Before Patriots fans get too outraged about the federal appeals court decision upholding Tom Brady’s suspension, they should know that the court was clearly right under long-established law.

The key concept is that the decision of an arbitrator (a private judge) is a creature of a contract (in this case, the agreement between the NFL Players Association and the NFL), a type of contract long sanctioned by the law going back decades.

The parties bargained for an arbitrator’s decision to decide quickly and efficiently disputes under their contract. Courts routinely uphold the “benefit of the bargain”; in this case, an arbitrator’s final and binding decision on disputes that either party raises under the contract.

Why would clients and their lawyers contest something so well-settled not only by their contract, but also by the law?

Simple! It’s part of an increasingly prevalent legal strategy to obfuscate for the benefit of public and supporters, increase costs for an opponent and delay implementation of adverse rulings, like the arbitrator knocking Brady out of action for four games.

The Press Herald’s Monday story on the ruling had a helpful online link to the actual 30-plus-page decision of the appeals court. It would be a salutary exercise for readers, especially Patriots and Brady fans, to review the court’s decision. The recitation of facts by the court reveals a very unflattering portrait of their hero in his actions off the field in this case.

Although all this is probably disappointing to fans, there is perhaps an object lesson in this story that parents might pass along to their kids who are sports enthusiasts. That is, it’s OK to celebrate an athlete’s skill on the field. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the athlete is always a good person whose conduct off the field should be emulated.

David Plimpton

Cape Elizabeth