An Ethical Case on Play Ball

The ethical case on play ball that involves the owner of Frankees, the team manager, Casada, Monsoon and other stakeholders in the New York Frankees team, is a complicated case of study. The case requires a keen study to understand which party is responsible for the outcome that might arise when Casada, who overhead the conversation between the owner of Frankees and team manager, on the issue of the contract. Casada is in a dilemma, whether to report to Monsoon or not.

In the above case study, the issue of allegiance of reporting the case or not is very sensitive, since Casada has an obligation not to report what he overhead. This is because it will go against his contract or he will create the poor relationship between the management and himself. Casada should practice loyalty to the team and should not report any statement that he heard without the official communication.

Casada owes his allegiance to the Frankees because of one reason; Frankees are responsible for any rules and regulations governing the team, because once Casada reports the matter, he will be breaking one of the Frankees rules. This is due to the fact that he reports to some management matters, which are the secret to the team owner and the team manager. In the above case, whether Monsoon will not be given a contract or not, it’s not Casada’s business to report the case to Monsoon, since in case it discovers out that Casada was in charge of leaking the information; he may be on the dangerous point.

When we analyze the above case in the ethical manner, it is clear that Casada should not even in any point try to leak the information to Monsoon. This is because it would cause some impact both on Monsoon’s and Frankees’ management. Being ethical is when someone is responsible for doing something that is right and socially acceptable.

In the case of Casada vs. Monsoon, Casada should not report the conversation that he heard and allow monsoon to play his last game, so as to give him motivation to improve his game. In this case, Monsoon has previously undergone through difficult season, and the last remaining game should change the events.

If we look at the positive side of the above case, the New York Frankees have one game to become the divisional Champions. If Monsoon performs very well, the owner of the club may decide to change his mind of not renewing his contract, and come up with a contract that will lead him to stay in the club for some few years before deciding to retire. When we ethically analyze the above case, Casada should keep the secret, and in return motivate Monsoon. Although he has been performing poorly in the previous season, he has another vital role in the last game to prove his management wrong that he still needs a chance to play for Frankees.

On the negative side, if Casada informs Monsoon on what he overhead in the secret conversation, he will make Monsoon be under pressure, and he may lose concentration on the game, because his mind will be switched away from the game, knowing that his service in Frankees team is no longer wanted.  After analyzing this situation ethically, it’s not acceptable to inform somebody that you have some information about his contract termination, since he has a game to play. He may also be the player who will send the Frankees to division champions.

If Casada acts in an ethical way, he should keep the secret, and instead look for ways to motivate Monsoon, so that when he goes to the field, he should have positive attitude towards the match, and this will help him to use his talent well and impress the Frankees team management, who in return, will change their minds and renew his contract again. If I were in the Casada’s position, the best thing I would do is to keep the secret as much as possible, encourage Monsoon that his service in the team is highly appreciated by the management and other players.

I would also remind him that the last game between the New York Frankees and Texas will make a vital change towards returning to his original good form.  If our team qualifies to divisional champions, it will not be ethical for me to inform Monsoon about what I heard, because at that point the management may have changed its decisions of not renewing the contract. This follows an agreement to give another contract to Monsoon, hence, if I had already leaked the information to him, Monsoon may have felt that after providing his services to the team, the management had a secret mission of not giving him another contract, and this might also affect him in the remaining years in the club knowing that his contract may be terminated, if he failed to improve his form.

On the other hand, if Frankees team fails to bring it to the divisional champions by being defeated by Texas, I will also avoid informing him about his way out, since if I do so, I will be going against the norms of the team. This is due to the fact that it is the responsibility of the management to officially inform him that his services may not be required (Thomas, 2011). It will be ethically wrong for me to inform him later that I knew the secret that he would be on his way out, if he fails to improve his form, since he will blame me for failing to inform him earlier about the plans of the management against him.

In another situation, if Monsoon was younger and had hopes to get a multiyear contract, on my view, it will be important to encourage him that, since he is young, he has all the required time to improve his game and provide his best services to the team. Monsoon should be ready to face all the challenges that might come on his way as a young star. This is because at the young age, he has not gained that experience to be at the same point as other players. If the team management refuses to sign another contract with him, then the best way for Monsoon is to quit the club and join another club, which may give him a chance to improve his performance and gain enough experience. This will at last put him at the top level of his performance (Straits, 2004).

Otherwise, if Frankees go into the playoff, I will still keep the conversation in secret, because at the playoff, it’s not required to give any information regarding the contract of Monsoon. This is because it will not assist Monsoon to make a decision about the conversation, but it will lead to more wrangles within the club. At this stage, I will pretend that I have never heard any information or secret about him.

In conclusion, an ethical behavior or manner is very important to both individuals and the organization. This is because when players in a given team act ethically, it will assist the team management to function efficiently, because its members know what to do at a particular manner at the right time. Ethical behavior in individual is so much important to enable people to interact in a good manner, and make their relationship mature by solving internal conflicts among themselves in an efficient and effective manner (Scholz, 2002).

In the above case we can conclude by advising Casada to act in an ethical manner, he should keep the secret and give Monsoon a motivational advice to make him concentrate to his game for the big match between New York Frankees and the Texas. If the conversation is kept in secret, Monsoon may play very well assisting the team to record good results that will set Frankees into divisional championship. Also it will be ethical for Casada to keep the information as a secret, since it is the duty of team management to give official information on their decision.