A lot of people are very opinionated about the subject of Michael Vick due to the fact that dogs (For the record:  I’m  a huge dog fan and have own and loved many) are involved in the situation.  For the first part of my rant, I’m going to strip away moral debate on this topic.  I mean, it’s very clear that what he did is wrong.  He should and did get punished for his actions.  The moral debate lies more on whether he should be let back into the NFL.  I’ll touch on that in a bit.

The Business Debate - A “Good” or “Bad” Move for the NFL 

The verdict is in, everyone knows it:  Vick has clearance to play in the 2009-2010 NFL season.  Of course the NFL and the Eagles are going to catch a ton of scrutiny for this decision, posing the question, “Is this a good move for the NFL and the Eagles?”

From a business standpoint, letting Vick play is a great decision for the NFL and the Eagles.  Why?  Well I, for one, am very interested in seeing him on the playing field.  In his previous seasons, Vick was one of the most electrifying and exciting players to watch on the field.  Being from Detroit, I was reminded of the glorious days (glorious in terms of the Lions’ history of horrible teams) of Barry Sanders.  As a young lad, I was excited to go to the Thanksgiving Day games (we went every year) no matter what the record of the Lions was because Barry was always so amazing to watch…even if a loss was the end result.

Now, even if someone is not a Detroit fan (most likely 95% of the NFL fans out there!!), I would imagine that there are thousands, if not millions, of the NFL fans out there that agree with me on Vick’s “excitability.”  This means that Vick’s return to the field, after years in jail, will probably attract a number of eyes that normally wouldn’t watch the Eagles.  Also factor in that “Michael Vick” has become a household name that people trash over their family dinner regularly, you now have the non-NFL fans that will undoubtedly watch just because they are interested in the drama (think about how many people gawk at a car wreck).  This most definitely means that the ratings on the games in which Vick takes the field will most likely be quite high…which means more advertising dollars.

The same applies for the tickets sold for the games in which Vick plays.  Teams, such as the Lions, that have had horrible consecutive seasons will most likely see a spike in tickets sales for the game(s) that Vick is taking the field.  This equates to $$$$ to the NFL - Plain and simple.  

Additionally, as the saying goes, “No PR is bad PR.”  Even though the whole world may hate Michael Vick, his presence on the field will attract the eyes of people who may not have ever watched a football game.  This equates to higher ratings which in turn…I already explained the scenario above.  The only question left to ask from a PR standpoint is, “Will Michael Vick’s presence on the field cause people to not watch NFL games or advertisers to not run ads on his games?”  I’m sure that there will be a very small percentage of people that might answer a questionnaire stating this is the reason they don’t watch NFL games.  But let’s be honest people, if you are an NFL fan, no matter how disgusted with Michael Vick, and maybe even the NFL and Eagles for putting him on the field, you’re still going to watch your team play on Sundays.  There maybe a few conservative advertisers that might drop out, but I think it’s safe to assume most will stay on, especially because the ratings will be higher.  

Analyze this data, the only conclusion to come to is:  A phenomenal move on the part of the NFL and Eagles to better their business.

The Business Debate - Ethics and Practices

The second business topic deals more with the moral issues in this case.  As much as businesses and entrepreneurs would like to base decisions purely on the financial result, our society has evolved in such a way that business ethics are a very important part of the decision making process (Although I say very important, when it comes down to it, let’s not forget the point of a business is to make money).

The professional sports industry plays a very large role in the lives of our youth society.  Pro players are role models - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  Being so, the entities, such as the NFL, that control the industry must take this into account when making decisions such as this case.  Although they are in it to make money, if they were completely irresponsible and allowed rapists, killers, and drug users (known to the public at least!!) to play professional sports, they would undoubtedly be taken to the town square and stoned.

Is it ethical for the NFL and Eagles to put Vick on the field?  Probably not.  If you look at other  careers, such as a lawyer, a felony conviction would get any lawyer’s license to practice revoked.  Granted, an NFL player is not defending criminals or representing accident victims in a court of law, but with the whole “role model” influence such a powerful medium to the youth across the country, one could argue that it’s of very similar significance.

In the end, as I mentioned above, the decision isn’t really going to take away from the NFL audience.  Weigh all these factors together, and I would have made the same decision.

Play on Michael Vick.