See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5448801/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
Anyone paying you millions of dollars can tell you not to have piercings or tats... just sayin.
But what about the players who heritage is to have tattoos and piercings?
as much as i disagree with the request by richardson or any company to curtail an individuals right to express... however that buisness is just that, a buisness that can set its' own standards and the individual does have the right to tell them to pound sand and not be an employee there.
In a private enterprise, the "boss" has every right to determine your appearance when you face the customers. If they want you to project a certain "professional" standard , e.g. Suit, shirt and tie, you do not have the "right " to wear sweats and flip-flops and hide behind the Bill of Rights. Likewise, "freedom of speech" does not extend you the right to demean your boss or the company to the customers. The bank teller who tells the customer to move their account because his employers are a bunch of crooks is not covered under the First Amendment. The Carolina Panthers are well within their rights to set the ground rules for one of their employees. If in fact these were laid out during the contract negotiations and there was an issue, Mr. Newton should not have signed the contract and the money. From all accounts he did both.
As a middle aged former business owner I can tell you that appearance makes a difference. At the very least in perception. Mr. Richardson is planning on making Mr. Newton the face of his franchise and wants the best possible face. Do tats and piercings change a person's character or ability, no they don't. But they do change peoples perspective and opinion. I once had to let a good counterman go because he refused to wear clothes without holes and wouldn't take his spiked dog collar off and my customers just felt uncomfortable using him.
I personally hate tattoos and piercings but it is a to each his own kind of thing. I do think a lot of sports figures, musicians and other entertainment figures look absolutely ridiculous covered in ink but to "legislate" it within a team organization might be pushing it. Let the boneheads make their own mistakes, have buyer's remorse and whatever else regarding their body art...you've hired them and are paying them to play.
I dont think that tattoos or earings should make a player who he is if that makes sense.
neither should it change who they are. plus were all adults if we wanna get tattoos and stuff thats our desision. if you dont like it trade your best player on your team that dont obayand see where that will take you. leave the players.alone. you guys bothered th.em enough
I work in Charlotte and i can say after living here for 2 years Jerry Richardson is just trying to create a family atmosphere/image for the Panthers brand...I dont know that the NFL is what one would think of as good family entertainement but Jerry seems to want to create more of the family entertainment expierence than most others NFL owners seem to care about (its more of a southern thing). Having a clean cut all american as the face of your franchise seems not to be envogue these days but Jerry is old school southern...
What I take from this story is that Jerry Richardson is a hypocrite. He's interested in keeping Cam Newton pure and unmarked so he can prop him up as the face of the franchise, a shining, respectable citizen - despite the fact that the kid has broken the rules, stole, cheated and lied throughout his college career. So tattoos and piercings are a problem, but all that other stuff is seemingly ok for the future of the Panthers.
P.S. Newton sucks, and the Panthers suck.
I seem to be lost here, over half feel its ok for the player to do as he chides but not the Guy who just gave him 40 million dollars tovplay a game. I realize Can is a grown man and should have every right that someone in the regular world has. The thing is he still does he can either follow the company line or he can try to gvet paid in the ufl, or maybe he can still cash in at auburn it worked once. Everyone makes choices in life forgive me for not feeling sorry for a guy who was given millions to play a game and given a rule like no tatts and piercings and a hair cut.
It's a business and the owners are called owners for a reason. They own the team, they create the enviroment they want. No one has to play in the NFL or any other sport, it's a privilige! They pay you to be responsible, accountable and reliable and great at your job. By the way,there are roughly only 96 QB's that get paid. Your job as an athlete is to be all of the above. If you don't like it go get another job that pays that well, good luck!
not in the NFL...Who really notices, anyway...I can understand NBA owners suggesting or requesting. In the NBA their tattoos are more visible and its gotten ridiculous.
Get real people!!!
Richardson runs a business. This business happens to reside in a somewhat conservative area of the the world, where the success of hs business relies on the ability for the market to relate to, support, and root for his employees. Newton is a hi profile employee and he wants to ensure his appearance is in line with his customers expectations. This is no different than the chairman of a skateboard company probably not wanting their public face to be an old, fat, bald guy. You can cry discrimination all you want, its business, and it's reality, get with it.
I have never worked for a company, as a professional, that did not have a visible tattoo policy. I can't think of a Fortune 500 company that does not have one.
*Jerry
I'm sure companies worldwide require that their employees look and dress a certain way, but their policies are not limited to one person (like it is w/ Cam in this case). If the CEO can't have piercings and tattoos, then no one can. Where it gets tricky is when it is one of those "unwritten rules" that is expected to be followed but no formal policy disallowing it.
I wonder what Gerry Richardson would've said if Cam told him he had piercings and tattoos and had dreads instead of a fade. Would he still have drafted him?
If you wanted to join the Special Forces, it used to be no-tattoos and piercings... you want to become the face of the franchise, I see nothing wrong with the man paying you millions telling you no tattoos or piercings, if you don't like it, you can go work for someone else or do something else... might cost you millions, but you have that choice.
Land of the free? ha!
Unless you own the team or company, you have a boss. You work for somebody and if you work for somebody you have to abide by their rules/policies. You want different? Buy your own team or company and make your own rules, you become the boss. "Living for the City"
I don't have a problem with an employer requiring his/her employees to maintain a certain appearance if they are employed in a public role.
The bottom line is that the owner has a responsibility to maintain the public image of his/her product, and, like it or not, the employee in this particular case is central to that public image.
I have multiple tattoos and ear rings, and there is no way I would tollerate my compay saying you can't have those. You have to be smart with the tat's, I have mine in spots that can be covered with business cloths, so it's not like I have a neck or face tat. But the company has zero right to say what you can do to your own body. You do how ever have to deal with the consequences, so just be smart about it.
Thats Bull hes playing a GAME not a ceo of a company
I have a concern about the 40% of PFT nation that thinks it is alright for anyone, pro athlete or not, to tell someone what they can and cannot do with there body. No doubt, a private employer (if small enough) can create policy for his organization in anyway he desires, and the market will dictate if that works or not.
My concern is, this is another example where we are limiting the rights of free expression, to meet some other, politically correct agenda. It just strikes me as weird and polarizing. Thank you.
If I were paying someone millions of dollars to be the face of my billion dollar organization then yes, whether that person is an Ivy League CEO or a super athletic QB. That is life almost everywhere for highly paid individuals, so I don't see why NFL players would be any different.
In the real world employers can say no piercings or tattoos so why should it be any different in the NFL. Sure he can't make the guy not get tattoos or piercings, but he can ask him not to and say there will be some sort of discipline if he does them. I think it's totally fair to ask your employee not to be tatted or pierced.