It's a Rich Man's World

It wasn’t domestic violence, drunk driving, PEDs or even possession of a firearm. Even more surprising is that the embarrassing act that damaged the “NFL shield”, wasn’t conducted by a player, but rather an owner. Robert Kraft, the owner of the Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots, was charged on two counts of soliciting sex in South Florida. The location of the alleged solicitation was at an Asian massage parlor located in Jupiter, Florida. It was further reported that those persons being paid to perform such acts were victims of human trafficking. Regardless of the legal consequences Kraft may face, it seems that the NFL will level its own consequences against Kraft. However, what punishment Goodell decides to enact against Kraft (essentially one of his bosses) isn’t clear.

First it is important to determine what authority the Commissioner, Goodell, has to arbitrate Kraft’s alleged misdeeds. Section 8.3(E) of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws state, “The Commissioner shall have full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate: Any dispute involve a member or members in the league. . . that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football.” In this case, especially with the fact that law enforcement agencies claim to have video evidence of Kraft paying for sexual favors, that Mr. Kraft’s conduct would be considered “conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League.”

Next it must be determined what disciplinary action the Commissioner may take, if he finds that Mr. Kraft, after proper notice and hearing is provided to Mr. Kraft, is guilty of conduct detrimental to the league. Section 8.13(A) lists, for this type of issue, two possible sanctions that Goodell can enact himself:

1. Suspend or fine such person in an amount not in excess of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)
2. Cancel any contract or agreement of such person with the League or with any member thereof

The Commissioner may also, according to Section 8.13(B), “whenever the Commissioner determines that any punishment that the Commissioner has the power to impose pursuant to Section 8.13(A), is not adequate or sufficient, considering the nature and gravity of the offense involved, he may refer the matter to the Executive Committee, with the recommendation that all or any part of the following additional or increased punishments or discipline be imposed:”

1. Cancellation or forfeiture of the franchise in the League of any member club involved or implicated.
2. Require the sale of any stock or interest in a member club of such offending person
3. Make any other recommendation he deems appropriate

If the Executive committee does decide to pursue any of these disciplinary actions, the actions must be approved by two-third of the league members.

Precedent in determining how to go about appropriately punishing an NFL owner is hard-pressed. The most recent was Jim Irsay, the Colts owner, who in 2014 pleaded guilty to driving while impaired. In that situation Goodell fined Irsay $500,000 and suspended him for six games. The issue with using this as a similar punishment is twofold. One, Irsay was hardly punished. Irsay, according to Forbes, is worth $2.7B. A $500,000 fine isn’t even 1% of his worth. So, to “punish” Kraft with engaging in a crime more heinous than driving impaired, as human trafficking has become a global epidemic, would be an embarrassment. Irsay’s six game suspension is nominal. Irsay, as an owner, plays no significant part of a team’s weekly preparation and him not being able to watch the game at “his” stadium just means he watches from one of his many houses. So, to suspend an owner is worth very little. The penalty must be focused on what an NFL owner loves most – his money.

The NFL’s governance prevents it from adequately enacting punishment. First, Goodell’s punishments (8.12), are either extremely weak ($500,000 fine) or do not seem applicable to the situation. Therefore, it would seem that Goodell would recommend one of the sanctions that the Executive Committee may decide upon. The cancellation of the franchise or the League would set a too extreme precedent and also possibly cause players to be out of work and so would cause more victims. However, requiring Kraft to sell stock or interest in his team may be adequate. The Patriots do not have any minority owners. In turn, causing Kraft to lose complete control of the New England Patriots, which would cause him to incur a loss of revenue, may be the solution that the NFL would want to proscribe. Kraft’s criminality stems from something more egregious than Irsay driving impaired and requires a penalty that isn’t paltry and nominal. However, the way the NFL is governed prevents this sanction from occurring.

Furthermore, any sanction the Executive Committee may decide upon must be voted and approved by at least two-thirds of the league owners. The league owners understand that however they decide to deal with Kraft will set a precedent for future owners who engage in egregious behavior. More importantly, no owner wants to set a precedent which may force him to sell part of his stake, especially, like Kraft, the owner is the sole interest holder of his franchise. This is unfortunate because causing the owners to police themselves seems both arbitrary and risk prone. It seems most likely that the Executive Committee will issue a fine that is larger than $500,000. However, Kraft is an owner worth $6.6B, so even a $500 million fine is pennies.

The owners need to make sure they put morals over their own interests (i.e. greed). Surely the owners can admit that the NFL has been a complete PR nightmare since 2014. From the mishandling of domestic violence cases (Kareem Hunt and Ray Rice), to having to settle with Colin Kaepernick over his national anthem protests it seems the NFL, and its owners, could use some good publicity. Remember this is the league who USA Today keeps a “Player Arrest Database,” that isn’t necessarily a glowing reputation. In all likelihood the NFL won’t change its arbitrary governance, and so the common man must rely upon the rich to hold themselves accountable and punish their own who so willfully promulgates the disgusting enterprise that is human trafficking.