My state’s senior senator, Arlen Specter, who has lots on his plate, held a news conference this morning:
[He said that] it was “vindictive and inappropriate” for the league and the Eagles to forbid [their] all-pro wide receiver [Terrell Owens] from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.
“It’s a restraint of trade for them to do that, and the thought crosses my mind, it might be a violation of antitrust laws,” Specter said, though some other legal experts disagreed.
“I am madder than hell at what he has done in ruining the Eagles’ season,” the Pennsylvania Republican said. “I think he’s in flagrant breach of his contract and I believe the Eagles would be within their rights in not paying him another dime or perhaps even suing him for damages.”
But Specter said, “I do not believe, personally, that it is appropriate to punish him (by forcing him to sit out the rest of the season). He’s not committed a crime, he’s committed a breach of contract. And what they’re doing against him is vindictive.”
There are several statements here that are interestingly wrong. One worth thinking about is the idea that the Eagles are punishing Owens by enforcing the contract’s “conduct detrimental” clause. On one level this can’t be right – the Eagles are paying their employee for not working, hardly an onerous result. But theory notwithstanding, reading the arbitrator’s decision, it sort of feels like punishment. Doesn’t it?