Many years ago, there was a wonderful restaurant in Washington, D.C. called “Duke Ziebert’s.” It was an old-fashioned, New York-style steak house that had the best roast beef, the best crab cakes, the best chopped liver and the best banana cream pie, all served in huge portions by waiters who seemed to have been born on the premises. It was a place to see and be seen, frequented by all the politicos and D.C. power brokers. But Duke himself got tired of the grind, and decided to retire to Florida. He turned his restaurant, menu, and loyal clientele over to his famous maitre de' and second-in-command, Mel Krupin. They were in good hands. Then Duke got antsy (and reportedly, broke) in retirement, and after a year or so changed his mind. He wanted his restaurant back, and got it. Lawsuits flew around between the old friends, and for a while there were two nearly identical restaurants with the same menu within a few hundred yards of each other on Connecticut Avenue: “Duke Ziebert’s” and “Mel Krupin’s.”  Sadly, both went under. No more banana cream pie. 

I’ve been thinking about Duke and Mel as I watch the ugly saga unfolding between the Green Bay Packers and their long-time star quarterback, Bret Favre. Favre, after several years  of playing Hamlet over whether he would retire or not, finally did it after last season, one in which he not only played the best he had in several seasons but also led the Packers to the play-offs. There were tears, parting gifts, ceremonies and farewells, and finally Favre waved good-bye, turning over the team to the young Aaron Rodgers, his successor at quarterback and the team’s future. It was over. The team committed to Rodgers, who looked forward to the 2009 season as the Packers’ new field general. 

And then, just like Duke, Brett Favre changed his mind. He wasn’t ready to give up those packed stadium cheers. He wanted to play. And being Brett Favre, he wanted to start.  

The soap opera began. The Packers made it clear that they were not going to push Rodgers back to the bench for another year. Favre demanded that the Packers release him to sign with another team. The Packers replied that they owned the rights to him and wouldn’t give his services away for nothing. Favre accused ownership of dastardly deeds and dishonesty. Currently, Favre is threatening to come to camp, where he would be a massive distraction. The team is reportedly trying to trade him, but in the meantime, Favre is in limbo. 

Who is right and who is wrong, and how do they get out of this mess?  

It is true that Favre has the right to change his mind. It is also true that when you know many people will make their plans based on their reliance on what you say you are going to do, you have an obligation to take care, mean what you say, stick to your promises, and not pull the rug out from under them by changing course later. Favre’s initial decision to retire was reckless and irresponsible if he was not completely committed to it, because he knew that the future of Rodgers and his team was going to be profoundly affected by his actions. Obviously, he was not committed to it. He is at fault for that. This is a mess he caused. 

But making that rash decision does not now obligate him to adhere to it, if he is convinced that he wants to play. His most ethical conduct, of course, would be to abide by his original decision and stay retired because his team and teammates relied on his word. That does not mean it is unethical to change course. He owes everyone an apology for not taking the requisite amount of care when making a decision that he knew would affect businesses, careers and lives. 

As for the Packers, they have good reason to feel manipulated and ill-treated. Their decision to stick with their young quarterback even though their old one figures to be better is the right one, ethically and professionally. When a valuable employee quits and a replacement is promoted to replace her, that job is filled, even if the former employee has a change of heart and even if she is welcome back. If she is going to stay, it has to be in a different job. It would be wrong to renege on a promotion. 

There is only one starting quarterback on a football team, however, and All-Time Great Bret Favre is not going to be a back-up. So Green Bay has to resolve the situation, even though it did not cause the problem.  And doing it ethically means that the team’s judgement must not be warped by annoyance with its estranged star’s fecklessness. It is within its legal rights for the team to keep Favre hanging, making it difficult for him to get back on the field, and to take its time trading him for the most value available. Like Favre’s decision to return, that would not be unethical, but it won’t win any ethics bonus points either.  

The most ethical course is to give Favre his release and let him make his own deal with whichever team he wants to play on, parting with a great player with as little rancor as possible. After all, the Packers did not expect to have Favre to play or trade. Keeping him twisting in the wind just to get an extra draft choice in trade appears vindictive and petty, and an attempt to benefit from a situation that the team wishes didn’t exist. 

Favre had the opportunity to make a sacrifice in the interest of fairness and integrity, and chose not to. The Green Bay Packers still can choose the most ethical path, giving a player who served them well an easy exit from a mess he created, and it will only cost them the opportunity to get a draft choice for a player they had assumed wasn’t playing anyway. That’s not too great a sacrifice in order to do the right thing. 

But it still won’t bring back that banana cream pie.