Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson had a few questions with Cam Newton before drafting him No. 1 overall in the last NFL Draft.

In an interview on “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS, the 75-year-old Richardson said he asked Newton if he had any tattoos. When Newton replied, “No sir, I don’t have any,” Richardson said he told Newton, “Good. We want to keep it that way.”

In addition, when Newton told Richardson he was thinking about growing his hair out, Richardson commented to Newton that he liked Newton's hair closely cropped.

Newton can choose his hairstyle and whether or not to get tattoos without the owner’s involvement.

The exchange is an excellent example of the generational dichotomy that exists in professional sports – as well as sports in general.

For example, at my high school, our basketball and baseball coaches both instilled a rule that hair was to be above the collar and off the ears while facial hair was to be neatly trimmed (not that most of us could grow any).

However, high school sports are one thing. Professional sports are quite another.

While it is perfectly acceptable for Richardson to express his wishes that his quarterback stay clean cut and tattoo free, it is unacceptable for Richardson to think his word will stop Newton if he wants to grow his hair out and get tattoos.

Football may call itself a business, but that isn’t really true. As Malcom Gladwell points out in his recent Grantland.com piece, “‘Psychic Benefits’ and the NBA Lockout,” sports franchises do not operate under the normal forces of business.

In the same way franchise owners are not typical owners, professional athletes are not typical employees. Richardson would never get rid of Newton just because Newton decided to grow out his hair or get sleeve tattoos.

This is not the first time a team or league has tried to dictate the way their players look. In baseball, the New York Yankees always have short hair and no facial hair except for the occasional moustache. In the NBA, a dress code was instilled because the players didn’t look “professional” enough off the court.

All these situations stem from an older boss imposing their values onto their younger employees. It is hard to ignore the parental overtones of the league or a team telling young men how to act and dress.

These are grown men that do not need to be told how to act or dress. As someone who has long hair and some larger tattoos, it’s an issue that is very important to me.

Richardson’s generation, which includes many of my older relatives, usually views tattoos as a mark of deviance. They were for sailors, bikers or criminals. Self-respecting members of society wouldn’t permanently mark their bodies. While a few of my older relatives loved my tattoos, the others could barely hold back their disappointment.

However, Newton’s generation, which includes most of you reading this paper, increasingly view tattoos as a viable art form. Look no further than players at Ohio State University who were willing to trade their memorabilia for tattoo work.

Those contrasting views often clash in professional sports, where older owners are signing the checks for younger, sometimes heavily tattooed individuals.

While it is easy to argue that super long hair could get distracting during the game or give yourself a disadvantage (look up the video clip of Jourdan Brooks being pulled down by his dreadlocks in a 2008 game), tattoos don’t fall under that category.

Being heavily tattooed will not hinder representing the Panthers in a positive light. His conduct will speak much louder than any ink he puts into his skin.

I respect Richardson and his desire to instill a sense of professionalism in the Carolina Panthers franchise. However, there are a lot easier ways of doing that than getting a haircut and avoiding the tattoo shop.