When you say "one of them" in response to "most of them" you make the case for me. And when you start with "no" and "wrong" you make if clear you've no interest in a worthwhile conversation.
In all that the point you make about the virtue in a narrative penned by a single lawyer gets lost.
Well, there are two posts here saying the whole thing was cut and dry.
I'm saying it wasn't.
The fact that the first judge found in favor of Brady should've been enough to tell us it wasn't so cut and dry. In fact, that judge found deliberate malfeasance from the NFL. The appellate court was actually quoted stating facts that were completely debunked by that point, which made it clear they hadn't even read through the case they delivered judgment on.
Berman was rarely reversed on appeals.
This is the first thing that came up when I searched just now for legal takes:
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the NFL’s "Deflategate" case is widely viewed by legal scholars as questionable because it sidestepped the actual evidence of the alleged infractions. Instead, it deferred broadly to the unilateral disciplinary powers granted to the Commissioner under Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. [
1,
2,
3]
The appellate ruling remains controversial among legal experts for several key reasons:
- Lack of Evidence: The lower court initially overturned the suspension because there was no credible evidence that Tom Brady was aware of or participated in deflating footballs. The appellate court reinstated the penalty without ever determining if Brady actually committed the act.
- Extreme Deference to the Arbitrator: The court ruled 2-1 that, under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Roger Goodell had practically limitless authority to act as an arbitrator in his own disciplinary rulings.
- Procedural Unfairness: Critics point out that the NFL’s arbitration process was highly inconsistent. The league punished Brady heavily for a "lack of cooperation," even though there were no prior league rules explicitly stating that destroying a cell phone would result in a four-game suspension.
- Arbitrary Penalty Scaling: The punishment was equivalent to penalties handed out to players for using performance-enhancing drugs, creating a major discrepancy in how player conduct was penalized under league rules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
The decision is frequently taught in law school as an example of extreme judicial deference to private arbitration agreements in sports and employment law. You can explore the full breakdown of the case and its legal implications through
ESPN's Deflategate coverage or the
Villanova Sports Law Journal. [
1,
2]
The biggest legal nugget among experts in the case was this...
The article at issue here (Article 46, Commissioner Discipline) does not actually mention arbitrators or arbitration at all. Instead, it lays out a process for handling certain disputes and “action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football,” such as occurred here. The article gives the Commissioner power to appoint one or more hearing officers of his choosing.
Legal scholars attack the appellate decision precisely because it is NOT a case of arbitration. There is no neutral arbitrator involved AND the actual CBA with the NFLPA on this issue of hearings about player conduct contains no language about arbitration. As many legal scholars see it, the deference given to arbitration in labor law circles doesn't apply here because this isn't arbitration.
AND, here is just one among many law review articles you'll find on the decision showing the ongoing legal debate:
By the way, the appeals court decision was a 2-1 decision. So, not only Berman disagreed with the NFL's take on the CBA, but one of the Appellate judges did as well.
After the Appeals court decision, Brady's lawyers asked for an en banc review, given the different viewpoints of the 4 different judges that had decided the case. The en banc review was denied, and the case ended.
Given the disagreement between the 4 judges, and the ensuing articles discussing the controversy over the case, it's pretty clear to me that it was anything but cut and dry.
