Football Player Sues Hanes; Says It Can't Fire Him Over Controversial Things He Said On Twitter
from the freedom-of-speech-is-different-than-contractual-relationships dept
NFL player Rashard Mendenhall is suing Hanes for dropping his sponsorship deal, after he said some controversial things on Twitter about the Osama bin Laden killing. Hanes points to a "moral clause" that was in its contract with Mendenhall. In response Mendenhall says that he should have a right to express his opinions. I can't see this going very far. Mendenhall certainly has a right to express his opinions, but none of that means that Hanes has to continue working with him. There's some argument that the morals clause is "broad and ambiguous," making it unenforceable, but that seems like a stretch.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: contracts, morals clause, rashard mendenhall, speech
Companies: hanes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mendenhall should have been a miner...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mendenhall should have been a miner...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there's more to it, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there's more to it, right?
Apparently he's been in trouble for his Tweets before now as well, for comparing the NFL to "modern-day slavery", so this wasn't an isolated incident. Hanes probably felt (justifiably) that he would continue to say stupid stuff and didn't wish to be associated with that stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
Besides, am I the only one who's bothered by the idea of someone getting fired merely for having unpopular political views, however fundamentally wrongheaded they might be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
I think it's also important to note (again) that apparently Mendenhall agrees he went too far with that one particular tweet. It was deleted, the others weren't.
I'm not bothered by it in this case because of the way sponsored athletes work. As a quote from this article points out:
This is well known (this is also not the first time someone's lost their sponsorship contract for doing/saying something really stupid) so there's no excuse for behaving in a way you know is going to cause your sponsors problems if you actually agreed to let them sponsor you. It's a trade off, you get money for being sponsored, but in exchange you become one of the company's public faces, so you lose some freedom in what you can say and do. If you don't like that, then maybe you should pass and do without the money. The choice is yours, no one is forcing you to take that sponsorship contract.
Also, do note, this is the second time this year he's caused problems with controversial tweets. So this isn't like he just said something stupid/unpopular once and was canned. It's also notable that both times the most controversial tweets look less problematic in the context of several other tweets done at the same time. I think Mendenhall really needs to get a blog so he can have his whole argument up in one chunk, instead of posting it in 140 character chunks that can more easily be taken out of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
Conclusively? Hardly!!
and how many of you have stated above that "he said something stupid"
SERIOUSLY, there's not a single techdirt reader who has any doubts about that?? Why, just cause your overstimulated brains can no longer stand to think about it 10 years later and you read a study or two, funded by god only knows, in that intervening 10 year period that lets you forget about it?? BAAAAAH BAAAAH!! Freaking SHEEP
NOTHING is ever proven 'conclusively', you should always have doubts. Especially of an act that resulted in the largest loss of liberties and the grossest abuses of our power on the world stage we have ever experienced. I repeat, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.
Nice thing about sheep is they can be sheared over and over and over and over and over and over and they never remember the last time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
The religious people still believe in a God, despite that there's been no hard evidence of a God.
From the texts mentioned in your previous posts I fail to see a reason why his contract was ended. I don't see the controversy.
So what if he doesn't believe a plane couldn't crash into an iron-strenghtened highrise building to blow it up.
But I also fail to see the football player's entitlement to the contract. They have a right to drop any one they are giving free* money to.
Sure we heard Bin Laden speak in those videos, but I don't speak Afghan, so I have to rely on a translation.
I can see why someone would have an issue with relying on just a translation. But I do agree that we only hear one side of the stories. This age-old adage is still true, even to this day: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
But this is coming from a non-US viewpoint. I guess being a 9/11 denier (which I don't think Mendenhall is) is about as bad as a holocaust denier in Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
Your belief in an unproven theory is your choice, but criticizing others who believe in an unproven theory does nothing for your own credibility.
That being said, I believe Hanes should be able to terminate a relationship with a sponsor if that sponsor's positions could cause controversy and damage to their reputation and sales. Nobody is telling the NFL player he can't express his opinion, but when those opinions can cause moral outrage, I believe it's well within Hanes' right to separate themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
Blahhhh ha ha ha. Yeah ok. I have installed that stuff, and can tell you with 100% certainty that stuff does not just fall off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_AV7c4YoZw 2:21 the fireproofing was being replaced throughout those buildings.
"weakening of the structure caused" Again I laugh, even if you believe the structure was weakened in the impact zone that does not account for the underlying structure just giving up.
"fires fueled by the jets' large fuel reserves is another thing entirely." Large fuel "reserves"? Yea ok.
"9-11 denialists" Thats a new one.
"we do know exactly what happened" citation needed
I guess you also believe the black boxes were never found or disintegrated as well.
If you believe jet fuel & office materials alone did this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oexZtAQ2YmU
Can I have some of what you are smoking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: there's more to it, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
But as usual, there's no good guy here. I'm not defending a millionaire football player. He should pay a 90 percent tax rate off the top, and THEN he can have "free" speech, ha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
/facepalm
Seek professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
Of course he has a short career which does justify somewhat above average pay.
Unfortunately sports stars have shown themselves to be particularly inept at managing their finances post retirement - so a modestly hign income (like they used to get back in the 60's) doesn't seem to be enough. They have to pe paid enough not to br broke after they have lost most of it through incompetence! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
No they don't. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
I think that any bailout of a failing company is extreme stupidity at best. I rewards companies that do the wrong thing and by propping them up actually harms the companies that did the right thing.
Chrysler and GM get government money because the can't control their costs and make product people do not want.
If they dad failed Ford world have come up quite a bit as the only major American car manufacturer. The foreign car companies would have come up a bit as well.
FDIC Insurance is stupid. Makes people not need to look at where they put their money. Banks do not have to compete on safety. So they compete on rates and toasters.
What you get is banks doing crazy ass shit to make money because their customers only care about return. If they are wrong the customer loses nothing and the bank gets bailed out. No problem.
Mendenhall is an idiot. He has the right to be one. Hanes lhas the right to not want to be associated with an idiot.
Mendenhall still has the right to not be robbed by the federal government. Though some days I wish there were and idiot tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
Morals clauses are in sponsorship contracts to cover situations just like this one. The sponsoring company has the right to protect themselves from the repercussions of speech they don't agree with. Trying to force them to do otherwise would impinge on their rights actually, since businesses do have a freedom of speech right as well. Looking at it that way, Mendenhall's not only not got the moral high ground, he's trying to both escape the repercussions of his own freedom of speech (losing his sponsor) AND trying to impinge on Hanes' freedom of speech.
There may not be a good guy here, but I do see Hanes as a bit of a victim. Mendenhall said some really stupid stuff and is unwilling to accept the consequences, so I have no sympathy whatsoever for him. You said it dude, now own up to the consequences and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
You break a clause in your contract, you get fired. No one's stopping you from saying whatever you want, but no one's forced to put up with whatever you say either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
So he's lost no rights, he exercised his right to free speech and now he has to deal with what happens next. There is NO civil right that says you get a free pass when you say something unpopular with your freedom of speech.
I really fail to see how you think Hanes is taking any rights away from him by severing his employment for saying whatever he felt like. The fact that most of the tweets in question are still up tells you that Hanes not only didn't interfere with his freedom of speech, they didn't force him to retract his statements!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
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.
That doesn't say anything about contract law between two people. The courts have ruled that you can't sign away certain rights, but that doesn't mean that companies have to maintain your employment if you break a moral clause.
You can have a private party clause that says if you stand on a car in the middle of Times Square and start reading Mien Kampf by Hitler out loud you will get fired. But that doesn't mean you are legally prevented from doing so if you wanted to, you could still do start reading at any point (but you may get in trouble for impeding traffic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
People in China are perfectly free to say what they want, but there are sometimes repercussions to what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
In a free market I would say such discrimination is more appropriate (though not necessarily. We have laws that prevent discrimination based on things like race, and I agree with these laws). But we don't live in a free market. The cable and broadcasting companies benefit from government established monopolies and they pick and choose who they are willing to broadcast. I can't simply start my own sports league and start broadcasting it over public airwaves or cableco infrastructure, I must go through a government established monopolist gatekeeper. This isn't a free market, it's one plagued with government established monopolies. As such, it needs regulations that prevent the abuse mentioned in the OP.
The mainstream media and these sports leagues are effectively using the power of the government to deny media access and job opportunity access to any sports player or public figure who holds the wrong opinion. That's unacceptable. Government power should NEVER be abused like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mendenhall should dig in: he's right MORALLY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh
It seems to mean, in practice, 'we can cancel this contract at any time' which (unless the player has a similar out) sort of defeats the purpose of a contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eh
Perhaps there should be a 'cancellation fee' (which is sorta what contracted high executives sometimes get, depending on the circumstances) to deter arbitrary cancellations and to help ensure that a cancellation only occurs for good reason. If the contract issuers cancel the contract, they must pay the other party a certain amount of money.
Then again, sports stars are probably taken advantage of compared to high executives in this regard, because a high executive will probably better familiarize himself/herself with the terms of a contract before signing. and those representing sports stars are probably more interested in their own interests than the interests of the sports stars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What argument?
There's no argument whatsoever. He had the choice and he chose to sign the contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What argument?
If basically it means "anything we want it to mean" then that should have been said more clearly in the contract, instead of pretending it means morality. I think such clauses should be thrown out, and any company that wants a sponsorship deal is along for the ride all the way - you can stop using his face in advertising, but you signed up for $1M over 2 years, you pay the whole $1M whether you use him or not.
The guy's a moron (seriously, would you go into a burning building to set demolition charges near the same floor as the fire is burning? DO you think someone would notice? Do you have any idea HOW MUCH explosive it would take? There's a thick steel pillar every 10 feet! Did you see any ring of explosions bursting outward several hundred feet just before the towers fell?? The idea is moronic on so many levels!!) but they bought him, he's their moron, they should pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What argument?
(I am going to try this going forward, hopefully you don't have the patent/trademark/copy write on doing it).
(this is neat! everybody should try it!)
(Ok I admit this post is a shot only at your style and not substance... but the parentheses ploy worked because i noticed those posts more, even if I didn't read your comments).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What argument?
At least use the right word :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expressing his against the grain opinions publicly is doing a crummy job of that. If you're bad at your job, you should be fired.
He was not good at that job. Notice his NFL job where being a spokesperson and representative is a secondary duty has not yet fired him because he is still performing the primary duties of that job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Woohoo, old unarmed man shot in the face by our crack team of trained seals, the elite of the elite in your armed forces.
I know lots of people despise the generality of US citizens*, but then a hell of a lot of you make it very hard for them not to.
It seems, this sports person had a slightly higher view of his fellow citizens, but he was clearly wrong.
*(I honestly keep trying to remind myself that some, heck possibly even a sizeable minority of US citizens are decent, intelligent people. It gets harder to convince myself of that though, every single day, I've already lost the ability to consider that a majority might be.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I missed the post where someone said that. Can you please refer to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we please...
How many times does this have to happen before it sinks in that no, the world does NOT need to know RIGHT NOW what you think about ANYTHING.
Still, this is the best ongoing example of internet narcissism backfiring.
You have tons of Twitter followers? Yes, you may have mentioned that. How nice for you. I know, I know, you're busy right now trying to Tweet something that will insure you KEEP all those followers. Good luck with that.
Pass the popcorn, apparently this is going to be a long (and funny) show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Charlie Chaplin was opposed to Hitler.
I'm pretty sure the moustache style itself has no actual ideology. Although, it does make people look odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course that's because I have an extremely low view of the average US citizen, I guess companies selling stuff to them do too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Image
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate Image
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analysis here
“If Mendenhall commits or is arrested for any crime or becomes involved in any situation or occurrence…tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the majority of the consuming public or any protected class or group thereof, then we shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement.”
- The moral clause in Mendenhall’s Talent Agreement with Hanesbrands.
While we respect Mr. Mendenhall’s right to express sincere thoughts regarding potentially controversial topics, we no longer believe that Mr. Mendenhall can appropriately represent Champion and we have notified Mr. Mendenhall that we are ending our business relationship. Champion has appreciated its association with Mr. Mendenhall during his early professional football career and found him to be a dedicated and conscientious young athlete. We sincerely wish him all the best.
- Hanesbrands press release announcing termination of Mendenhall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]