Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
Goodell has had his rulings overturned regarding Rice, Peterson and now Brady. I agree with the "overreach" in the first two rulings, but I think it's perfectly within the NFL's rights to make decisions like the one regarding Brady. They might have screwed it up, but I think if you are going to let the courts pop in to overrule things that are related ONLY to the sport that the commissioner is responsible for (which the Rice and Peterson things were not), then you've opened the doors for all sorts of things;i.e-any time ANY fine or punishment is imposed in ANY sport, we're off to court. If a commissioner can't do his job, just get rid of him.
|
What you "think" is "perfectly within the NFL's rights" does not reflect the legal standard of review of the Commissioner's decision, as properly articulated by the court.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA''), "the validity of an award is subject to attack
only on those grounds listed in [9 U.S.C.] § 10, and the policy of the FAA requires that an award
be enforced unless one of those grounds is affirmatively shown to exist." Wall Street Assocs.
L.P. v. Becker Pari bas Inc., 27 F .3d 845, 849 (2d Cir. 1994). For example, FAA § I 0 provides
that the Court may vacate an arbitral award "where the arbitrators were guilty of ... refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy." 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(3). The Court may
also vacate an arbitral award "where there was evident partiality ... " 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(2).
A "principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement, since the arbitrator is not free to merely
dispense his own brand of industrial justice." 187 Concourse Assocs. v. Fishman, 399 F.3d 524,
527 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Saint Marv Home, Inc. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116
F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 1997)). "[A]s the proctor of the bar gain, the arbitrator's task is to effectuate
the intent of the parties. His source of authority is the collective-bargaining agreement, and he
must interpret and apply that agreement in accordance with the 'industrial common law of the
shop' and the various needs and desires of the parties." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters,
954 F.2d 801, 809 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 94 S. Ct. 1011,
1022 (1974)) (emphasis omitted).
It is the "law of the shop" to provide professional football players with advance notice of
prohibited conduct and potential discipline.