So this is the question I had earlier. Nash's argument here hasn't appeared in any papers I've seen, and I haven't heard it from anyone, and it logically doesn't make much sense.
He is not just saying the court must give Goodell deference in arbitration, but also in interpretations the policy under arbitration. That would be like saying if Goodell chooses to believe a 4 game suspension for steroids should be interpreted as 6 games, then he wins because he gets final say. Not on whether they did steroids, but what the policy says.
Doesn't make sense to me. Two people have an agreement. One may have made a bad agreement, but here Nash is basically arguing that one side reserves the right to change that agreement against the others wishes essentially making it a non-voluntary non-agreement. Further he's saying the courts cannot settle that dispute about the underlying interpretation, which it seems to me that is exactly what they are charged with doing.
Maybe he just reflexively says deference so much he doesn't even know why anymore.
I can only think that RG started this whole nonsense with the sincere belief that he had all the owners behind him and that he could get away with whatever he wanted. Now that the light is being shed on the process he and his lawyers are scrambling and the goal posts keep moving.
From what I follow from Kessler's arguments:
TB was suspended for violating rules covered by "The Integrity of the Game Certification".
Except - that only applies to clubs and not to individuals.
The Commish has broad authority for the punishment for this violation.
Except - this only applies to clubs and not individuals. If the NFL wants to apply it to players, they have to inform them.
Now the goal posts move.
TB was suspended for an equipment violation that is part of the CBA and applies to players.
Except - the penalty for this violation is a fine not suspension. If the NFL wants to change that they have to inform the NFLPA on this.
Also - if "generally aware" is the standard, that is new and again the NFL has to inform the NFLPA of this change.
Move again:
The NFLPA was aware of the integrity of the game powers that the Commish has and he can deal out any penalty he wants.
Except - the law says that if there is a specific penalty "fine for first time violation" it takes precedent over a general policy. And again if the NFL wants to do this, they need to inform the NFLPA in advance.
Move again.
TB was suspended for the violation that is similar to PEDs - 4 games.
Except - if the NFL wants to change the penalty it needs to inform the NFLPA of this new rule and change. And again the specific penalty overrides the general policy.
This keeps happening and it was clear that Berman was getting more and more annoyed. It is also clear that the NFL is hanging all it's hopes on the claim that the CBA, despite all the labor laws that say otherwise, gives Goodell unlimited powers to do whatever he wants.