PAY TO INJURE Bountygate,’ the great conspiracy? The NFL’s “Bountygate” scandal, on the surface, seems like a justification to an exaggerated characterization of reality. A pay-for-performance-system sinisterly was distorted as a pay-to-injure-scheme resulting in punishments, leaving numerous New Orleans Saints’ players and coaches vilified and personified as a league example to deter any future-would-be-similar-incentive programs. Although the players’ contracts forbid any kind of non-contract bonuses for on-field incentives offered by the team/organization (a very black and white mandate); it doesn’t, however, prohibit their teammates from monetarily rewarding positive performance (more of a grayish area). Pundits of this pay-for-performance type want to make it something it’s not—forcing it as some ethical or spiritual issue. I understand the reasoning players’ contracts prohibit non-contract bonuses—it’s an attempt to fend off opening Pandora’s Box to point shaving, game fixing, gambling, injuries, etc. I realize that. However, I parallel this pay-for-performance-motivation with a parent offering Read More