For transplant. The uniform NBA player contract contains a loyalty clause. We talked about this before, though I don't think we nailed it down. I noticed in an article about Cubs minor league 3rd baseman tweeted his displeasure about being stuck in the minors. And the Cubs GM was quoted as saying he was in violation of the loyalty clause in his contract. So I did a quick search and found the NBA contract has one, too.
From the NBA Uniform Players Contract: 5b) The Player agrees: (i) to give his best services, as well as his loyalty, to the Team, and to play basketball only for the Team and its assignees; (ii) to be neatly and fully attired in public; (iii) to conduct himself on and off the court according to the highest standards of honesty, citizenship, and sportsmanship; and (iv) not to do anything that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of the Team or the League.
Right. So saying, "I don't want to play alongside ________" would be... material detrimental or prejudicial to the best interests of the team. To not say anything would not be giving his best services or loyalty.
Is this real or theoretical? If it's real, the solution is simple...just do your talking privately to the person who needs to hear the message.
Of course. But when the team signs a guy, you expect other guys interviewed to rave about him as a teammate because of the loyalty clause.
Sorry, I didn't understand where you were coming from. So like when Derrick Rose said: or when Luol Deng said stuff like: they were only saying these things to make sure that they didn't run afoul of the loyalty clause in the uniform contract. Is that what you're saying?
I find that very unlikely. You have to look at loyalty clauses in the business context in which they function. Play your scenario out. Rose doesn't rave about Hinrich. The Bulls fine Rose for violating the loyalty clause. Rose files a grievance with the union . . . and then . . . both sides are engaged in an ugly, public slug fest on an issue that they don't want to talk about. You can only enforce a loyalty clause in a very limited set of circumstances beacuse of the business realities: minor leaguers; players who refuse to play for the team on a pretext; etc.
I sometimes see loyalty clauses in publication agreements (usually if they haven't been updated in decades) and I always get a kick out of them. I mean, an author getting arrested for murder, or indecent exposure or money laundering? Book sales galore. It's probably a publishers secret wet dream to have one of their authors arrested.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-theo-epstein-first-cubs-player-triple-a-iowa Four years after former general manager Jim Hendry suspended Bradley for 15 games for telling the Daily Herald “now you understand why they haven’t won in 100 years here,” President Theo Epstein suspended Stewart without pay for tweeting the Cubs are letting him “rot” and “might as well release me.” Epstein said they’re jumping through “legal hoops” to finalize the suspension, which he said was due to a violation of the "loyalty clause" of the MLB contract. The Cubs haven’t announced the length of the suspension. --- so how is a player saying "Kirk sucks, what a bad deal we made!" any different? From the NBA Uniform Players Contract: 5b) The Player agrees: (i) to give his best services, as well as his loyalty, to the Team, and to play basketball only for the Team and its assignees; (ii) to be neatly and fully attired in public; (iii) to conduct himself on and off the court according to the highest standards of honesty, citizenship, and sportsmanship; and (iv) not to do anything that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of the Team or the League. At the very least, the team can fine or suspend the player. EDIT: This clause means they have to allow themselves to be interviewed. So they have to say something. http://www.nbpa.org/sites/nbpa.org/files/EXHIBIT A.pdf 13. PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES. (c) Upon request, the Player shall consent to and make himself available for interviews by representatives of the media conducted at reasonable times. -- And why wouldn't hyping the Kirk signing (for example) be a reasonable promotional activity? (d) In addition to the foregoing, and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Article II, Section 8 of the CBA, the Player agrees to participate, upon request, in all other reasonable promotional activities of the Team, the NBA, and any League-related entity. For each such promotional appearance made on behalf of a commercial sponsor of the Team, the Team agrees to pay the Player $2,500 or, if the Team agrees, such higher amount that is consistent with the Team’s past practice and not otherwise unreasonable.
Denny, I'm not sure if you're serious. If you are, I'll only say that I agree with SST that it's highly unlikely that a NBA team could successfully use the loyalty clause to compel their players to give positive reviews of management decisions.
"It's frustrating to see my brother play his heart and soul out for the team and them not put anything around him," Reggie Rose told ESPNChicago.com. "What have you pieced together? Have you made any moves? Have you made any trades to get better? You know all roads to the championship lead through Miami. What pieces have you put together for the physical playoffs? … Joakim Noah is a great player. Luol Deng is a great player. But you need more than that.'' No matter how much distance the Bulls quickly put between Reggie's words and Derrick's feelings, somebody still might wonder whether the comments reflect what the two brothers discuss with their guards down. Someone might wonder where the trepidation stems from when Reggie told ESPNChicago.com that Derrick returning isn't "about just making the playoffs, it's about my little brother's career.'' http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...0130222_1_derrick-rose-john-paxson-gar-forman What I think is that the team does make various threats to keep players "in line." Be those fines, suspensions, or otherwise making life miserable (no headbands). When players don't live up to their loyalty clauses, they're soon traded. See Pau Gasol and Ben Wallace as obvious examples.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831664 From the Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport D. Loyalty Clauses Similar to best efforts, a loyalty clause represents a somewhat subjective way to terminate an agreement in the event the employee or endorsee fails to keep his promise to remain loyal to the employer or endorser.156 For example, Indiana University’s contract with current head coach Tom Crean addresses “loyalty” at the beginning of the contract on the first page of the agreement and actually combines “loyalty” and a “best efforts” clause in the same paragraph.157 However, some assert that a loyalty clause is nothing more than an effort by one party to exercise its superior bargaining power or position over the other and demonstrating unconscionability.158 In sum, a loyalty clause calls for the employee-endorsee to refrain from failing to wear and use a particular brand of product in public or bad-mouthing the organization publicly.159 For example in 2005 Atlanta Falcons cornerback DeAngelo Hall wore Nike shoes during a Monday Night Football game. The problem was that he was endorsed by Reebok.160 Similarly, in 2000, Shawn Kemp (NBA) told the Akron Beacon Journal that his favorite pair of shoes was Nike’s Air Force II’s. He, too, was under contract with Reebok.161
OK, this is better except that the "loyalty clause" is irrelevant to the discussion. When a player, through his behavior, pisses management off sufficiently, said management may decide to trade the player. You're right that this has occurred many, many times in sports. This provides relief for management in that they don't have to deal with that particular pain in the ass player anymore. However, it's only punishment for the player if the player is being traded to a destination the player considers to be less attractive. In some cases, the trade may actually turn out to be a reward for being a pain in management's tail.
Headband rule was a means for the team to enforce the loyalty clause. To keep the players in line. Wear the headband, get benched and fined. It really happened, right? And they didn't litigate it in the courts.
So was making exceptions to the no-headband rule a violation of the loyalty clause? The headband rule has nothing whatsoever to do with the loyalty clause. The no-headband rule is a way of promoting uniformity...similar to the dress code while on the bench or traveling through airports or other public places. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you don't like the no-headband rule and wouldn't have one if you owned a NBA team.
Headband rule applies to several parts of the loyalty clause. From neatly dressed in public to best interests of the team (abide by the silly rules). I wouldn't have a no headband rule. Why on earth would I want to be an asshole to the players? I don't resent them for making a fair piece of the revenues.
Overall, I don't think the headband thing is a big deal, but FWIW, I don't get the need for that rule. If I owned the team and the players and coaches wanted it, I'd say fine, but if it was just the coaches, they'd have to make a damn good sales pitch. I've about had enough of the loyalty clause discussion...it's going nowhere. Basically, the clause is there to discourage bad-mouthing the organization in the press and engaging in off-the-court behavior which reflects poorly on the team. Actions under the clause are very rarely taken. It's not meant to, nor does it have the effect of turning the players into management mouthpieces. You can have the last word if you'd like it.
