Is it right that Israel Folau should get the sack for his 'Hell awaits gay people' comments?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder if those defending him still would've done so had he said something antisemitic instead of something homophobic.

Or if he called the products of one of the team's sponsors "junk."

 

[Father Heathen]

Or if he called the products of one of the team's sponsors "junk."

This happened in the UFC a few years back. I don't remember names, but one of the fighters said a brand of beer - also one of their sponsors - was nasty **** water. Shortly soon after, they had him apologizing on camera while holding a can of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, however a national employer should not be censoring employees when they are not working. Its not their business, even if in some way his life affects their company. Its still his life. The civil suit if any goes to him not to his league. If the boss of the league has a problem with his activity after hours let the boss sue. Do not give the boss carte blanche control of employee off time.

How about if he had bad-mouthed one of the team's sponsors or its products?

(Nothing false or that would be considered slander, but generally unfavourable)

Would the company be justified in disciplining him?

 

[Brickjectivity]

How about if he had bad-mouthed one of the team's sponsors or its products?

(Nothing false or that would be considered slander, but generally unfavourable)

Would the company be justified in disciplining him?

On the field or on his own time? The league claims to own all of his time through his contract, everything that it can get away with owning. Therefore I argue his responsibility to protect the sponsors off the clock goes beyond what ought to be. He made a tweet through a free service, not through a league service.

Suppose the league furnishes him with a special League name and identity. That would theirs. He should not be allowed to abuse the sponsors using that identity, but this is his own identity and name which the league does not furnish. In other words they have taken away his personal identity or attempted to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On the field or on his own time?

On his own time.

Say he regularly posts on Twitter that he thinks the sponsor's products taste awful and that he always goes for their main competitor instead. As a result, the sponsor threatens to drop their sponsorship.

Would the club be justified in taking action?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Would the club be justified in taking action?

What action? Will they give him a new name, so he could play under that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What action? Will they give him a new name, so he could play under that?

I have no idea how you think this is supposed to be relevant or solve any problem.

"I'm sorry you're upset about these social media posts, corporate sponsor, but the person bad-mouthing the company is Israel Folau... and the person on our team is Israel Golau - completely different! Never mind that they look exactly the same and are never seen together. Please keep your sponsorship going."

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have no idea how you think this is supposed to be relevant or solve any problem.

"I'm sorry you're upset about these social media posts, corporate sponsor, but the person bad-mouthing the company is Israel Folau... and the person on our team is Israel Golau - completely different! Never mind that they look exactly the same and are never seen together. Please keep your sponsorship going."

The contract should not bind. The players are being wronged through contractual obligations that are unethical. The players risk their identities in that contract, but the league has only taken a financial risk. It has no real identity, no blood to lose, no face to bruise.