Urlacher fined $100,000 for Super Bowl hat

stevek

Urlacher fined $100,000 for Super Bowl hat

April 18, 2007

NEW YORK (AP) -- Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher was fined $100,000 by the NFL for wearing a cap during Super Bowl media day that promoted a sponsor not authorized by the league.

NFL rules prohibit gear that advertises any product but a designated sponsor, league spokesman Brian McCarthy said Wednesday.

Urlacher was fined for drinking vitaminwater and wearing a vitaminwater hat during the media session in Miami leading to the title game. Gatorade is the NFL's official drink.

McCarthy said this is the first time such a fine has been levied. He added that $100,000 is the standard fine for such a violation at the Super Bowl. A violation during the regular season is $10,000. It is $50,000 at the Pro Bowl.

The fine recalls an episode involving Chicago quarterback Jim McMahon in the playoffs following the 1985 season, the previous time the Bears made the Super Bowl.

McMahon wore a headband that said "adidas" in a playoff game against the New York Giants, and then-commissioner Pete Rozelle fined him $5,000 because the shoe company was not an NFL sponsor. The following week, in the NFC title game against the Los Angeles Rams, McMahon wore a headband that read "rozelle."

kcballboy

There's the $ at work

NASCAR has had the same problems when drivers who are sponsored by Coke go to "Gatorade Victory Lane" (made by Pepsi) and knock the big plastic gatorade bottles off the tops of their cars.

Volver

Corporate America has censored Free Speech

joestalin

Meanwhile...OJ continues to look for the killers.

JS

Volver

<< <i>Seems pretty steep, though it sounds like he went out of his way to promote his company.


<<Corporate America has censored Free Speech>>

While this may be true in many cases, I don't agree that this was one of them. Gatorade pays a ton of money to sponsor the NFL and part of the deal is that their product is the only one that is promoted at NFL venues. You'd feel the same way if you owned Gatorade (or Coca Cola as it were). >>



Baseball - You just made my point for me. Corp America is about money and nothing more.

grote15

I agree with baseball on this one. We live in a capitalist society so why would anyone expect any different when it comes to marketing?

Volver

<< <i>Volver, I would hardly call prohibiting someone from blatantly trying to advertise a product as being "censorship". It's not like Urlacher was trying to say that the league should hire more African American coaches and they were trying to shut him up. >>



Webster defines the term censor as the following - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Wearing a hat that promoted another company was deemed objectionable to the sponsor of the event. How is the not Corp American censoring Free Speech? Not saying it is right or wrong, but one company has dictated what one person can or cannot do - that is censorship

grote15

Webster defines the term censor as the following - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Wearing a hat that promoted another company was deemed objectionable to the sponsor of the event. How is the not Corp American censoring Free Speech? Not saying it is right or wrong, but one company has dictated what one person can or cannot do - that is censorship

I understand what you're trying to say, but as a player, Urlacher is essentially an employee of the NFL and bound by its rules and regulations. If you had a job working for the local cable company but recommended DirecTV to potential customers when you answered the phone, you wouldn't last long working for said cable company. When Urlacher is no longer an active player, he can wear whatever he pleases, unless he himself has an exclusive deal with an advertiser in which case, for the same reason, he wouldn't be able to go around in public wearing a competitor's logo or apparel or whatever the case may be.

Volver

<< <i><<Corp America is about money and nothing more.>>


You make sound like this is news to anyone or that it's some sort of epiphany. It's pretty much always been this way and that is just life in the real world. Eutopia doesn't exist the last time I checked. And believe me, I try checking everyday. >>



No epiphany and never once stated this was new news, just a fact. I have my thoughts and you have yours and that is what sportstalk is about.

Publius

<< <i>

<< <i>Volver, I would hardly call prohibiting someone from blatantly trying to advertise a product as being "censorship". It's not like Urlacher was trying to say that the league should hire more African American coaches and they were trying to shut him up. >>



Webster defines the term censor as the following - to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Wearing a hat that promoted another company was deemed objectionable to the sponsor of the event. How is the not Corp American censoring Free Speech? Not saying it is right or wrong, but one company has dictated what one person can or cannot do - that is censorship >>



Hows law school going Volver?

stown

Hypothetically speaking, say Company A pays you $1,000 to be known as "Volver's Official Athletic Cup". They are paying a premium for these exclusive rights (ie you are not allowed to promote nor wear any other athletic cup).

Company B, knowing of the exclusive rights, decides to promote their cup, pays PSA a couple of bucks, and their logo is found in your sig line without your permission.

According to your theory, Company B and PSA have every right to do this.

See where it's a slippery slope?

ziggy29

With regard to the claims of censorship -- it IS censorship. However, not all censorship is equal in terms of being illegal or immoral.

I don't have the right to do whatever I want when I'm at work. I have to abide by my employer's code of conduct. For example, I'm not going to be wearing a competitor's T-shirt in the office...especially one where customers are around.

Volver

<< <i>Hypothetically speaking, say Company A pays you $1,000 to be known as "Volver's Official Athletic Cup". They are paying a premium for these exclusive rights (ie you are not allowed to promote nor wear any other athletic cup).

Company B, knowing of the exclusive rights, decides to promote their cup, pays PSA a couple of bucks, and their logo is found in your sig line without your permission.

According to your theory, Company B and PSA have every right to do this.

See where it's a slippery slope? >>



I agree it is a slippery slope, but money from a corporation is dictating this behavior - to me that is a form of censorship. I am not saying it is wrong or right - the company is paying for certain rights and disclosures, but when this happens the are censoring other parties from being heard. Again it is all driven by money. Maybe censored is not the best word, but it paints a picture.

Estil

One of these days a player is going to get that fine for inadvertantly wearing something with the wrong logo. Like, let's say I'm a MLB player and I'm at a press conference. I'm thirsty so I have a can of cold Diet Pepsi (my favorite soda) ready, and then MLB fines me $10K because let's say Coke sponsors MLB. See where I'm going with this?

ziggy29

<< <i>One of these days a player is going to get that fine for inadvertantly wearing something with the wrong logo. Like, let's say I'm a MLB player and I'm at a press conference. I'm thirsty so I have a can of cold Diet Pepsi (my favorite soda) ready, and then MLB fines me $10K because let's say Coke sponsors MLB. See where I'm going with this? >>

Easy fix. Give the player a Coke bottle filled with Pepsi. The people -- and sponsors -- think he's drinking a Coke but he really has Pepsi.

Problem solved.

kcballboy

<< <i>

<< <i>One of these days a player is going to get that fine for inadvertantly wearing something with the wrong logo. Like, let's say I'm a MLB player and I'm at a press conference. I'm thirsty so I have a can of cold Diet Pepsi (my favorite soda) ready, and then MLB fines me $10K because let's say Coke sponsors MLB. See where I'm going with this? >>

Easy fix. Give the player a Coke bottle filled with Pepsi. The people -- and sponsors -- think he's drinking a Coke but he really has Pepsi.

Problem solved. >>




Won't that tear a hole in the universe?

storm888

"Corporate America has censored Free Speech."

//////////////////////////////////////////

No.

They have purchased it.

They cannot purchase what is not offered for sale.

The product money helps - a little - keep ticket prices in check.
Instead of complaining that it costs $300 for two people to
go to the ballpark, we could be complaining that it costs $600.

gotsparks09

Vitaminwater probably paid Urlacher a LOT more than $100k for the stunt. Urlacher had to have known he'd get fined for doing it...especially at the SB.

ziggy29

<< <i>Instead of complaining that it costs $300 for two people to
go to the ballpark, we could be complaining that it costs $600. >>

This is why I love minor league baseball. Great seats are usually available for $10 or less. You can get a great seat, a couple of hot dogs and a couple of beers for about $20.

Estil

<< <i>

<< <i>Instead of complaining that it costs $300 for two people to
go to the ballpark, we could be complaining that it costs $600. >>

This is why I love minor league baseball. Great seats are usually available for $10 or less. You can get a great seat, a couple of hot dogs and a couple of beers for about $20. >>



And they probably let you bring your own food/beverages/coolers too.