Michael Vick, Dog Fighting and the NFL

"Hi ho, hi ho. It's off to jail I go"


The most disturbing news coming out of the sports world this week has to be the federal indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick on dog-fighting charges in his home state of Virginia. The indictment charges that not only did Vick use his property to stage vicious dog-fights, transporting fighting dogs across state lines for this purpose, but that losing dogs were subsequently killed by various barbaric methods including shooting, drowning, hanging, electrocution and slamming them into the ground multiple times until they were dead, all apparently for the enjoyment of the crowd gathered for this blood sport.

I don't need to add to the public outrage over this barbaric practice-it goes without saying. My questions relate to the responsibility of the NFL and the Atlanta Falcons.

Of course, Mr Vick enjoys the presumption of innocence until he is convicted. But what action should the NFL and his employer, the Atlanta Falcons take at this point. From their public statements, it would appear that both entities prefer to wait until the justice system has settled the question of Mr Vick's guilt or innocence. Perhaps that is a proper view to take before depriving Vick of his livelihood. But in the case of the Falcons, they are his employer. Every player's contract contains a morals clause that puts the player on notice that he is expected to exhibit responsible moral behavior as a citizen. Does it require a criminal conviction before the team invokes that clause? At what point do the Falcons decide that they no longer want Mr Vick as an employee? They are apparently agonizing over that question as I write this piece.

This leads to a deeper moral question that applies to the team itself. When a professional sports team signs a player, they are bringing that player into their community. Does the team bear at least a moral responsibility when the player conducts himself to the detriment of that commun- ity? I think so. By the same token, when a university brings a young athlete onto its campus, doesn't it assume a moral responsibility for the conduct of that person? Yes, in my view. When the athlete commits crimes in that community into which the university or professional team has brought him, then a disservice has been done to the community. Of course, the athlete himself must bear responsibility for his actions, but the school or team also bears a moral responsibility to the community.

Of course in the real world, it all comes down to signing great players (and Vick is in many respects, a great player) , winning games and making lots of money. So universities and professional teams make calculated compromises and gambles when they sign such players. True, many schools and pro teams back away from certain players because they know the probability of an explosion is too great. But there have been too many examples-too many to recite here- of players who cannot act as responsible citizens off the field. How many times have we heard the NFL derisively referred to as the "National Felon League"?

I have an idea that the future of Mr Vick as a player will be decided by the fans. If the Falcons (or any other team) choose to play him next year, what kind of reception do you think he will get as soon as he steps onto the field? Can you imagine three solid hours of booing-game after game-city after city? Maybe the Falcons will release him. Will another team sign him-and import this guy into their community? In spite of his obvious talents as a football player, I have an idea that this (alleged) offense is so outrageous, that Mr Vick's football career is over.