
The league and the NFLPA have disagreed for years over Goodell’s authority to punish players who violate the personal conduct policy. The union wants a neutral arbiter to issue discipline. The NFL won’t relent.
So why didn’t the NFLPA fight harder to take central power away from Goodell during the last negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement in 2011?
It’s not that simple.
The perception that the union fell short on this issue gained steamed Monday when a federal appeals court ruled 2-to-1 that Goodell did not deprive Brady of “fundamental fairness” with his procedural rulings.
But the players and the union had bigger priorities in 2011 when the owners locked them out. Player safety, revenue sharing, salary cap and an 18-game season were just some of the important issues that impact all players. Disciplinary power in the Commissioner’s hands affects only a small percentage of players every year. It wasn’t a problem when Paul Tagliabue, Pete Rozelle and others held the office and it wasn’t a problem under Goodell until recently.
“That authority has been recognized by many courts and has been expressly incorporated into every collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and NFLPA for the past 40 years,” league spokesman Brian McCarthy said.
The NFLPA successfully negotiated for neutral arbitration for on-field discipline in 2010. Four years later, the union gained independent arbitration for drug violations. Those were major wins for the players’ association because most disciplinary cases fall under these two categories.
“Collective bargaining is a tough process that results in a massive contract that governs the way labor interacts with management,”
NFLPA spokesman George Atallah told The Associated Press. “To say that the union ‘gave up’ anything in 2011 is, frankly, ignorant. Player leadership sets negotiating priorities on wages, hours, working conditions and rights based on the gains earned in prior negotiations and contracts.
“When a collective bargaining agreement is signed, there is an expectation that both parties will honor it. If the union believes — as we did in the so-called ‘Bounty’ case, the Ray Rice matter and even more recently in the Salary Cap case — that the NFL violated this contract, we challenge their abuse of power.”
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less