3 ms·

I'm not familiar enough with physical sports to know: do professional sports organizations generally do this kind of restriction? Worldwide? Is there any kind o

I'm not familiar enough with physical sports to know: do professional sports organizations generally do this kind of restriction? Worldwide? Is there any kind of cross-sport prohibition? I could believe it, since I've never actually seen or heard of players showing off without a contract of some kind... and yet, that might simply be because I don't hear about it.

Kapura 13y ago
College Sports have some strange rules regarding what they can do concurrently. Of particular note is the case of Jeremy Bloom[1], who was an excellent college football player and an Olympic skier. The NCAA really seems pretty anti-students-rights anyway, though, and I can't speak to more professional sports. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/sports/college-football-olympian-sues-to-play-football-and-keep-his-endorsements.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/sports/college-football-ol...
joshdick 13y ago
Sports contracts generally prohibit the player from playing other sports, even recreationally, to reduce their risk of injury. Here, for example, is the NBA's take: http://bammgt.com/?page_id=339 http://bammgt.com/?page_id=339
chc 13y ago
Sports will have have restrictions on playing other sports, but the motivation is reducing the risk of injury. They'll also restrict things like motorcycling for the same reason.
lowkeykiwi 13y ago
It's not just an American thing. There are cross-over athletes who could play competing sports (rugby union vs rugby league) but they sign multi-year contracts with one team in one sport. Australia has competing football codes and the players don't float between them if they are contracted to one. Ronaldo famously said that there is too much modern slavery in football because they are owned professionally by the clubs they play for.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Deion Sanders[1] played professional football and baseball at the same time. Interesting little tidbit: On October 11, 1992, Sanders played in a Falcons game at Miami and then flew to Pittsburgh, hoping to play in the Braves' League Championship Series game against the Pirates that evening and become the first athlete to play in two professional leagues in the same day. Sanders ultimately did not, however, appear in the baseball game that night. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deion_Sanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deion_Sanders
slg 13y ago
The quick answer is no, there is no cross-sport prohibition in most sports leagues. The long answer is that almost anything can be negotiated and that player are usually willing to make concessions in these deals in turn for more money. Many modern sports contracts have clauses in them that protect the employer if an athlete is injured doing an athletic activity outsider of their normal training. A good example might be a football player blowing out his knee playing pickup basketball. These clauses usually give the team the ability to withhold future salary or even go after previously paid wages. Although these clauses aren't always exercised depending on the player's relationship with the team, the severity of the injury, and the activity that caused the injury. A team doesn't want to risk alienating a player or their fans unless there is a huge gap between the financial impact of the injury and the player's future perceived value. There are also various sponsorship agreements that players and teams have with companies that have restrictions about supporting a competitor. For example an NBA player sponsored by Nike might not be allowed to wear an Adidas shoe during a game. Considering these precedents and that Riot appears to act as some combination of a sponsor and team/league that employees these eathletes, I think this decision is pretty reasonable.
thedufer 13y ago
This would be an appropriate comparison if they had restricted all competitive games (although the Hearthstone ban is fairly damning), but given that they didn't, I think it would be more enlightening to ask if pro sports leagues prevent their players from participating in other leagues for the same sport. My knowledge of professional sports is pretty limited to the US, where there is essentially a monopoly in each sport. Does anyone know about this? I suspect soccer or cricket, both fairly international sports, might have good examples?
- slg 13y ago
  The answer is a big "it depends." Most times it is simply not feasible for an athlete to participate in two different leagues in the same sport due to either the overlap in their seasons or the geography involved (the highest paying leagues almost all end up as monopolies in their region in that particular sport). One notable example is female basketball players. The two most popular and highest paying leagues are in Russia and in the USA and have seasons that do not overlap. It is pretty common for good players to play in both leagues. As far as I am aware, there is no restriction on this by either league. Another example would be in football/soccer. Player's who play in the US are often "loaned" to teams in Europe in order for them to continue playing during the duration of the off-season. This allows them to stay in shape, face better competition, and improve their game. The team that receives the player will generally pay the team that loans the player an agreed upon fee in order to compensate them for the risk of injury. If the two teams can't agree on a fee, the player will be prevented from playing for the second team.
AlisdairSH 13y ago
Sometimes. As noted above, there are clauses placed in individual contracts in an attempt to limit injury. The UCI (pro cycling sanctioning body) also prohibits the top-tier cyclists from racing in events that lack a UCI sanction. This has been a large problem in US pro-mountain biking, as most long-distance races are not UCI sanctioned. In theory, pro racers wishing to participate in these events risk fines.

Kapura 13y ago

College Sports have some strange rules regarding what they can do concurrently. Of particular note is the case of Jeremy Bloom[1], who was an excellent college football player and an Olympic skier. The NCAA really seems pretty anti-students-rights anyway, though, and I can't speak to more professional sports. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/sports/college-football-olympian-sues-to-play-football-and-keep-his-endorsements.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/30/sports/college-football-ol...

joshdick 13y ago

Sports contracts generally prohibit the player from playing other sports, even recreationally, to reduce their risk of injury. Here, for example, is the NBA's take: http://bammgt.com/?page_id=339 http://bammgt.com/?page_id=339

chc 13y ago

Sports will have have restrictions on playing other sports, but the motivation is reducing the risk of injury. They'll also restrict things like motorcycling for the same reason.

lowkeykiwi 13y ago

It's not just an American thing. There are cross-over athletes who could play competing sports (rugby union vs rugby league) but they sign multi-year contracts with one team in one sport. Australia has competing football codes and the players don't float between them if they are contracted to one. Ronaldo famously said that there is too much modern slavery in football because they are owned professionally by the clubs they play for.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

Deion Sanders[1] played professional football and baseball at the same time. Interesting little tidbit: On October 11, 1992, Sanders played in a Falcons game at Miami and then flew to Pittsburgh, hoping to play in the Braves' League Championship Series game against the Pirates that evening and become the first athlete to play in two professional leagues in the same day. Sanders ultimately did not, however, appear in the baseball game that night. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deion_Sanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deion_Sanders

slg 13y ago

The quick answer is no, there is no cross-sport prohibition in most sports leagues. The long answer is that almost anything can be negotiated and that player are usually willing to make concessions in these deals in turn for more money. Many modern sports contracts have clauses in them that protect the employer if an athlete is injured doing an athletic activity outsider of their normal training. A good example might be a football player blowing out his knee playing pickup basketball. These clauses usually give the team the ability to withhold future salary or even go after previously paid wages. Although these clauses aren't always exercised depending on the player's relationship with the team, the severity of the injury, and the activity that caused the injury. A team doesn't want to risk alienating a player or their fans unless there is a huge gap between the financial impact of the injury and the player's future perceived value. There are also various sponsorship agreements that players and teams have with companies that have restrictions about supporting a competitor. For example an NBA player sponsored by Nike might not be allowed to wear an Adidas shoe during a game. Considering these precedents and that Riot appears to act as some combination of a sponsor and team/league that employees these eathletes, I think this decision is pretty reasonable.

thedufer 13y ago

This would be an appropriate comparison if they had restricted all competitive games (although the Hearthstone ban is fairly damning), but given that they didn't, I think it would be more enlightening to ask if pro sports leagues prevent their players from participating in other leagues for the same sport. My knowledge of professional sports is pretty limited to the US, where there is essentially a monopoly in each sport. Does anyone know about this? I suspect soccer or cricket, both fairly international sports, might have good examples?

slg 13y ago
The answer is a big "it depends." Most times it is simply not feasible for an athlete to participate in two different leagues in the same sport due to either the overlap in their seasons or the geography involved (the highest paying leagues almost all end up as monopolies in their region in that particular sport). One notable example is female basketball players. The two most popular and highest paying leagues are in Russia and in the USA and have seasons that do not overlap. It is pretty common for good players to play in both leagues. As far as I am aware, there is no restriction on this by either league. Another example would be in football/soccer. Player's who play in the US are often "loaned" to teams in Europe in order for them to continue playing during the duration of the off-season. This allows them to stay in shape, face better competition, and improve their game. The team that receives the player will generally pay the team that loans the player an agreed upon fee in order to compensate them for the risk of injury. If the two teams can't agree on a fee, the player will be prevented from playing for the second team.

AlisdairSH 13y ago

Sometimes. As noted above, there are clauses placed in individual contracts in an attempt to limit injury. The UCI (pro cycling sanctioning body) also prohibits the top-tier cyclists from racing in events that lack a UCI sanction. This has been a large problem in US pro-mountain biking, as most long-distance races are not UCI sanctioned. In theory, pro racers wishing to participate in these events risk fines.