3 ms·
By the letter of the contract, it's an open-and-shut case in the team's favor: "Indecent, offensive or immoral behaviour" is a bannable offense. The article d
by csense 1y ago
By the letter of the contract, it's an open-and-shut case in the team's favor: "Indecent, offensive or immoral behaviour" is a bannable offense. The article doesn't mention how spicy his OnlyFans account is, but I'm assuming his OF content is such that it would be hard to argue it doesn't qualify as "indecent" or "immoral." [1] [2]
If the player has a case, I'd think it would stem from legal limits on the extent to which an organization's people are allowed to contractually sign away their rights to engage in "immoral" behavior when "off the clock."
Under what circumstances is an organization allowed to impose its notions of "morality" on its people when they're "off the clock"?
To me, part of the question is whether you're using the organization's resources or branding. If the OnlyFans channel mentions the Olympics or his team by name, or uses its logos, or he makes videos during the times he's officially "on the clock" for training, my instinct is that they have every right to object.
But if he's using his own name, or a pseudonym, staying "off the clock" and not displaying any Olympics or team branding, it's less clear.
(Thought experiment: If LeBron James started an OF side hustle, would / should the NBA be allowed to come down on him? If your answer's different from this case, what makes the situations different?)
He's a sympathetic character -- they tell people "You need a ton of money to compete here" [3] so he says "Well that sucks, my family isn't rich, I don't really have the skills or free time to get a job at FAANG, but I guess I can hustle the money on OF" and then they suspend him for doing it -- but he's only doing it trying to get through the obstacles they created.
(OTOH, if a bunch of skilled but poor athletes started taking the same path, would it damage the Olympics brand if people started to think "The Olympics? You mean those sports teams where the players all sell their bodies online to pay their team dues?")
[1] This seems super vague. If you and I sign a contract that has a clause saying you won't engage in offensive behavior, if I want out of the contract I can always trap you by, say, walking through a doorway at the same time as you do. If you don't hold the door for me, that's offensive behavior -- you let it slam into my face, you impolite uncultured swine! If you do hold the door for me, that's offensive behavior -- it's clearly a form of gendered violence and sexual harrassment, you sick perverted swine! No matter what you do I can always claim your actions were "offensive" or "immoral," so I can get out of the contract, and hit you for breach-of-contract penalties to boot.
[2] If a contract forbids you from "indecent" behavior, does that mean you can't engage in any form of sexual activity whatsoever for the duration of the contract?
[3] To me, this seems counter to the spirit of the Games. I always thought the Olympics were supposed to be a contest for amateur competitors -- but most of the teams seem to be professionalized outfits with very expensive training. (I know very little about sports.)
- otterley 1y ago> Under what circumstances is an organization allowed to impose its notions of "morality" on its people when they're "off the clock"? It depends. If the activities would harm the reputation of the employer, or are criminal, the employer can often terminate their employment. Depends on UK law, but that's a common rule.
- brutal_chaos_ 1y ago> The article doesn't mention how spicy his OnlyFans account is, but I'm assuming his OF content is such that it would be hard to argue it doesn't qualify as "indecent" or "immoral." What is indecent or immoral is almost entirely subjective. Some cultures approve of cannabalism. Some do not see breasts as sexual. Some see sex as a rite and something to acheive. Some see dominance as moral (i.e. only the strong shall lead). Random murder is the closest society has come to an universal moral, even then, what seems random could be killings to save face for the family. Morality is exceptionally tricky at the global scale. The Olympics body is imposing their morals, not everyone's morals.
- Symbiote 1y agoIt's the UK sport association for his sport limiting an athlete in England, so English law and morals are relevant here.
- shakna 1y agoProstitution is legal and a crown protected profession in the UK. Thus the law says it is neither indecent nor immoral. You'll find the judgement of what is moral exceptionally broad in such a country.
- rcbdev 1y agoYou are mixing very distinct fields of judicature, this case would, in all likelihood, not fall under labor law provisions that would consider things such as 'harming an employer's image' and somesuch. I assume that in this case, from a contract law perspective, due to the unspecified terms in the contract, a civil court would do a simple balancing of interests under purview of the contact clauses and with respect to the unequal power relation between the stipend provider and the stipend holder. Under the legal system I am familiar with, which is not common law based, he would probably have a solid case.