The “No Fun League” is at it again. The National Football League owners will discuss another rule change this week that will yet again stifle what little freedom players have on the field.

This time, the heads of the league will be discussing, of all things, hair.

That’s right, the infamous long haircuts that many players are most noticed by could become illegal.

So, for the Troy Palamaluos, Mike McKenzies, and A.J. Hawks of the league, they could soon be seen as just another player on Sundays.

In all seriousness, taken out of context, the rules discussed by owners at the annual meetings sound quite ridiculous. One year they’re talking about dancing, then shoes, then hair.

Is this pro football or a salon?

Players in the league have complained for years about their lack of marketability nowadays. They can’t have signature dances, or skull caps, or different shoes, or maybe now, different haircuts.

It’s almost become militaristic in sports these days.

Now I know that it’s hard to complain when you make millions of dollars, but these athletes do have a point, in the form of a one-word question.

Why?

Why does it matter, why do they care, why can’t they risk it, why can’t they be who they want to be?

The no-hair rule is stemming from a rule put into the league just a few seasons ago, the horse-collar rule. No longer are players in the NFL, and soon college, able to tackle another player by the back of his shoulder pads.

This rule stemmed from players like former Dolphins running back Ricky Williams being tackled by their long dreadlocks flowing out of their helmet over their shoulder pads.

The horse-collar rule was put into place to prevent injuries, which has worked so far. So why the new hair cut rule?

The rule states that players would not be able to have hair flow over their names on the back of their jerseys. But it makes little sense for such a nonsensical rule to be enforced.