I wouldn't imagine any federal court to accept the case to rule on third party arbitration when the appeals process of the labor contract hasn't yet occurred, but that's just my opinion.
The CBA was designed as a labor agreement between the two parties, so it's quite likely that they have no choice.
I believe you're correct Sup. The Florio article points out 'abuse of discretion' (I assume this is the main legal avenue for Brady's appeal beyond the NFL). How could a court take up abuse of discretion, and whatever else will be the procedural argument against Goodell, without the the formal process to rectify the perceived wrong being completed? But not too big of a deal as I am sure Brady's/NFLPA's legal team know the NFL appeal process though pre-decided is a necessary formality.
For me I am not so interested in the appeal of the punishment. IMHO Brady has a very good argument that the punishment is too stiff. Goodell has an established abuse of discretion of punishment, Goodell will have to explain why Spygate is a precursor to a stiffer penalty for Brady (Spygate is a team violation that is absolutely not a player thing), and we have several examples of 'football doctoring' that produced very little punishment. What I am interested to see is in regards to the assignment of guilt (which Brady made part of his appeal) Has any player appealed on the basis of 'not guilty'?? I know some of the failed drug tests have been argued as 'honest mistake of taking this supplement' but has anyone appealed conduct on the basis 'you are flat out wrong'?
Consider: Goodell hired a claimed "third party" to decide guilt. How could he now question the very third party he chose as a third party, one he already fully accepted as correct (punishment was necessary because of the report)?
So will he say in his appeal conclusion announcement "I did an internal review with myself and decided I am completely correct that Wells is independent and got it right" (or something to that effect written properly), or does he state a perfunctory "we hired Ted Wells, he assigned guilt" and treat the assignment of guilt as something already decided (with his announcement almost entirely about why they chose the punishment they did)?
The assignment of guilt, IMHO, is the real unknown here. Does Goodell, via the CBA, have
complete discretion to assign guilt? Does complete discretion allow for 'abuse of discretion'? Even if it can be abuse of discretion, doesn't Goodell have complete CYA on this by saying "Ted Wells is independent and a third party" and we tasked him with assigning guilt? But if Brady's legal team can make a business connection to Ted Wells company and the NFL/Goodell, isn't that de facto abuse of discretion to hire someone that has an interest in concluding whatever the NFL wanted? If so can Brady prove the NFL were biased for Brady's guilt?
Abuse of discretion seems like something that would have a lot of gray area. With gray area certainly comes established and yet to be established legal avenues, however, it seems as if the evidence of bias and abuse will have to be pretty solid (Brady has to provide a substantial piece of evidence of his actual innocence otherwise the abuse of discretion on assigning guilt is DOA).