Jump to content

NFL players in arm wrestling gig in trouble


Recommended Posts

Good question. I'd be curious to know the answer to this. You gotta love the good ole NFL though. No "promotional appearances" at casinos allowed, but we'll move a team to Vegas.

So? Shouldn't matter... You don't see any problems with Jets/Giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL players are prohibited from doing promotions in gambling establishments.

 

In other league news...Raiders are moving to Las Vegas.\

 

:doh::lol:

Well, it's not like any players are going to be spending time at the casinos. I'm sure all the exclusive clubs and VIP pools will scare them away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way Roger

My way or fine

 

Terry and the owners still get a chuckle when fans say this, I bet....and Rog gets another $100K bonus per...

 

Good question. I'd be curious to know the answer to this. You gotta love the good ole NFL though. No "promotional appearances" at casinos allowed, but we'll move a team to Vegas.

 

Well, they aren't moving INTO a casino. They are moving to a town WITH casinos, as other NFL teams already find themselves in (Buffalo included). You missed that distinction when the other poster brought it to your attention above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand what you're

saying?

I assume he's referring to the fact that the Giants and Jets stadium is actually in New Jersey which is where Atlantic City is....I could see his point if the Giants/Jets stadium was in Atlantic City but its not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Terry and the owners still get a chuckle when fans say this, I bet....and Rog gets another $100K bonus per...

 

 

Well, they aren't moving INTO a casino. They are moving to a town WITH casinos, as other NFL teams already find themselves in (Buffalo included). You missed that distinction when the other poster brought it to your attention above.

Correct, but the other casinos in NFL cities don't offer sports betting. That's the white elephant in the room that the league has historically worried about. Why does the league care if a guy goes out and plays blackjack? They shouldn't and they don't. The league is flawed in the fact that they seem to think we live in the 60's. I understand that sports betting exists online. You don't need to hang out in Vegas to get involved with shady characters to get wrapped up in sports betting. It can happen anywhere. However, if the league bans any promotional appearances for athletes with casinos than the league has no business in being in Vegas.

 

Vegas was built on the backs of the casinos. If there were never casinos in Vegas there wouldn't be an NFL team moving to Vegas. Secondly NFL players commonly make promotional appearances for the hot spots in their city. In Vegas all of the hottest spots are affiliated with casinos. The casinos in cities like Detroit and Buffalo can't be remotely compared with the glitz and glamor of Vegas. Bills players probably aren't wishing they were allowed to do promotions for our local casinos. It's not somewhere they likely hang out all the time. Vegas will be a different story. NFL players are going to be flooding the VIP rooms and the pool parties. You don't get that in Detroit or Buffalo. If you're not going to allow players to be associated with casinos, don't move a team to Vegas. Personally I have no problem with players making promotional appearances for casinos. The NFL doesn't agree with me. So don't move a team to Vegas. It just looks stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, but the other casinos in NFL cities don't offer sports betting. That's the white elephant in the room that the league has historically worried about. Why does the league care if a guy goes out and plays blackjack? They shouldn't and they don't. The league is flawed in the fact that they seem to think we live in the 60's. I understand that sports betting exists online. You don't need to hang out in Vegas to get involved with shady characters to get wrapped up in sports betting. It can happen anywhere. However, if the league bans any promotional appearances for athletes with casinos than the league has no business in being in Vegas.

 

Vegas was built on the backs of the casinos. If there were never casinos in Vegas there wouldn't be an NFL team moving to Vegas. Secondly NFL players commonly make promotional appearances for the hot spots in their city. In Vegas all of the hottest spots are affiliated with casinos. The casinos in cities like Detroit and Buffalo can't be remotely compared with the glitz and glamor of Vegas. Bills players probably aren't wishing they were allowed to do promotions for our local casinos. It's not somewhere they likely hang out all the time. Vegas will be a different story. NFL players are going to be flooding the VIP rooms and the pool parties. You don't get that in Detroit or Buffalo. If you're not going to allow players to be associated with casinos, don't move a team to Vegas. Personally I have no problem with players making promotional appearances for casinos. The NFL doesn't agree with me. So don't move a team to Vegas. It just looks stupid.

 

 

This makes no sense at all. As an employer, the NFL banning it's employees from doing promotional appearances in casinos has nothing to do with putting a team in a city with a lot of casinos.

 

The NFL isn't prohibiting players from "hanging out" in casinos/VIP rooms/etc---the players have been doing this in Vegas for years and the NFL rightly doesn't care.

 

Do you really not understand the difference between what is being forbidden (promotions in casinos) and players patronizing casinos?? Come on! That "just looks stupid".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This makes no sense at all. As an employer, the NFL banning it's employees from doing promotional appearances in casinos has nothing to do with putting a team in a city with a lot of casinos.

 

The NFL isn't prohibiting players from "hanging out" in casinos/VIP rooms/etc---the players have been doing this in Vegas for years and the NFL rightly doesn't care.

 

Do you really not understand the difference between what is being forbidden (promotions in casinos) and players patronizing casinos?? Come on! That "just looks stupid".

No actually I don't. If something's not illegal and the league allows you to do it, why can't you do promotional engagements for them? The league wants to act like gambling doesn't exist, yet they put a team in Vegas. You are correct, players have been hanging out in Vegas for years. How would a promotional appearance change anything. What would it harm? Edited by DriveFor1Outta5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have an issue from the Casino angle. My issue is that if I own an NFL team, I don't want a player potentially injuring himself doing this.


No actually I don't. If something's not illegal and the league allows you to do it, why can't you do promotional engagements for them? The league wants to act like gambling doesn't exist, yet they put a team in Vegas. You are correct, players have been hanging out in Vegas for years. How would a promotional appearance change anything. What would it harm?

 

promotional appearance fine. Sign autographs, etc. Don't potentially injure yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 - Get used to things happening in Vegas now that the Raiders are moving there.

 

2 - If an NFL player breaks his arm doing so he only screws himself.

 

Don't believe me on the latter? Google it. Some gruesome videos out there.

Right on man.

Players are paid very well to be ready for their team they should not be allowed to do other activities that can screw that up.

Edited by xRUSHx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No actually I don't. If something's not illegal and the league allows you to do it, why can't you do promotional engagements for them? The league wants to act like gambling doesn't exist, yet they put a team in Vegas. You are correct, players have been hanging out in Vegas for years. How would a promotional appearance change anything. What would it harm?

 

The point you are still somehow missing is that the league does not allow them to do it (promotions in casinos).

 

The NFL does not "act like gambling doesn't exist"--you made that up. They don't want their players representing the NFL inside casino events and getting paid for it by the casinos. ALL players agreed to this rule--and the one that requires them to consult the league before anything like this.

 

You are making this much harder than it is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point you are still somehow missing is that the league does not allow them to do it (promotions in casinos).

 

The NFL does not "act like gambling doesn't exist"--you made that up. They don't want their players representing the NFL inside casino events and getting paid for it by the casinos. ALL players agreed to this rule--and the one that requires them to consult the league before anything like this.

 

You are making this much harder than it is...

I'm not making harder than it is. I just view the situation differently than you. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. The league is going to move a team to Vegas in a few years. I think that makes it very ironic and hypocritical to ban players from doing promotional events at casinos. Vegas was built on the back of casinos. It would be like banning players in NYC from appearing in ads for financial institutions.

 

My opinion that the NFL likes to pretend that gambling doesn't exist stems from the ban on promotional appearances at casinos. Why else does this rule exist? The sole purpose of the rule is to give the league a dignified appearance. The league wants to give the appearance that they are not remotely influenced by gambling interests. It's simply an archaic outlook in a world with gambling everywhere that the league still clings to. An outlook that makes little sense with a team moving to Vegas.

 

The players may have "agreed" to the rule, but when the league baragians with the players union compromises are made. As is the case with all negotiations both sides must agree to conditions that they don't necessarily agree with. It doesn't mean that the players as a whole agree with the rule. The players for the Las Vegas Raiders will be losing out on a good deal of money not being able to cash in on promotional appearances with casinos. As other posters pointed out the league should be concerned about player safety with the arm wrestling situation. Instead they are worried about the violation of the casino promotional appearance rule.

Edited by DriveFor1Outta5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No actually I don't. If something's not illegal and the league allows you to do it, why can't you do promotional engagements for them? The league wants to act like gambling doesn't exist, yet they put a team in Vegas. You are correct, players have been hanging out in Vegas for years. How would a promotional appearance change anything. What would it harm?

 

THIS is NOT about players gambling.

 

The NFL can ill afford to have ANYTHING look like players or coaches for that matter have any ties or affiliations to gambling.

 

The NFL would go down in flames if there was any indication that organized gambling was INFLUENCING the outcomes of any of the games.

 

Anyone ever heard of Pete Rose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

THIS is NOT about players gambling.

 

The NFL can ill afford to have ANYTHING look like players or coaches for that matter have any ties or affiliations to gambling.

 

The NFL would go down in flames if there was any indication that organized gambling was INFLUENCING the outcomes of any of the games.

 

Anyone ever heard of Pete Rose?

Yes, but players post pics of themselves in Vegas and gambling on Twitter and Instagram all the time. Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson was also an initial investor for a Raiders stadium in Vegas before backing out. This makes the NFL look as legit as a three dollar bill imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point. That's why I'm often highly critical of the league. Their priorities always seem to be backwards.

It's like the NCAA that suspended players for playing fantasy football or spending their bookstore money on folders while they had the Baylor Rapists running around untouched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making harder than it is. I just view the situation differently than you. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. The league is going to move a team to Vegas in a few years. I think that makes it very ironic and hypocritical to ban players from doing promotional events at casinos. Vegas was built on the back of casinos. It would be like banning players in NYC from appearing in ads for financial institutions.

 

My opinion that the NFL likes to pretend that gambling doesn't exist stems from the ban on promotional appearances at casinos. Why else does this rule exist? The sole purpose of the rule is to give the league a dignified appearance. The league wants to give the appearance that they are not remotely influenced by gambling interests. It's simply an archaic outlook in a world with gambling everywhere that the league still clings to. An outlook that makes little sense with a team moving to Vegas.

 

The players may have "agreed" to the rule, but when the league baragians with the players union compromises are made. As is the case with all negotiations both sides must agree to conditions that they don't necessarily agree with. It doesn't mean that the players as a whole agree with the rule. The players for the Las Vegas Raiders will be losing out on a good deal of money not being able to cash in on promotional appearances with casinos. As other posters pointed out the league should be concerned about player safety with the arm wrestling situation. Instead they are worried about the violation of the casino promotional appearance rule.

 

When you sign a contract you are personally agreeing to everything in it. Your agreement is explicit.

 

As for the bolded underlined part, your comparisons are getting less and less relevant and convincing. It's actually not anything like "financial institutions" in NYC. Moving to a city with casinos and telling players "stay out the casinos if you're their to make money for the casino as an NFL player" is not hypocritical.

 

Look, the NFL doesn't want players representing the NFL inside of casinos at casino events for obvious reasons of the appearance of impropriety (especially MORE relevant as the Raiders are moving to Vegas). Players agreed not to do this. They did it anyway. Does your employer allow you to break rules of employment you agreed to abide by when you agreed to work for them---when you decide those rules are "stupid"? I "bet" they don't.

 

These players can rep the casinos after they retire. Or they can become casino greeters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When you sign a contract you are personally agreeing to everything in it. Your agreement is explicit.

 

As for the bolded underlined part, your comparisons are getting less and less relevant and convincing. It's actually not anything like "financial institutions" in NYC. Moving to a city with casinos and telling players "stay out the casinos if you're their to make money for the casino as an NFL player" is not hypocritical.

 

Look, the NFL doesn't want players representing the NFL inside of casinos at casino events for obvious reasons of the appearance of impropriety (especially MORE relevant as the Raiders are moving to Vegas). Players agreed not to do this. They did it anyway. Does your employer allow you to break rules of employment you agreed to abide by when you agreed to work for them---when you decide those rules are "stupid"? I "bet" they don't.

 

These players can rep the casinos after they retire. Or they can become casino greeters.

I never made the argument that these players should have profited from the casino. They should have known better, and not broken the rules. I'm just stating my opinion that it is a rule which makes the league look hypocritical in my eyes. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Once again, I ask what harm is going to come from a player earning a paycheck from a casino?

 

The impropriety arguement is exactly where I find the hypocrisy to be. How does a player doing a promotion for a casino increase the odds of impropriety? Any time an NFL player steps foot into a casino there is a chance the player to uses their clout to get in with the elites. It's not like NFL players are banned from going to casinos. With a team in Vegas you can be sure players are going to have interactions with some of the big names in gambling. Banning players from making promotional appearances does nothing to stop the possibility of impropriety. It's just a smoke screen.

Edited by DriveFor1Outta5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never made the argument that these players should have profited from the casino.

 

I ask what harm is going to come from a player earning a paycheck from a casino?

 

The impropriety arguement is exactly where I find the hypocrisy to be. How does a player doing a promotion for a casino increase the odds of impropriety? Any time an NFL player steps foot into a casino there is a chance the player to uses their clout to get in with the elites. It's not like NFL players are banned from going to casinos. With a team in Vegas you can be sure players are going to have interactions with some of the big names in gambling. Banning players from making promotional appearances does nothing to stop the possibility of impropriety. It's just a smoke screen.

 

Oy....

 

Anyway, because I'm a masochist, I'll give it one more try....

 

The players can go to casinos. The NFL does not want them in the casinos representing the NFL and doing promotions. It's really just that simple. The fact that the Raiders are moving to Vegas has absolutely nothing to do with gambling or the appearance of endorsing gambling. The dumb citizens and politicians of that town thought it was a great idea to offer Davis 750 million of money they desperately need for more important things. No other city offered that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd still like to see the list of players. Apparently Pats had at least one player there:

 

"Steelers linebacker James Harrison, Dolphins wide receiver Kenny Stills, 49ers linebacker Navorro Bowman, Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey, Raiders punter Marquette King, Raiders defensive end Mario Edwards, Patriots safety Patrick Chung, and Cowboys receiver Lucky Whitehead took part in the event. Marshawn Lynch was also a participant and appears poised to join the Raiders for the 2017 season, but Rapoport reports that his current spot on the reserve/retired list will allow him to avoid a fine."

 

Whom amongst the Bills is most likely to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at the national arm wrestling site and noticed for this event they had no participants listed unlike other events. This event seems more an exhibition than other events. Also it is described as "portion of money in single and team events going to players' charities" rather than proceeds going to charity as one talking head on sports channel claimed when bad mouthing NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...