Its a very interesting topic. Presumption of innocence is a basic tenant of criminal law. But CFL players and coaches are operating under contract law, where the concept of owners dealing with coaches and players and vice versa, in 'good faith' is the basic tenet.
Morality clauses in contracts for coaches and players have been around now for quite a while. Morality clauses, as they are sometimes called, are often written as 'good conduct' or 'public image' clauses. In some contracts they are quite narrow while in others they are quite broad.
For example, some coaching contracts have clauses such as the "commission of or participation by Coach of any act, situation, or occurrence which, in the team's judgment brings the coach into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or any personal conduct to conventional standards of good citizenship, with such conduct offending prevailing social mores and values and/or reflecting unfavorably upon the team's reputation' are grounds for contract termination.
College coaches in the U.S. have been fired for having had a sexual affair on their wife or after being videotaped drinking a beer at a party, with female party goers, after a loss.
Player contracts are often written in such a way that it is the 'franchise' that solely determines what is acceptable conduct that can impact the team 'in any way'. Want to get rid of a coach or hire a better one, without paying out the rest of his contract - this is one way to do it.
The vagueness and breadth of what a 'good conduct' or 'public image' clause can cover has led to disputes and litigation in courts in the U.S.
It's also very difficult for a Court to to determine what actions cause public disrepute, scandal, contempt, or would shock, insult, or offend the public or even a group (often termed invidious distinction).
Players and coaches are viewed as investments. Teams sign contracts with players and coaches, in hopes of using their skills or reputations to generate revenue and achieve success.
However, these 'investments' come with risks, exacerbated by a 24-hour news and sports news cycle, as well as the growth of social media, and this has led to franchises seeking a way out of their relationship with players or coaches.
In other words, coaches are not just judged on their play calls and players are not just judged on their play on the field. They can even have a contract voided for 'any behavior which adversely affect the reputation of the franchise in any way'.
Its a very broad or 'loose' term and could even be applied to a player or coach's Twitter or Facebook account comment, a post game interview comment, etc.
The employer could make the argument that any behavior or comment, on or off the field, that negatively impacts potential revenue violates the contract. Players and coaches public images are considered an important factor in terms of positive or negative revenue and that reputation extends to almost every aspect of their life.
Advertisers who enter into contracts with players or coaches also utilize these 'public image' or 'good conduct' clauses.
Morals clauses have become standard in most sports contracts, partially because sports professionals face extensive scrutiny in the media and social media. The clauses also usually include any past behavior, which enablers employers to terminate employees for previous indiscretions that were not disclosed.
Heck, even as Lionbackers, we operate under a good conduct clause regarding our behavior with regards to other posters.
While they are not very common, some coaches and players are asking for reverse good conduct clauses in contracts.
Because its very difficult for a coach or player to void a contract, these clauses allow a coach or player to sign a long term contract and void it if the employer (franchise) engages in behavior that negatively would impact his potential revenue. Eg: say the owner was involved in a scandal, which impacted the player or coaches opportunity for future endorsement deals because advertisers did not want to be associated with the franchise.
The reality is that player contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. The franchise can cut the player at any time. The same does not hold true for a player. He cant' quit and go play for another team whenever he chooses.
But where it can get sticky, is when a franchise voids a players contract, based upon a 'good conduct or 'public image' clause rather than just cutting that player while not citing a reason.
If a player is released, based upon a 'good conduct', 'morality' or 'public image' clause, then it provides the player with the opportunity to litigate, if he believes that he has not violated the good conduct clause or the clause in his contract has been applied too broadly.
There are a lot of crazies out there, or vindictive types, or people who are just plain devious and evil. Not every accusation has merit. Not every criminal case that is brought to court should have been prosecuted in the first place either.
I agree with Toppy Van's statement that::
The purpose of the presumption of innocence is to protect the fundamental liberty and human dignity of the accused. The person faces "grave social and personal consequences" from the law and so needs protection.
I also agree with maxlion's comment that:
When it comes to decisions affecting a person's livelihood, it is best to have a policy that is fair, consistent, and transparent. The CFL's "policy" on players facing criminal charges is none of these. I do suspect there is some payment for being released without just cause going to the players who have been affected. I expect the CFL to be challenged in court over this at some point (as they should be)".
maxlion adds in a later post:
But there are a number of variables that could be used to make it fair for both sides. I don't quite understand why the player's association haven't made an issue of this, or why players affected haven't taken legal action against the league".
It really comes down to a contractual issue. If players are signing contracts with their teams (and registered and approved, and also with contract language that was likely written by the league), that have good conduct or public image clauses, then it is up to the Players Association to negotiate clear contract language around a player who is charged with a criminal offence but has not yet gone to trial.
Does the player continue to play until found guilty, or is he suspended with pay until found guilty, or is his pay placed into a trust until a court determination of innocence or guilt is made, etc. etc.
The Players Association also needs to negotiate clear language around use of social media by players as to what constitutes 'good conduct' (or not). It also needs to negotiate clear language as to what constitutes acceptable 'public image' (or not).
Right now, it appears as if teams are getting players to sign contracts that allow them to easily release a player and void a contract and also to release a player based upon 'good conduct' and 'public image' clauses in their contracts.
Coaches are usually a lot smarter. Say goodbye to a coach and the team usually has to pay out the remaining time on his contract. He will have that in his contract. But a coach could also easily be let go, without any future pay, based on a good conduct or public image clause.
This situation (and others like it) fall under the umbrella of employment law and contract law more than the rights of the accused. Contract law is based upon an offer and acceptance of an offer in good faith by both parties. The contract does not even have to be fair or equitable.
In the big picture, I've always thought that CFL players contracts are so easily voidable by the franchise whereas its almost impossible for a player to void a contract he has signed. Both parties sit down and sign a contract in good faith and then the team can easily renegotiate or walk away from it while the player can't (and different leagues honor each other's contracts too).
Its a market system that favors the owners and most players are viewed as replaceable commodities, as there is an endless supply. But players have come a long way from the old days when most were paid peanuts while owners put most of the revenue money in their pockets.
But back to point - this is an issue for the Players Association, in terms of contract language.