Sonny (@DK_Dynamite86) asks: Goodell needs to be stopped. Can we start an anti-Goodell movement??? Man I really dislike that guy.
I think the Anti-Goodell movement has been underway for quite some time. Unfortunately for those who would like to oust him, the people that really matter – 32 NFL owners – are very supportive of the current Commish. And why wouldn’t they be? Revenue numbers are through the roof and Goodell is better at taking punches on controversial issues than this guy.
The question becomes: What would it take for the NFL to remove Goodell?
Article VI, Section 6.5(G) of the NFL’s Constitution and Bylaws (emphasis added) states:
In the event that the Commissioner or any other officer of the League shall be convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or be physically or mentally incapacitated to perform his duties or shall fail or refuse to abide by the Constitution and Bylaws of the League, and the Executive Committee finds that such action by such officer is detrimental to the best interests of the League, or in the event the Commissioner or any other officer of the League fails or is unwilling to perform his duties, then such Committee shall have the power after notice and hearing to suspend or remove said officer and to terminate any contract between such Commissioner or officer and the League.
Without diving too deep, the most likely scenario to remove Goodell is the bolded text above. The NFL defines “detrimental” conduct as an action “that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL Clubs, or NFL Players.” An “impeachment” vote would require 24 of the 32 teams to vote for Goodell’s removal. Some would argue that Goodell conduct (for example his role in numerous player discipline cases) has violated League rules and is detrimental to the best interests of the League. However, even if this were the case, the behavior alone is not enough. An ouster of Goodell would require the support of ¾ of the League’s owners, and it does not appear that the current split is anywhere near that number.
Responding to a tweet that Roger Goodell ambushed the negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA on a new player discipline appeal structure by saying the sides are no where near an agreement, Thomas Baker III (@DrTab3) asks: Devil’s advocate (pardon the pun), what if the NFL was ambushed by the NFLPA’s announcement?
Professor Baker raises an excellent point: we do not know the truth of this back and forth between the NFL and NFLPA. What is clear is that the NFL is unlikely to give away Goodell’s ability to judge his own appeals without getting something in return. It is rumored that the NFL is seeking an extension to the current CBA, which – as evidenced by this negotiating position – clearly favors the owners. As such, it is hard to imagine a scenario that the players would extend the current CBA (essentially giving away $$) just to change the disciplinary review process. Since there currently is no middle ground and CBA does not expire for five years, don’t expect an end to the litigation over Goodell’s role in discipline.
In response to Roger Goodell’s announcement that he will preside over the Kansas City Chiefs’ appeal for losing two draft picks for violating the League’s anti-tampering policy, Jeff Jack (@jeffantigua) asks: Wouldn’t the Chiefs at least get a stay for this draft from the courts?
Goodell also announced that the appeal would be heard prior to the draft. Assuming that the Chiefs are not satisfied with the results of the appeal to Goodell, and wish to further appeal the decision in federal court, they will certainly petition the court for a stay and argue that no stay would irreparably harm the team because they could not get the lost draft picks back. In player cases, courts have been receptive to similar arguments (you cannot get missed games back), so I would imagine – if these events play out – that the Chiefs would likely hold on to their picks in this years draft pending resolution in federal court (which will certainly not be concluded by this year’s draft).
Regarding Roger Goodell’s statement that he is going to check on the Josh Gordon reinstatement decision, Audrey (@ohitsaudreyy) asks: checking on it? Isn’t he the one who decides?
Technically yes, Goodell has “sole discretion” in decided whether Gordon is reinstated. However, and I believe this is what Goodell was referring to, he receives a recommendation from the NFL’s Medical Director and Medical Advisor who reviews the relevant documents and interviews Gordon. Here is an explanation of what it will take for Gordon to be reinstated.
After Erin Andrews’ attorneys filed a request with the court seek that the Marriott Nashville and hotel operating company be held liable for the FULL $55M verdict, James Vlahakis (@jvlaha) asks: so what you are saying is that our instant legal analysis post verdict is what Erin Andrews’ lawyers are now arguing?
Ok, now I am bragging a little. James and I identified this point shortly after the verdict came out while all of mainstream media was reporting that there is no way Andrews would recover the full amount. The legal reasoning is fascinating, as there is actually now a Tennessee law in place that would prohibit this from happening but since the incident took place before the law was in place, it does not apply to this case. Check out our full explanation.
Have a sportslaw question? Ask it in the comments or reach out to us on twitter (@TheWhiteBronco).