Sports fans across the nation have reacted in different ways to the recent reinstatement of Michael Vick to the NFL. During the summer, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell determined that Vick had been cooperative while he served his 23-month prison sentence, and he also thought that Vick had shown “genuine remorse” for what he had done.
As a result, Goodell has allowed Vick to join and play for the Philadelphia Eagles beginning in week three of the 2009 season. Members of the ASPCA were very displeased.
Two years ago, my initial reaction to the news of Michael Vick’s involvement in a dog fighting operation was one of disgust, and my opinion hasn’t changed much since then. He provided funds for the vast majority of the operation’s costs, took part in the dog fights, and profited directly from what resulted in the deaths of several dogs.
He has denied the accusation that he killed some of the animals himself, but even if this is true, he knew what was going on and continued to willingly participate anyway.
Despite the heinous nature of these crimes, many people support Goodell’s decision to reinstate Vick. They claim that Vick has paid his debt to society, and he should now be allowed a second chance at the game of football.
While I do agree that Vick has paid his debt (he went from being a multi-millionaire to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in less than a year), I find the fact that he is now allowed to return to a profession that pays well over six figures per year quite disturbing.
Michael Vick made a promise when he decided to become a pro football player almost ten years ago. No, I’m not talking about any of the promises he made in his contract, I’m talking about the promise he made to the people that saw him as a role model.
Once you step into the public spotlight, most people expect that you won’t go ahead and fund an enterprise that brutally maims and kills dogs.
Vick, like several fallen sports stars before him, did not think about the fans or his teammates when he decided to commit such a terrible crime. No amount of PR or “genuine” apologies can ameliorate that betrayal.
I should clarify here: I am not against the idea of second chances for people who deserve them. What I am against is ex-con sports players making millions of dollars not even a year after they leave prison. A lifetime ban from baseball was placed on Pete Rose for betting on games as a manager, but Michael Vick wasn’t banned from football for life after funding and betting on dog fights? It just doesn’t sound right to me.
So should Michael Vick be allowed to re-enter society? Yes. But he should not be given what amounts to a new job in the NFL — an organization that encourages its players to be role models for children in their communities (the league’s partnership with the United Way is one example of this philosophy in action).
Michael Vick is not a role model. I see both the Commissioner’s decision to reinstate him and the Philadelphia Eagles’ decision to pay him millions of dollars as disturbing hypocrisies.
