Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Bleacherreport.com 'Albert Haynesworth - Im not for sale'

Champskins

By Champskins
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Champskins

Champskins

Posted
Posted

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/475201-albert-haynesworth-how-can-100-million-dollar-athlete-proclaim-hes-a-slave <----- for entire article

Albert Haynesworth: Can a $100-Million Athlete Be a Slave?

By Dexter Rogers

(Contributor) on September 27, 2010

Washington Redskins defensive end Albert Haynesworth, who has a $100-million contract, recently suggested he has been treated like a slave.

Is it possible for a man who has a $100-million contract to suggest he’s a slave?

Yes.

It’s quite simple. It’s not about the money—it’s about power, control, and how one is treated.

Days ago, Haynesworth issued the following: "I guess, in this world, we don't have a lot of people with, like, back-bones," Haynesworth said, "Just because somebody pay you money don't mean they'll make you do whatever they want or whatever. I mean, does that mean everything is for sale?"

Haynesworth added, "I mean, I'm not for sale. Yeah, I signed the contract and got paid a lot of money, but... that don't mean I'm for sale or a slave or whatever."

Haynesworth hit the nail on the head. Just because someone pays you a bunch of money doesn’t mean you are the property of another.

In 1969, the late Curt Flood said it best when he proclaimed, “A well-paid slave is nonetheless a slave.”

Flood was the catalyst that provided the foundation to smash the infamous “reserve clause” in Major League Baseball, so players could have rights.

Athletes were treated like slaves. Ownership determined where athletes would play and how much money they earned. Players were not permitted to control their own destiny because they were property of the franchise.

It’s true. Haynesworth has been treated like a slave because he’s been labeled as a defiant athlete who talks too much.

Haynesworth has been unfairly singled out by head coach Mike Shanahan. It’s been a battle of wills that Shanahan is intent on winning, but Haynesworth is not backing down.

First off, Haynesworth was forced to pass a bogus conditioning test. This wasn’t about a fitness test; it was about embarrassing him and forcing him to acquiesce.

Then, Haynesworth was placed with the second unit during preseason and regular season games, when it’s clear he is a first unit guy.

Haynesworth suggested last month he didn’t attend OTAs last year and wouldn’t attend next season. His statement directly challenged Shanahan’s authority and the iron fist he’s trying to rule with.

What’s rather perplexing is how white athletes often get treated more favorably than their African-American counterparts.

What about Brett Favre? When Favre holds teams hostage with his diva-like wavering, his behavior is chalked up to “Brett being Brett.”

Favre has skipped OTAs, mandatory training camp, and preseason games the last two seasons, yet he’s treated like royalty....

This is such a joke, I know it may cause controversy but they all get paid millions, cry me a F'ing river. They are all treated like royalty when they receive their damn paycheck unlike all of us who are fighting to make it paycheck to paycheck. Black or white, makes no damn difference

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

What a bunch of bunk.

A test designed to embarrass him that 50 year old ex-defensive lineman with shot knees can pass or that 65 year old non athlete female reporters can pass. Gosh, I guess I'm a slave because I show up to the office and do prep work and even am willing do dry runs to make sure that everything goes well. I'm a slave because I have pride in my job and a sense of responsibility to my co-workers.

I'm sorry that Haynesworth feels that you have to do the absolute minimum demanded in your contract or else you're a slave. I guess those who choose to work overtime without pay because they care about their product, their reputation, and the success of their business are slaves.

It is just baffling and even worse that people have taken up his torch and will carry it for him.

That said, there are times where athletes were treated like slaves. When an athlete is forced or intimidated to play with an injury that could be life or career threatening. When they're forced or pressured into taking injections so that they can play. But to quote Alan Iverson... "Practice!!!" Asking someone to show up for practice and offseason work is not one of those deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

There is a difference between being a salaried employee and having a negotiated contract. I negotiate contracts with my clients for consulting and services that my company offers. Once that is signed my client can't ask me to do anything not on that contract and expect me to agree. I don't think comparing contracts to "paycheck to paycheck" is realistic. If you make a pay check you're basically a rented worker... and employers will always find something for you to be doing even if you complete everything your job was supposed to require of you.

The difference here is that no where in Haynesworth's contract is "DT in a 4-3" system promised. It also doesn't have a "no nose tackle" clause in it. So while he may not be for sale and may not be the same as a salaried employee... he is under contract and the other side of that agreement hasn't asked him to do anything other than what both parties agreed to do (other than OTA's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan23

skinsfan23

Posted
Posted

yeah this article is retarded. its about doing what's best for the team (regardless of what the task may be). last time i checked football was a team sport. and there is a reason there are coaches in place who put u in position and players who make the plays. dumb article in my opinion. if there wasnt a contract in place (or in real world we didnt make so a large investment), he would get fired just like i would at my job if i didnt do my job tasks which are defined im my job description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
There is a difference between being a salaried employee and having a negotiated contract. I negotiate contracts with my clients for consulting and services that my company offers. Once that is signed my client can't ask me to do anything not on that contract and expect me to agree. I don't think comparing contracts to "paycheck to paycheck" is realistic. If you make a pay check you're basically a rented worker... and employers will always find something for you to be doing even if you complete everything your job was supposed to require of you.

The difference here is that no where in Haynesworth's contract is "DT in a 4-3" system promised. It also doesn't have a "no nose tackle" clause in it. So while he may not be for sale and may not be the same as a salaried employee... he is under contract and the other side of that agreement hasn't asked him to do anything other than what both parties agreed to do (other than OTA's).

I'm a freelancer which is much like being a contractor and I can tell you that I definitely go beyond the minimum of my contract to make sure that I produce the best product I can. Mostly, that's because I want to continue to work, but also it's because I believe if you sign on the line you agree to go all out and not half-arse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jflow78

jflow78

Posted
Posted
I'm a freelancer which is much like being a contractor and I can tell you that I definitely go beyond the minimum of my contract to make sure that I produce the best product I can. Mostly, that's because I want to continue to work, but also it's because I believe if you sign on the line you agree to go all out and not half-arse it.

That's the difference. He's got no integrity whatsoever. What he thinks is integrity (not selling out) is actually a justification for being a failure. No where in any NFL contract are you going to find someone who is expected to show up in the off-season, expected to be a good teammate, or expected to work hard and play the way their coaches tell them to play, yet there are guys who do it. It's not about "signing a contract", it's about having integrity.

Yeah, the guy signed a contract to play in a 4-3, but guess what, he didn't want to do THAT either last season. All he did was ***** and whine about it. Then he went out and did his own thing. The truth is, if we were in a 4-3 right now, he'd STILL be expected to fulfill a roll and he wouldn't want to do it then either. The 3-4 is just his most recent excuse.

Disgruntled hippo, is disgruntled.

Forget AH, besides, I paid that mother ****** to say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nightbird

nightbird

Posted
Posted

The writer of this article is a contemptible dimwit.

I'd say he should be ashamed of himself, but people without any scruples or intelligence are incapable of feeling shame.

Slavery is among the most evil institutions ever created by humankind.

But yeah, being forced to alter your job description and do some jogging during your downtime, yes that is definitely comparable.

Hmmm, let me think, would I rather be whipped in a field all day, with no legal recourse, because I belong as chattel to another man?

Or would I take $100 million to play a kids game, even if that requires me losing some weight and listening to my coach, who is a big meanie?

This "writer" (of whom I admittedly have never heard until now) is a disgrace -- he does a disservice to the real legacy of slavery, and I can't respect any "media outlet" who would give this person a platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirt

Dirt

Posted
Posted

The more articles like this come out, the more people are forgetting what happened in April.

I'm sorry, did we all forget that Al took that big check, and, at the time, boss-man made it VERY clear that if he did, he would play whatever position he was asked, and do whatever he's told? I believe he even said "you'll play FS if I ask you to."? And before that he allowed him to talk to other teams.

This is ridiculous. He didn't have an excuse after that, and he doesn't have one now.

..Also, good to be here finally, ES ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Diehard

Redskins Diehard

Posted
Posted
I'm a freelancer which is much like being a contractor and I can tell you that I definitely go beyond the minimum of my contract to make sure that I produce the best product I can. Mostly, that's because I want to continue to work, but also it's because I believe if you sign on the line you agree to go all out and not half-arse it.

I think you are missing the primary point. You go above and beyond because you choose to do it...not because someone forces you to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SirClintonPortis

SirClintonPortis

Posted
Posted

Whether Albert intended it or not, "slave" when used in the United States of America carries an extremely negative connotation that goes beyond the mere definition of what it is to be a slave, which is BEING THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER. That being said, the refusal of the right to work is indeed a right. HOWEVER, Albert's exercise of the right is not very well justified because his contract does not specify what he had been verbally promised..

That being said, I would not be surprised if Vinny and Snyder really did give the verbal assurance that he was going to be used the way he was in Tennessee only for him to realize that he certainly was not going to be used in that manner. Even though written terms are what's enforced in contracts, it speaks volume about how sleazy or ignorant they were willing to go in getting him. It's not much different from the promises Belanger was given from McPhee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
I think you are missing the primary point. You go above and beyond because you choose to do it...not because someone forces you to do it.

No one forced him. He wasn't fined or penalized, fined, beaten, whipped, or sold. He's not been treated as a slave.

I think it is exactly the point that he lacks intrinsic motivation. And his lack of drive to excel or pride in his job has led to the results we've seen now for two years. Asking me to show up ain't making me a slave. Asking me to go above and beyond the minimum required by my contract isn't making me a slave or revealing a lack of backbone. It's demonstrating a lack of pride and a lack of ethic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...