Terrell Owens--"Property" of the Philadelphia Eagles?
Does anyone have a problem with professional athletes being designated as "property" as opposed to "employee"? Well, the fact of the matter is that employees, whether salaried or at-will, have the right to vacate their employment. In other words, they can quit their jobs and seek employment elsewhere. Professional athletes, specifically those in the NFL don't have such latitude, as reflected in an arbitrator's ruling this afternoon that has drawn the ire of the NFLPA (NFL Players Association). In short, the arbitrator ruled that the Eagles were within their rights to suspend Owens without pay for four games (at a cost to him of approximately $764,704 in base salary) and also within their rights to deactivate him (with pay) so that he is not free to seek employment with another NFL team for the remainder of the season.

Regardless of your feelings on the ruling, the collective bargaining agreement sanctioned by the NFLPA does allow for such action. T.O. is in effect, the property of the Philadelphia Eagles. Why isn't he (or all professional athletes for that matter) labeled as "contractual employees in the irrevocable servitude of their employers"? Is the oft used term "property" nothing more than vernacular trickery for "slave"?

Let's take a look at the origin of this "property" issue:

All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened.
- Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705

I think the term "property" is indeed vernacular trickery for "slave". Fair thee well T.O., I guess it's on to your next massa.