When it comes right down to it. Isn't the NFL basically using the "unique nature of the CBA" in question, to say it puts them ABOVE any law, any courts and any legislature,. Isn't the the height of delusional egomania. But if Berman rules in their favor, that's essentially what he'd be saying.
I just don't see that happening. What I DO see this filing as saying to the Judge is, "We don't give a F##K what you think, just like we don't care about your deadlines. We don't care how your rule, but just know that if you rule against us, we will merely take it to appeal where your ruling WILL be overturned. And you know you don't want THAT to happen."
In other words it was just an attempt to intimidate the Judge, because that's what egomaniac bullies do when someone tries to stand up to them.
BTW- this kind of bullying tactic should SCREAM to Brady that you must take this to a defamation suit. Otherwise the NFL league offices are going to keep coming after you, even IF Berman vacates the suspension. The Bully will keep on bullying UNTIL someone stands up and says NO MORE!
Let me try to be Devil's Advocate.
The NFL is saying that the parties have already agreed to how disputes will be handled.
The Commissioner will decide punishment.
If the NFLPA disagrees with that punishment they can appeal.
They have agreed that the best person to decide an appeal is the commissioner.
Therefore the NFLPA has agreed that their legal recourse is best served by allowing the above reapproach, unbiased and wise as Solomon commissioner to settle all disputes with binding arbitration.
This means the NFLPA has said that commissioner is by definition unbiased, and will rule fairly for them.
When a case comes along that has bias inherent in it, has the arbitrator ruling that without debate the commissioner (yes him) made all the correct decisions and therefore you cannot contest the arbitrators rulings that the commissioner (ie himself) was right.
If you disagree with the commissioner, you can go to the commissioner (as arbitrator) and argue with him that the guy who made the decision is wrong.
So, this is exactly the same as an employer and union having a disagreement about the correct legal action to be taken in a situation that is not covered explicitly in the CBA, so the recourse the union has to appeal. Their appeal is to the employer. When they argue that their case revolves around why the employer interpreted the CBA that way, then the same individual will judge whether the interpretation was correct.
It is ludicrous to think that in any way the union believed that the commissioner would serve as both discipliner and arbitrator on the same issue. Him having both roles was never intended to overlap. No other commissioner ever considered that they could do that.
