Let’s start with today’s article in the New York Times headed “In N. F. L. Domestic Cases, a History of Lenience” which goes on to say:
“On April 10, 2007, after more than 50 National Football League players had been arrested in the previous football season, Commissioner Roger Goodell was widely hailed for instituting a newly stringent personal conduct policy. Mr. Goodell threatened to banish players for off-the-field transgressions and installed himself as the judge and jury presiding over every case.
Mr. Goodell insisted that he would mete out discipline without waiting for the judicial system.
‘It is my job — not law enforcement’s job — to protect the National Football League,’ he said at the time…”
In general an employer does not have the right to punish or discharge an employee who is accused of a criminal offense and even one who has been convicted, unless the offense suggests an endangerment in the work place or to customers. Example: Conviction for embezzlement is not cause for refusing employment mowing grass.
Goodell’s power stems from the employment contract with players in which they agree not to be a source of embarrassment for their team or the league.
So let’s be clear about the issue here: It does not necessarily have to do with the action of a player but rather the financiial interests of the team and league, as determined by the zeitgeist of the moment.
In reality, Goodall is appologizing for not anticipating public sentiment rather than having previously set too small a penalty.
