01/29: Yankees Considering Confidentiality Agreements for Future Manager and Player Contracts
Posted by: Patrick
Newsday's Wallace Matthews reports that, in response to the Joe Torre/Ken Rosenthal book, the Yankees are considering including confidentiality agreements in their contracts, to help ensure that former managers and players cannot write books that would portray the organization in a negative light. Apparently, they are calling it a "non-disparagement clause."
As Matthews notes, these sorts of clauses aren't terribly uncommon in business relationships, such as those that celebrities have with their staff or assistants or that companies have with a CEO. He also mentions that the Mets are believed to have included this sort of language in the contracts they held with former manager Willie Randolph and former pitching coach Rick Peterson.
There is no freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech is tied to Congress. They can't create laws that limit your freedom of speech. But, private citizens and organizations, if they give you access to their home, to their clubhouse, to their company... they are welcome to require what they feel is appropriate. This isn't just tied to speech, either. Take, for example, the Yankees facial hair policy. (Which I am a fan of).
I don't know how I feel about this. I can understand it. But, I don't know if it's something they should do. As an aside, is there any way that these clauses could represent a competitive disadvantage for the Yankees? i.e. if you have an offer from the Yankees and an offer from another team you are interested in, and one team won't allow you to talk about negative experiences in the clubhouse - ever - and another will, would that impact your decision? I would have to think that the answer would be no, generally, that money would trump all. But, I don't think that would always be the case. People generally consider speech to be a little more important than facial hair.
Via Steve.
As Matthews notes, these sorts of clauses aren't terribly uncommon in business relationships, such as those that celebrities have with their staff or assistants or that companies have with a CEO. He also mentions that the Mets are believed to have included this sort of language in the contracts they held with former manager Willie Randolph and former pitching coach Rick Peterson.
There is no freedom of speech issue. Freedom of speech is tied to Congress. They can't create laws that limit your freedom of speech. But, private citizens and organizations, if they give you access to their home, to their clubhouse, to their company... they are welcome to require what they feel is appropriate. This isn't just tied to speech, either. Take, for example, the Yankees facial hair policy. (Which I am a fan of).
I don't know how I feel about this. I can understand it. But, I don't know if it's something they should do. As an aside, is there any way that these clauses could represent a competitive disadvantage for the Yankees? i.e. if you have an offer from the Yankees and an offer from another team you are interested in, and one team won't allow you to talk about negative experiences in the clubhouse - ever - and another will, would that impact your decision? I would have to think that the answer would be no, generally, that money would trump all. But, I don't think that would always be the case. People generally consider speech to be a little more important than facial hair.
Via Steve.
