NFL - Fine Happiness gone too Far?

[Keino]

John Kitna was recently assessed a $5,000.00 fine for wearing a Red hat with a White Cross. The league cited it's policy for wearing non-licensed official NFL Apparel.

Most of you know, I am perhaps the most secular guy on these boards. Im for separation of church and state, as I believe the framers of the Constitution always intended it to be that way. That said, I think that the NFL has overstepped it's bounds.

Kitna may have violated the letter of the rule, but he most certainly (In my opinion) did not violate the spirit of the rule. The rule is intended to keep players from wearing apparel that is in direct competition with the League's official Sponsors. For example: A player wearing a Nike hat when the league is sponsored by Reebok. Last time I checked, God was not in competition with the league or it's sponsors for advertising.

Kitna was expressing his faith, and should not be prohibited from doing so. Thoughts?

[NamVet4]

Link to story (http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/103688-5794-036.html)
Courtesy:From Star news services
December 19, 2003

The NFL has to revisit that rule!

I believe there might be some First Amendment rights being violated ?

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[rskinsfan10]

I agree with your thoughts on this Andrew. When I read that in the Post this morning I was totally shocked. Enough is enough.

[jporterweb]

Let them celebrate dammit. Let Kitna wear his hat. This is bulls**t. The NFL thinks they can do whatever they want. I'm sick and tired of the NFL imposing their rule on every aspect of these players lives. Next thing you know they are going to fine them if their shirt comes untucked on a play.

[AGibbsGirl]

Hey...where do these fines go anyway?

[hail2skins]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Let them celebrate dammit. Let Kitna wear his hat. This is bulls**t. The NFL thinks they can do whatever they want. I'm sick and tired of the NFL imposing their rule on every aspect of these players lives. Next thing you know they are going to fine them if their shirt comes untucked on a play.

I believe that's something they can already be fined for.

[lakewinola]

Flood gates, imagine the NFL as the new NASCAR, every interview after the game, Ramsey takes the time to thank all of his sponsers and plug a few products. Or, as a protest half of the league wears hats depicting the president as a moron. Thats free speech, the league has these rules for a reason.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by lakewinola
Flood gates, imagine the NFL as the new NASCAR, every interview after the game, Ramsey takes the time to thank all of his sponsers and plug a few products. Or, as a protest half of the league wears hats depicting the president as a moron. Thats free speech, the league has these rules for a reason.

No there is a difference between something like a breach of contract(the NFL's contracts say they can't promote a competitor's product. Since the players are members of the organization, that applies to them without express written consent) like that, and religious views. So what if a guy wants to wear a hat depicting the president as the moron. That's his right. It's not right to say you can't wear your religous hat because it's not one of our hats.

[SkinsKY]

I think the fines are way too extensive especially when you compare them to the fines levied for dirty blocks. Those fines are half as much or less. I still think back to Peyton and the shoes after Johnny U. died. How can it not be good for the game to let Manning honor one of the greatest players in league history? I think the NFL is a little too image conscious for they're own good, but they can get away with it because they know football fans have nowhere else to turn if the NFL goes sour. They Grey Cup just isn't as exciting.

[frankez99]

An organization (NFL) has a charter (rules) that states what you can do/wear....and what you can't do/wear. A post game new conference still places you on-duty with the NFL. An interview at your house or on the street, he could be dressed like an alter boy if he wants. I'm in the USAF...I should be allowed to wear a black hat with a white cross on it while I am in uniform or speaking on behalf of the USAF? Nooooo.....his fine was well within moral and legal bounds. It's simple...if you cannot conform to the rules of your organization, employ yourself in a different profession that does.

[jporterweb]

I can understand the rules that the USAF would have in that regard, but for the NFL to have that rule, it's ridiculous. Sure they can tell them that...but the point I am making is that to be that anal when they are not an organization with an image like the USAF. They are not the freakig military. The point is they need to back off a little bit.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jporterweb
I can understand the rules that the USAF would have in that regard, but for the NFL to have that rule, it's ridiculous. Sure they can tell them that...but the point I am making is that to be that anal when they are not an organization with an image like the USAF. They are not the freakig military. The point is they need to back off a little bit.

C'mon, everyone knows this is about image = $$$$$. It's the $ that are putting these rules in effect.

[higgybaby]

this is about trying to make a dollar on promoting nfl licensed hats and clothing, they go too far in this arena

[higgybaby]

i am now a BRAVE!!!!!

[Odyn]

What happened to trying to have personality in the game? Its all fun and games till someone dies so take a chill pill NFL