Cam Newton Fined $10,000 by NFL for Wearing Unauthorized Visor Clips
ESPN.com news services reported on the rather bizarre development on Friday, as the former No. 1 overall pick took a hit to his bank account despite blacking out the clips' logos.
The league has a strict policy on matters such as these, per the report:
No invisible identification of a manufacturer's name or logo on the exterior of a helmet or on any attachment to a helmet is permitted unless provided for under a commercial arrangement between the League and manufacturer.
Chris Smith of Forbes.com originally pointed out how Newton has been violating the NFL's equipment policy for his entire career on Tuesday.
Several prominent stars wear helmet visors, and Newton's has been using one since he burst onto the scene in 2011.
Readers on Twitter alerted Smith of other players who use the same Under Armour clips as Newton. Those players are Oakland Raiders quarterback Terrelle Pryor, San Francisco 49ers safety Eric Reid and Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon.
Should NFL players be allowed to wear helmet visors produced by manufacturers without a commercial agreement with the league?
That trio should be hearing from the league office soon enough, too.
In the age of high-definition television and unprecedented scrutiny of professional athletes due to the prominence of social media and technological proliferation, it's surprising it took this long for the league to become aware of Newton's violation.
This puts a bit of a damper on Newton's recent success. The Panthers are coming off of a 38-0 win over the New York Giants and are 1-2 heading into a bye week.
Thereafter, Carolina will take on the Arizona Cardinals on the road. Newton shined in his NFL debut back in 2011 against the Cardinals, throwing for 422 yards and scoring three total touchdowns.
Newton has thrown for 577 yards, six touchdowns and two interceptions in 2013 while rushing for 98 yards and another score.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?