I recently published an article on a friend of the site, LawInsport.com, which is in my opinion, the best international sports law website out there. The article updated a previous one I wrote for LawInSport, and brought the two recent appellate court decisions in Deflategate and Peterson full circle. Here is an excerpt, you can check out the full article here:
“The Deflategate and Peterson appeals rulings demonstrate the near absolute deference that U.S. courts give to parties who contractually agree to a discipline process through collective bargaining. In hindsight, the NFLPA likely wishes that they would have demanded changes to the NFL’s discipline arbitration process during the 2011 collective bargaining negotiations, including the use of a third-party arbitrator.
However, upon closer examination, it is not difficult to see how this issue was pushed to the back burner. While NFL discipline disputes frequent headlines in the U.S., they only impact a handful of players each season – none of which anticipate getting in trouble. Thus, when the players were faced with the option to take a larger cut of the League’s revenue or to modify the discipline appeals system (impacting only a few players a year), one can imagine why they chose the former.”