The disciplinary proceedings also have raised a question: Could the NFL Players Association have done more in the last round of collective bargaining, in 2011, to curb the commissioner's power? Goodell holds the hammer in matters of punishment; did the players hand it to him?
It is a simple question with a complex answer, one that requires a deeper read of history than the past four years and an understanding of the pressures the NFLPA faced at the time. Without dispute, the NFLPA walked away from negotiations with a deal that granted the commissioner broad disciplinary powers. But overlooked is that the existing agreement each side walked into four years ago granted the commissioner those same broad disciplinary powers.
"I think that's a bit of a misconception, that we negotiated that into the CBA," said former Washington Redskins guard Pete Kendall, who worked for the union during the 2011 talks. "There was a fair bit of discussion trying to negotiate it out. I can see people saying, 'They should have negotiated out.' Well, it's a negotiation."
Goodell's current authority derives from the language of Article 46 in the current collective bargaining agreement, the document the Players Association agreed to that ended the lockout before players missed games and, more pressing, paychecks. Article 46 specifies the commissioner can levy punishment "for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football" and also can hear the appeals of any punishments.
Leadership from the Players Association points out that the commissioner's broad powers have been unchanged since 1968 under Pete Rozelle. While the introduction of the Personal Conduct Policy in 2007 changed the landscape, the NFL commissioner — and the commissioner in every major professional sport — always has held the gavel.
"The only difference this time is, we haven't had these problems in the past, because the commissioner has adhered to these rules and these due processes," NFLPA President Eric Winston said. "I can't think of when [Paul] Tagliabue went through this. We didn't go through this with Tagliabue, because he adhered to the rules and adhered to the process. When Roger Goodell did step outside those rules, we beat him back."
- - -
The NFLPA entered the 2011 negotiation with three top priorities, according to Kendall: the revenue split between owners and players, the rookie pay scale and player safety issues. They discussed the personal conduct policy, but the NFL wanted no part of changing it. In order to erode Goodell's authority, the players would have to sacrifice elsewhere.
"Not to oversimplify," Kendall said, "but would playing two extra games to remove that authority from the commissioner's office have been worth it?"
The consensus was a clear no. There was some resistance: The Pittsburgh Steelers voted against the final CBA because their players became wary of the power the agreement gave the commissioner. But the other 29 teams voted for it, and those at the table believed the language of Article 46 was not worth making concessions for.
"It's one of those issues that was difficult to stand and fight for," said one retired player who requested anonymity to speak freely. "If that's the pivotal issue, nobody assumes they're ever going to be on the discipline side of an issue. Everyone assumes they're never going to be in that position. If we're going to give up something, do we want to give up something to help players who get in trouble?"
Despite the attention paid to high-profile cases, the players affected by the language in Article 46 represent a tiny percentage of the union.
"It was important to Roger to have that authority," Kendall said. "What do people think the players should have given up? Because there's so much media attention, you would think what players might term 'abuses' by the commissioner is happening three times a week. But it's less than a handful of guys over a handful of years."
"What percent of players are actually punished under this policy?" University of New Hampshire sports law professor Michael McCann said. "It's pretty tiny. To me, it makes rational sense that the Players Association would focus on policies that affect all players in general instead of 1 or 2 percent."
The small number of players affected owes, in part, to changes the Players Association has made to the commissioner's power. Before 2011, the commissioner decided on-field fines. Now, two arbitrators agreed upon by the NFLPA and the league determine them. The sides agreed to let neutral arbitrators settle disputes relating to the drug-testing policy last year, too.
"That's 95 percent of what players get fined for," Winston said. "This is the last part of the commissioner powers. But the commissioner's discipline, to be frank, it hasn't been done correctly."
- - -
It is frequently stated that Goodell has unchecked power. But there are checks within the CBA's language, and the NFLPA has used them to win appeals. A former federal judge overruled Rice's indefinite suspension — the second penalty Goodell levied against him, after the video of him punching his fiancée became public — by determining the punishment to be arbitrary, and thus in violation of the CBA. A federal judge made a similar reversal in Peterson's case. In two high-profile cases, the CBA did not prevent the NFLPA from winning appeals.
"I'll be the first one to say: It's a bigger box than I'd like," Winston said. "But it is a box. There are parameters in which he can operate. This was not a problem when Commissioner Tagliabue was in office."
Some on the players' side believe Goodell has been overstepping his authority as a strategic, public-relations cudgel. The indefinite suspension of Rice provided the NFL the appearance of acting harshly against Rice. It forced the NFLPA to defend the procedural rights of a player who had been caught beating his fiancée on video. Even if the suspension didn't stick, it accomplished three things: It made the NFL look tough, it made the commissioner's authority appear to be even more sweeping than it is and it forced the NFLPA into an awkward public stance.
"I don't know that you could say just because the players won, the commissioner or the league lost," Kendall said. "I think they read the language the same way we do. I don't think the outcomes on appeal are shocking to them. Because they have the ability to punish first and appeal later, that's what they've done. . . . The crime and the punishment are front-page items. The resolution of the appeal and how it plays out, that's sort of the fine print. I don't know that they don't know that."
For the foreseeable future, the Players Association most likely will have to continue to fight under the language of Article 46. The CBA does not expire until 2021, and "the language itself is set in stone," McCann said.
Still, the NFLPA and NFL have amended the CBA without the pressure of a lockout several times since 2011. The Players Association would like to discuss changing the commissioner's authority prior to the next labor talks. For it to happen, as they have found out before, they may need to sacrifice something else they have been unwilling to give up.
Share
