that indeed leagues should NOT be able to suspend their players then turns around to make some solid arguments for the opposite point. 

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. 


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-17 22:18:46
| Speak Round
nzlockienzlockie (PRO)
AHA! It appears my opponent has fallen into my cunningly crafted trap and adopted my initial argument as his own!

Fortunately, that argument was crafted by an idiot and is full of holes. I will now adopt the correct side of this debate and explain the  reason why it is crucial that a League NOT be allowed to suspend individual players for off-field offenses.

In any business, it's important to maintain a hierarchy. Without delegation comes micro-managing and doubling up of resources. It's inefficient, expensive and it has to stop. Now.
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.  

Qualifying points:
1. How does the League control who represents it?
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.

For the League to directly interfere with the employee of one of its sub-contractors is at best inefficient and at worst, illegal. 
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.



Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-17 23:08:43
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
adminadmin
Interesting comment in that vote: "Second, do not word resolutions like this. Resolutions should always be for some sort of behavior and worded positively, not negatively."

I wonder what sort of authority said that, given that this resolution comes from an old World's tournament.
Posted 2014-03-20 14:33:39
nzlockienzlockie
Yep, do it! I've been trying to keep an eye on it. This one was all me. I click the button to post and the screen froze. So I clicked it a couple more times. Voila, two posts.
Most of the other times I get it is when I post and then use the back button to return to the previous screen. On certain devices it seems to resubmit the form.
Posted 2014-03-19 05:54:37
adminadmin
one possible fix - should I make it so that if the last comment is from the same user and identical to a new comment, the new comment is ignored? Doesn't really fix whatever the mysterious cause is but should get rid of the symptoms.
Posted 2014-03-19 03:55:05
nzlockienzlockie
post was so good, I had to do it twice.
Posted 2014-03-19 03:43:28
nzlockienzlockie
Hey anyone wondering... my "trap" in this debate was actually exactly what it looked like - a stuff up.
Totally mis-read the resolution and didn't realise my mistake until CP pm'd me and pointed it out. We discussed the options open to us and in the end I told him just to go ahead and call me on the mistake. I'd take my lumps and probably the loss.

Unfortunately, something must have happened to CP because he's missed his last round and as a result, I might come off looking like a jerk who was playing sneaky! Sorry about that, I assure you that wasn't the case.
Sorry for the confusing debate! Hope this doesn't make it to the weekly stupid...
Posted 2014-03-19 03:43:01
nzlockienzlockie
Hey anyone wondering... my "trap" in this debate was actually exactly what it looked like - a stuff up.
Totally mis-read the resolution and didn't realise my mistake until CP pm'd me and pointed it out. We discussed the options open to us and in the end I told him just to go ahead and call me on the mistake. I'd take my lumps and probably the loss.

Unfortunately, something must have happened to CP because he's missed his last round and as a result, I might come off looking like a jerk who was playing sneaky! Sorry about that, I assure you that wasn't the case.
Sorry for the confusing debate! Hope this doesn't make it to the weekly stupid...
Posted 2014-03-19 03:42:56
DTinfinityDTinfinity
Glad to see another one in the judging section.
Posted 2014-03-19 03:05:28
nzlockienzlockie
I'm adopting a highly experimental debating strategy here. Let's see if it pays off!
Posted 2014-03-17 22:17:01
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-03-18 23:51:59
EndarkenedRationalist Judge: EndarkenedRationalist
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
PRO certainly provided a solid, coherent, and easy-to-follow style of argumentation. It was, well, different to see PRO provide arguments for CON only to turn it around in the next round. However, this disadvantaged PRO in that PRO now had to spend time rebutting his own case, which he did quite effectively. CON also wound up forfeiting the next round, which means he was unable to refute PRO's trap, as it is called. Thus I have to award the win to PRO. Also, he has hot dogs for half-price, and who can beat that?
3 users rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-19 03:14:33
DTinfinityJudge: DTinfinity
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
A very interesting debate, I must say. Pro used a strategy that was very, very hard to follow, and I believe he should refrain from using that strategy. However, it paid off in the end, as pro was able to successfully refute his own arguments and the con's also, which provided a very strong case. Con forfeited the last round, and left a lot of points unrefuted. This led to the finishing blow on the con's chances of winning this debate.

Feedback:
To the pro:

Come out and argue your points directly. While your trap worked this time, it may not work next time and/or the voters will not be happy and will vote against you. It also makes for a *much* better debate if it is organized and the reader can follow it and relate to it.

To the con:

Don't forfeit and don't fall for any traps. If you make an argument in the first round, it is your "moral debating duty" to continue the debate and provide the readers good arguments and rebuttals (which you did do in the first round.) Also, 1-up pro and offer hot dogs for quarter-price.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-20 14:08:54
draftermanJudge: drafterman
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
I aware the win to PRO only as a result of the forfeiture, not for any argumentation. Whether the first round was a "strategy" or a "mistake" or a "trap" is irrelevant. There should be some level of sincerity in a debate, at least as much as is necessary so that readers (e.g. potential judges) can take each side at its word. You can't simply deny arguments you present when they don't work out for you. It is unfortunate that CON forfeited, as that mistake probably would have been PROs undoing.

Feedback:
Two key pieces of advice. First, be clear about what it is you are arguing for or against. If there is any confusion, then you need to work that out with your opponent before the debate. Second, do not word resolutions like this. Resolutions should always be for some sort of behavior and worded positively, not negatively.

Bonus Advice: Be cognizant of the debates you are participating in, to reduce forfeiture.
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-29 12:49:01
RomaniiiJudge: Romaniii
Win awarded to: nzlockie
Reasoning:
FF
2 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2014-04-03 15:38:59
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: nzlockie
2014-04-08 13:31:43
WyltedJudge: Wylted
Win awarded to: nzlockie

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 day
  • Time to vote: 3 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None