Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was at lunch and they were playing ESPN on the TV, as restaurants are wont to do, and the story came up about athletes and paternity leave. There was no sound so I am not sure what was said, but there was enough text to get by, and it seemed like an intesting subject. All the twitter responses being posted seemed to follow along the lines that athletes should have the same ability to take two or three days as anyone, though understood that it is a bit more difficult for NFL athletes as there are much fewer games (16 regular season in the NFL versus MLBs 162). The real brouhaha seems centered around (now) radio sports commentator Boomer Esiason saying that a player should make their spouse get a c-section before the season so they don't miss any games, which, obliviously, is problematic on a few levels. I thought it seemed like an interesting subject that people might have something to say about so I am sharing.

 Ahtman wrote:
I was at lunch and they were playing ESPN on the TV, as restaurants are wont to do, and the story came up about athletes and paternity leave. There was no sound so I am not sure what was said, but there was enough text to get by, and it seemed like an intesting subject. All the twitter responses being posted seemed to follow along the lines that athletes should have the same ability to take two or three days as anyone, though understood that it is a bit more difficult for NFL athletes as there are much fewer games (16 regular season in the NFL versus MLBs 162). The real brouhaha seems centered around (now) radio sports commentator Boomer Esiason saying that a player should make their spouse get a c-section before the season so they don't miss any games, which, obliviously, is problematic on a few levels. I thought it seemed like an interesting subject that people might have something to say about so I am sharing.

Apparently they get to miss 3 games for parental leave. The specific commentator was saying that the player should have forced his wife to have a major surgery so that he wouldn't have to miss opening day because that is how he makes his money. That's what the big deal about this particular instance was all about.

Of course parental leave (and labor laws in general) are a sore subject for me and a clear sign that the USA has some serious catching up to do with the rest of the civilized world.

Athletes who are still parents still should have regular parental rights. As you said players in the NFL are more tightly bound by only playing a 16 game season meaning each game has more importance than a single NHL or MBA game but they're still going to be a parent, having your spouse go through major surgery just so the birth date won't coincide with a match could cause it to be a traumatic experience for both the athlete and their spouse.

Isn't Boomers' daughter a pornstar as well?

Should playing football even be considered a real job?

I know these guys make a lot of money and there is obviously some effort involved, but they are also living the dream. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to put a bit more than the bare-minimum of legally required effort in.

Also missing your son's birth because you were making millions playing in the Superbowl isn't exactly a tragedy. I'm sure he'll appreciate his big house, and getting to go to college.

I'm not saying the players shouldn't have any rights, but I don't think it's fair to lump them together with ordinary people slaving away in cubicles. They are clearly exceptional.

Having said that I think the C-section comment is barbaric. You can't force your wife to have a C-section anyway, it's completely absurd.

 Smacks wrote:
Should playing football even be considered a real job?

Yes.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Should playing football even be considered a real job?

Yes.

Agreed.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Should playing football even be considered a real job?

Yes.

No.

Why not? Because they get paid a lot?

 d-usa wrote:
Why not? Because they get paid a lot?

Notice that you didn't ask Ahtman "why yes?". If he isn't willing to provide anything beyond an obnoxious one word answer, than I don't see how he is entitled to anything further in return.


To be honest I don't have strong feelings either way. I just wanted to draw attention to that.

I hope they get maternity leave. I don't think playing football while pregnant is a good idea.

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why not? Because they get paid a lot?

Notice that you didn't ask Ahtman "why yes?". If he isn't willing to provide anything beyond an obnoxious one word answer, than I don't see how he is entitled to anything further in return.

Because there is no point in asking "why do you think a job is a job". If you are the one saying that a job is so different that for some reason it shouldn't follow the same rules as any other job then it falls on you to explain that.

To be honest I don't have strong feelings either way. I just wanted to draw attention to that.

So you pretented to have strong feelings to draw attention to you not having strong feelings?

I listened to Boomer's commentary and I didn't have enough facepalms for the crap flying out of his mouth. Real embarrassment.

As far as the wider topic, to me a pro athlete of any sport is, at the core, an employee of their team. Any other employees get paternity/maternity leave, and athletes should not be an exemption.

Olympians do the same job but don't get paid, lots of people make money from things without being employees. If I hired a clown and the guy didn't turn up, I wouldn't expect to have to pay him, because that wouldn't be part of the contract.

So you pretented to have strong feelings to draw attention to you not having strong feelings?

I said "No" to highlight how obnoxious it is just to say "Yes" and not even be willing to discuss the point, in his own topic that he opened up for discussion. And you helped me do it by immediately pouncing on it in such a predictable way. So thanks.

And no I don't feel strongly that it shouldn't be classed as job. I was just discussing how it was different from other more conventional 9-5 jobs. These laws don't apply to everyone automatically. A lot of self employed people don't benefit from them for example.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I hope they get maternity leave. I don't think playing football while pregnant is a good idea.

Bravo! I laughed.

How does it differ from a 9-5 job? You realize that they do way more than just play the games, right? In practice alone the average professional athlete puts in 40+ hours, and that is to say nothing against travel time, press time (which is contractually obligated in most professional sports) and the games themselves.

 Smacks wrote:
Olympians do the same job but don't get paid,

Olympians don't do the same job, they do the same thing.

Just because I am a hobby photographer doesn't mean that professional photographers don't have a job.

lots of people make money from things without being employees.

That doesn't make employees less of employees.

If I hired a clown and the guy didn't turn up, I wouldn't expect to have to pay him, because that wouldn't be part of the contract.

Comparing a clown not showing up to your gig to a person taking legal paternity leave is pretty stupid.

If you are the clowns employer and he just doesn't show up to a job, then you can dock him pay. If you are the clowns employer and he takes legal maternity leave, then you cannot punish him for that.

So you pretented to have strong feelings to draw attention to you not having strong feelings?

I said "No" to highlight how obnoxious it is just to say "Yes" and not even be willing to discuss the point, in his own topic that he opened up for discussion. And you helped me do it by immediately pouncing on it in such a predictable way. So thanks.

"I was unwilling to discuss the point to show how stupid it is not to discuss the point."

Real helpful. Sounds more like trolling than an actual argument, but whatever. Thanks, I guess.

And no I don't feel strongly that it shouldn't be classed as job. I was just discussing how it was different from other more conventional 9-5 jobs.

It's still a 9-5 job.

These laws don't apply to everyone automatically. A lot of self employed people don't benefit from them for example.

What self employed people do has exactly zero to do with what employed people are legally entitled to do.

 curran12 wrote:
How does it differ from a 9-5 job? You realize that they do way more than just play the games, right? In practice alone the average professional athlete puts in 40+ hours, and that is to say nothing against travel time, press time (which is contractually obligated in most professional sports) and the games themselves.

But they don't get paid to turn up to practice, they get paid for being good and winning games. If they can't do that then they have no value.

In my own work I also have to practice, but I don't get paid for it. it's just something I have to do to be good at my job. I also work contracts where it is clearly spelled out what I have to do to get paid. If I don't do it then there is a problem. Because I negotiate my own contracts I don't benefit from things like paid holidays or minimum wage, and being sick isn't an excuse either.

They might be living the dream, but they also put their bodies through serious punishment for our entertainment, have a rigorous workout schedule, bust ass for long hours, and occasionally work in sub-human conditions (both hot and cold). Hell yes, it's a real job and deserves the same rights as anyone else. To think otherwise is ignorant.

How about actors? Look at Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale, screwing up their bodies from one extreme to the other for roles in movies (Les Mis to Wolverine, for example). That's not healthy, and can do SERIOUS damage. Do they not deserve the same rights as other people who work because they're entertainers?

Demanding a C-Section be performed is barbaric, good on the NFL player for not doing it. Calling an athlete not a real worker is foolishness. There are other words that are better, but this is family friendly.

 Smacks wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
How does it differ from a 9-5 job? You realize that they do way more than just play the games, right? In practice alone the average professional athlete puts in 40+ hours, and that is to say nothing against travel time, press time (which is contractually obligated in most professional sports) and the games themselves.

But they don't get paid to turn up to practice, they get paid for being good and winning games. If they can't do that then they have no value.

In my own work I also have to practice, but I don't get paid for it. it's just something I have to do to be good at my job. I also work contracts where it is clearly spelled out what I have to do to get paid. If I don't do it then there is a problem. Because I negotiate my own contracts I don't benefit from things like paid holidays or minimum wage, and being sick isn't an excuse either.

Yeah, ask a professional athlete how many times they can not show up to practice before they lose their job. Protip, they don't get to skip practice whenever they want. Practice is work for them, that is going to the office. Don't understand how your comparisons of completely different jobs apply.

I didn't say they aren't real workers, or they aren't doing real work. It is about being an 'employee'. If they are then they are, and should have all the same rights.

If they signed some other contract then they shouldn't. It really depends what they signed up for, or are willing to accept to play their game professionally.

 curran12 wrote:
Yeah, ask a professional athlete how many times they can not show up to practice before they lose their job. Protip, they don't get to skip practice whenever they want. Practice is work for them, that is going to the office. Don't understand how your comparisons of completely different jobs apply.

If someone is good and wins games then they won't lose their job, and if they did someone else would snap them up. They can name their price. Not turning up to games however... No one is going to pay for that. That is what I'm saying. Practice is just that "Practice" the real thing is what matters.

 Smacks wrote:
Should playing football even be considered a real job?

You said "job" here, instead of "work". That's pretty much the only difference. And your wording suggests that you don't consider it to be so. So, yes, you did actually say that, but in a roundabout way in order to say "I only questioned it, I didn't firmly say it".

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Should playing football even be considered a real job?

You said "job" here, instead of "work". That's pretty much the only difference. And your wording suggests that you don't consider it to be so. So, yes, you did actually say that, but in a roundabout way in order to say "I only questioned it, I didn't firmly say it".

I will choose a job over work any day!

 Smacks wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Yeah, ask a professional athlete how many times they can not show up to practice before they lose their job. Protip, they don't get to skip practice whenever they want. Practice is work for them, that is going to the office. Don't understand how your comparisons of completely different jobs apply.

If someone is good and wins games then they won't lose their job, and if they did someone else would snap them up. They can name their price. Not turning up to games however... No one is going to pay for that. That is what I'm saying. Practice is just that "Practice" the real thing is what matters.

Practice matters, if you don't show up it shows that your attitude stinks and/or you think you're so much better than anyone else on the roster.
Most coaches in professional sports will not let athletes (regardless of discipline) will let you miss practices on more than a few times because you practice for a reason. If you don't practice you won't be as in shape or as prepared as someone else who did.
Besides this is about their paternal rights which shouldn't be infringed just because you don't value their services rendered. I don't particularly care about McDonalds or their food but that doesn't mean their employees' rights should be infringed or taken away

Go HL!

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Practice matters, if you don't show up it shows that your attitude stinks and/or you think you're so much better than anyone else on the roster.
Most coaches in professional sports will not let athletes (regardless of discipline) will let you miss practices on more than a few times because you practice for a reason. If you don't practice you won't be as in shape or as prepared as someone else who did.
Besides this is about their paternal rights which shouldn't be infringed just because you don't value their services rendered. I don't particularly care about McDonalds or their food but that doesn't mean their employees' rights should be infringed or taken away

There are sportsmen like George Best who were notorious for skipping practice. There is a story of him not turning up for a whole week while he went frolicking with the then Miss Great Britain. And he often got away with that stuff because as long as he was scoring goals and drawing big crowds what can anyone do? A team is not going to cut a star player over some disciplinary BS.

Regarding McDonalds, some poor schmuck flipping burgers needs labor rights, because he isn't going to have a manager or lawyers to pour over his contract for him, and the McDonalds labour market is clearly a buyers market. Minimum wage laws pretty much exist just to stop them paying any less (because they could and people would still do that job).

Top athletes on the other hand are a prized commodity. They can negotiate contracts that are very favorable compared to ordinary people. I'm sure a business contract could be legally drawn up that required a player to turn up to all 16 games, or be liable in some way. If that allows them 3 days off for maternity then fair enough, if it allows zero then it would probably still be worth considering.

Are NFL players really a paragon of fatherhood now? I have trouble believing that. A lot of trouble. Sure a few may be, but the rampant stories of infidelity and illegitimate children makes me think otherwise. That's not even touching the ridiculous numbers of law enforcement encounters they seem to have.

Do soldiers get to come home from war for these things? And what do they get paid?

They get paid a feth ton to play a game. Construction workers put their bodies through hell and get feth all respect from the public. By the time they are pros, they've led a life of privilege through high school, college, and into the NFL. These are people that have a free ride, anytime, anywhere they want, to not get a DUI. And yet they still do.

What are the numbers again for NHL players getting into the trouble NFL players do?

All employees get the same rights, even the gakky fathers working at McDonalds.

 d-usa wrote:
All employees get the same rights, even the gakky fathers working at McDonalds.

They get the right to free college that they barely have to pass?

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
All employees get the same rights, even the gakky fathers working at McDonalds.

They get the right to free college that they barely have to pass?

Nobody does, that's not a labor law.

How about the right to gang rape unconscious college girls?