Quote
dzrams
But from a contractual and ethical standpoint, Donald has no more obligations to abide by his contract with the Rams than the Rams do to uphold their promises to him.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how contracts for employment work and what the obligations are as spelled out in the terms of the agreement in this situation, indeed most situations.
The parties in this case are making different promises to each other. The employer's/Rams do not promise
not to terminate employment before the contract has expired. In fact, they do just the opposite. They expressly reserve the right to terminate employment at their discretion. Both the Rams and the player agree to this. The Rams can terminate employment, take the keys to the office, remove systems access, take back the playbook, etc. The employer/Rams promise to fulfill obligations and benefits guaranteed in the agreement, such as guaranteed money, health coverage, etc. after employment has ended, but there is no promise to employ throughout the length of the deal.
Conversely, the player is promising to render services for the entirety of the contract or until the Rams decide to terminate, whichever comes first. The player has no contractual right to withhold services while the contract is still in effect. If the player decides to renege on his promise and refuses to show up to work, the Rams can choose to either do nothing, terminate employment or seek recourse as specified in the CBA.
There absolutely is a moral and ethical difference between a team exercising its contractual right to terminate employment, a right both parties agreed to, and a player refusing to abide by the terms of the agreement, a thing neither party agreed to when they entered into the deal..
