In the legal battle between the National Football League and Tom Brady, the New England Patriots are firmly on the side of their starting quarterback. They reminded us of that again this week.
Bob McGovern of the Boston Herald reports that the Patriots filed an amicus brief on Wednesday, May 25, that voiced a strong opinion about the NFL‘s investigation of Brady and what they call clear violations of the current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players.
The brief makes several points in its argument that the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals should re-hear the case.
- The Wells Report, which NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell based his four-game suspension of Brady upon in part, was biased against Brady from the beginning. The report is also flawed in its methodology and findings.
- Brady’s attorneys, hired by the NFL Players’ Association, were denied key pieces of evidence in the arbitration proceedings with Goodell.
- The four-game suspension given to Brady is outside of the language of the current CBA and therefore the Commissioner did not have the authority to impose, much less enforce, the suspension.
- Upholding the suspension went against legal precedents established in previous labor relations cases.
This move isn’t hard to understand, New England has given up $28 million of its cap space over the next two seasons on Brady. He is the face of the franchise, and their monetization potential is greater with him on the field than on the bench. At the same time, it’s interesting from a labor relations standpoint.
In filing this brief, the Patriots have sat down on the opposite side of the CBA table. Protecting their business is obviously a higher priority than solidarity with the league that represents them in CBA negotiations. While that’s comprehensible for the aforementioned reasons, it begs the question of whether or not there will be some distrust between factions of the league due to these proceedings when the time comes for a new CBA.
Brady’s cause has also been augmented by another amicus brief filed by his representation and signed on to by over 20 college and university professors testifying to the flaws of the Wells Report. The brief states that the deflation reported could have just as easily been due to atmospheric and temperature changes as intentional deflation.
Whether the science supports Brady is irrelevant next to whether or not the law does, but there is no doubt that New England has Brady’s back.
Main Photo:
