Since the players sign a contract, then isn't any requirement that doesn't force a player to break the law legal? I think this is the case. I also think with the exorbitance of the players salaries and the inclusion of any requirements and pro-rated insurance coverage's (NFL football is a physically grueling game), then certain behavioral restrictions a player is asked to meet can be considered reasonable. How reasonable is reasonable? Well, beauty is in the eyes of the beholders. Let's see, more money, less freedom. Didn't Ben Roethlisberger get hurt early in his career due to a motorcycle accident? Wasn't there a requirement in his contract to not ride or drive motorcycles? I'm pretty sure there was such a part in his contract, but I don't know if that was put in place before or after his accident. Certainly the Team ownership has a right to protect their financial investment in a player. The degree of enforceable restrictions can certainly be justified for the higher salaried players. That is what a contract is for. Both sides agrees to terms and conditions. I can see why an owner would have legitimate concerns if a player liked to be involved outside activities that had very high risks of physical injury. Take as an example driving racing cars. A player has a right to drive racing cars. The owner doesn't want his player to expose himself to such a high risk event. The owner has a right to protect his financial investment due to the pay and insurance guaranteed in a players contract. The owner has the right to ask a player to refrain from physically dangerous activity or the contract would be considered void. The player has the right to refuse to sign or accept such a restrictive contract. Either one can walk away from a contract if they aren't satisfied with it. The reality is that there will likely be other players who would be willing to sign a restrictive contract if the pay and insurance were high enough in their mind to forgo what is being restricted. Their availability is another question that would need to be considered. This puts some pressure on players to sign such contract. If players consider a contracts restriction too sever and refuse to sign this kind of contract, the owner has nothing to invest in. That works in the players interest. Maybe they can find some agreeable common ground and establish contract. Maybe they can't. Its up to the player and the owner, not the fan base. I don't think a fan base does a player any favors when they tell him to hold out for more. If the player holds out and doesn't get the contract, he is the one who suffers the consequences. The same fan base that told him to hold out will claim that if the player doesn't get that contract they too, suffer the consequences by not getting to see him play. So in review, if the player loses his job due to not signing a contract that is typically worth millions of dollars his loss is as bad as the fan base because they can't see him play. I am sure we have some lemmings on this board that sincerely believe this is true. Let the owner and player negotiate mutually acceptable contracts and let contract law deal with later disagreements. This is what adults do. I've seen enough players and owners to know they don't all behave as adults or always show good judgment. As far as what good judgment is, that is for discussion in the NFL philosophy form. The one that says WIN!