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.

Kaepernick Wins, Owners Horrified of What They Really Are

By: Kris Mead

Love was in the air this Valentine’s Day and, although a day late, none could be “stronger” than the love “reconciled” between the NFL and ex-NFL quarterback, Colin Kaepernick and Panther’s safety, Eric Reid. "As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party,” announced in a joint statement by the NFL and Colin Kaepernick’s/Reid’s representatives regarding Kaepernick’s/Reid’s collusion claim. Kaepernick and Reid were never signed by a team because of, they allege, their pregame kneeling during the national anthem as a protest against police brutality. Although half of this short message is the explicit statement that the resolution cannot be discussed, it is imperative to understand what this announcement concedes -  Kaepernick won the “breakup”.

There are two reasons why this statement is so stunning:

1. The nature of the NFL
2. What we already know

The timing of the joint statement is significant because although the NFL has still yet come to a conclusive definition of what is a “catch,” they have mastered the art of public relations. This is because the NFL is a beast that denies literally everything that may, in any way, cause it to incur negative publicity. For instance, CTE, which medical experts have determined to be generated from repeated blows to the head, has been deemed by the NFL to hold the same equivalence as to saying God’s name in vein. The NFL has also mastered the art of dealing with domestic violence offenders, albeit in an inconsistent manner. Kareem Hunt, former Kansas City Chief running back and now recently signed by the Cleveland Browns, was released from the squad after a video surfaced of him throwing and kicking a woman in a Cleveland apartment lobby. The NFL and Chiefs were aware of this incident and two prior violent incidents Hunt had been involved in over the previous offseason, and stated that, “We did know about all three of the incidents he’d had in the offseason," Clark Hunt [Chief’s Owner] said. "They’d all been reported to the NFL and the NFL was investigating.” Terrific, the NFL was aware of three issues with Hunt, did not announce these concerns, and it is probable to say that the NFL would have done nothing with the matter if it wasn’t for TMZ releasing the video of Hunt abusing a woman. Then the NFL and the Chiefs quickly announced that they never saw the video, which is the same excuse they used when TMZ released the Ray Rice elevator video in 2014. Even more interesting is that the NFL has yet to conclude its investigation regarding Hunt, even though the NFL was investigating the Hunt incident prior to the release of the video (i.e. nearly a year). In turn, suffice it to say, shouldn’t it take less time to render a verdict, especially with the explicit video being released?

Actually, the NFL has rendered a verdict on much less evidence – Ezekiel Elliott. Elliott was eventually suspended for six games, but the NFL had to fight for the confusingly ruled suspension to stick. Reported by Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post, “Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York not only delayed Elliott's six-game suspension Tuesday evening, but did so with a sharply worded ruling that found "significant issues implicating the fundamental fairness of the arbitration proceeding." In another appeal Jenkins reported that Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas, “laid into Goodell and his handpicked rubber-stamp arbitrator, Harold Henderson, for turning "a blind eye" to basic facts and fairness in Elliott's case.” These examples show that the NFL is an authoritarian enterprise that will fight tooth and nail to make sure that it is right, no matter how frivolous and irrational the evidence they may rest upon to support their immoral and arbitrary judgement may be.

Then there is the fact that the NFL has historically been known to be governed, ruled, and controlled by extremely rich, big headed, white billionaires since its inception. This is the same league who had a team president, Tex Schramm of the Dallas Cowboys, announce to the NFL Players Union Chief, Gene Upshaw, in response to the 1987 Players Strike, “You guys are cattle and we’re the ranchers, and ranchers can always get more cattle.” So it really should come as no surprise that in a league owners meeting, back in the fall of 2017 over the issue about whether players should be punished for not standing for the national anthem, that late Houston Texans Owner Bob McNair stated, “We can’t have the inmates running the prison.” Further, that directly after McNair’s comment, according to a meeting source, “there was no uproar” over it. It should also be no surprise that racist NFL owner, Dan Snyder, refused to sign Colin Kaepernick in 2018, after his pro-bowl caliber quarterback, Alex Smith, went down with a season ending leg injury. It was reported by, Dave Caldwell of Forbes, that, “Although coach Jay Gruden insisted Kaepernick’s skills did not fit the offense, Snyder could not get over that kneeling thing -- a silent stance protest that was adopted by many other NFL players. Donald Trump, not to mention many of NFL owners, clearly hated the idea.” Poor Jay Gruden had to waltz out to the media, with a straight face and claim that the likes of “Mr. Buttfumble” (Mark Sanchez) and Josh Johnson (who’s he? Exactly.) are better players than Colin Kaepernick (a player who took a team to the Super Bowl) and that’s the reason they signed these quarterbacks over Kaepernick.  It should be taken into account that hell would have to freeze over before the most racist owner in sport, Dan Snyder, signed Kaepernick. If Snyder had to choose between a paraplegic and Kaepernick to play quarterback, Snyder would pick the crippled and then claim that he picks the disabled person because he “obviously” is a better fit for his team. Snyder says this sort of stuff the same way that he doesn’t understand how his team name of “Redskins” could be construed in anyway to be racist. One last example occurred in a more progressive region of the country – Seattle. The Seahawks were looking to workout Colin Kaepernick to back up their pro-bowl quarterback, Russell Wilson. However, no such workout would ever occur as the Seahawks inexplicitly canceled it. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, “After arranging for Colin Kaepernick to work out for the Seattle Seahawks this week, team officials postponed the trip when the quarterback declined to say he would stop kneeling during the national anthem next season, a league source told ESPN on Thursday.” So instead the Seahawks would sign Stephen Morris (who’s he? Exactly.) as their backup quarterback. What each of these examples shows is what Dan Rooney, former owner and son of the Pittsburgh Steelers founder Art Rooney, stated in his autobiography about the owners during the 1987 Players Strike, “[the owners] wanted to beat down the players, not make a deal with them.”

So, after reviewing the nature of the NFL and its governance, as well as its history in dealing with players and Kaepernick’s anthem kneeling issue, it is easy to realize how the settlement is a win for Kaepernick and a loss for the NFL. The joint statement between the NFL and Kaepernick/Reid was released late on the Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend. It’s the same tactic Trump used when he announced he would be shutting down the government prior to the Christmas holiday. Those in control, in this case the owners, only do this sort of thing when they know they are about to do something that is embarrassing towards them.

However, what’s even more striking is the fact that if a settlement was embarrassing for the NFL and they still did it, a trial over Kaepernick’s and Reid’s collusion claim would have been even more embarrassing for the NFL. Remember this is the league who refuses to settle because it appears they believe a settlement equates to a loss. Look no further than how they took Tom Brady over “deflategate” almost to the steps of the United States Supreme Court. Think about this, the NFL was about to try and petition a court which handles heavy issues such as abortion and gerrymandering over underinflated footballs! Remember this is the same league which, after several appeals, punished Ezekiel Elliott after being publicly embarrassed by two federal judges for their lack of due process and fairness. So, they are going to just settle with Kaepernick? A player who has, without stepping on the field for over two years, been able to systematically alter the NFL from players still protesting, to performers reneging on their willingness to perform at the Super Bowl halftime as an act of solidarity towards Kaepernick, to Nike running an ad with Kaepernick (which boosted Nike’s sales), and to “czar” Roger Goodell, as a publicity stunt, taking a tour of the National Center for Civil and Human Rights in Atlanta during Super Bowl Weekend. However, the real reason the NFL settled is the fact that the NFL would be embarrassed with what may come out if they had to go to trial. There is a very good chance that the owners did not act together to block Kaepernick from playing, but it is even more likely that most of the owners are what they appear to be in the above paragraph – rich racists. Kaepernick may not have been able to win his collusion claim, but he may have been able to publicly embarrass the owners through their own testimony.  A testimony which would reveal the owners independently acted upon their individual racist thoughts in order to prevent Kaepernick from playing for his manner of protesting police brutality against minorities. 

 

College Football Coaches Created a Crisis, That Only They Can Solve

As of February 5, 2019, 1,454 Division I college football players (FBS and FCS) have entered the new NCAA “Transfer Portal.” The Portal is supported by most players and verbally denounced by coaches. Ironically, although football coaches routinely express anger towards the portal in front of the press, they are the culprits to its increased use.

The Transfer Portal for football players was officially released on October 15, 2018. The opening of the Transfer Portal was accompanied by a significantly more lenient college football transfer policy. In past years a player had to ask for permission from their current school to leave and had to “demonstrate egregious behavior by a program or truly extraordinary circumstances . . ..” Now under the new policy a player must meet the following requirements in order to transfer:




1. Player must be academically and athletically eligible




2. Player must not receive any opposition from the school they are leaving




3. And “show the transfer is due to documented mitigating circumstances that are outside the student-athlete’s control and directly impact the health, safety and well-being of the student-athlete.”




It would appear that these requirements would be hard to meet, especially when considering there isn’t any precedent set for what constitutes “mitigating circumstances.” However, according to an ESPN article written by Adam Rittenberg and Tom VanHaaran, “[t]he NCAA’s most recent data points a positive picture for those who actually go through the waiver-application process . . . 79.7 percent received approvals.” The lenient policy is the first major win for the “free” labor in the multimillion dollar industry that they uphold. That being said, the millionaires who coach them are not impressed with this policy and have been claiming that this lenient policy may not only cripple college football (which is farfetched) but that it may “destroy” the future of America (if America was going to be destroyed it’s going to happen now under President Trump, not due to some 20-year-old trying to transfer to another state school to play football).

Coaches have listed three reasons, each of which is futile, for their opposition to the new transfer policy:




1. Teaching our society to be “soft”




2. We need to think of their education




3. We need to think of the high school coaches and players




The “making our kids soft” argument has been protolyzed by numerous coaches to the media. It is an interesting kind of argument because it seems to be more of a ploy of a type of “argument” rather than a substantive argument. The “it’s teaching our society to be soft” phrase is the same type of argument that is used when people hear rebel rousing Trump fanatics cry out, “I hate all the political correctness!” These arguments suggest two items: The speaker is (1) expressing how he/she misses the past; (2) because something in the past, that is now being taken away, made their lives easier.




So, as an example, when a presumably white, middle age male cries out how he voted for Trump because “society these days is becoming too politically correct,” he really is wishing that society would return to a time when society wasn’t so “politically correct.” In other words, this person wants to return to a time when his culture (again, presumably a white, adult male) did not have to watch what he said as much – this is known as “white privilege.” To ask that Americans be more cognizant and recognize other Americans’ cultures isn’t to suggest that American society is becoming “too insecure.” it’s to suggest that Americans are becoming more intellectual, and also understanding that white privilege is wrong.




Likewise, when Penn State’s head football coach, James Franklin, asks, “[h]ow do you learn to overcome adversity and fight through battles and learn to compete? I worry about that for our sport; I worry about that for kids and our country. The path of least resistance very rarely is the answer. How do you have discipline and structure and tough conversations in your program if there’s always a Plan B, an outlet with no real repercussions?” Franklin asserts this under the same veil worn by those who cry out against the horrors of “political correctness.”

What James Franklin doesn’t want to disclose is that the lenient transfer policy takes some of his absolute control and transfers it to the players. Franklin attempts to assume the role of the paternal figure, thinking in the best interest of his free labor who, ironically, is the same free labor that yielded him with a six-year contract worth $5.8M per year. Franklin, outlandishly, goes so far as to say that this transfer policy will not only destroy his sport, but America as well. Franklin’s fear mongering projects his own fear that he can no longer be the complete autocratic ruler that his past predecessors were able to be in a college football locker-rooms. In other words, like the white man acting out against “political correctness” because it forces him to relinquish power and control, Franklin is acting out against the “transfer policy” because it forces him, as a coach, to have to change his attitude towards the free labor over which he enjoyed complete control prior.




One attitude that Franklin, as well as other NCAA football coaches, will need to amend is the fact that they routinely lie to high school recruits in an effort for the coach to get them into their program. As stated in the ESPN article, “[Players] have monitored recent recruiting trends, which include prospects playing early in their careers and coaches adding multiple quarterbacks in a single class.” Two arguments are illustrated here. The first is that more prospects are playing earlier in their careers, and the second being that coaches are adding multiple players of the same position in the same recruiting class.




The latter argument is important more so for positions in which only one is required on the field at a time – quarterback. Ohio State provides a great example of this issue. Tate Martell was the second-best quarterback in the 2017 college football recruiting and the 39th ranked best player in his class. To say the least, Martell was expecting to play in his college career at Ohio State. That would not occur. The reason being is because Justin Fields, who was the top quarterback in the 2018 recruiting class, has decided to transfer from Georgia to Ohio State. Tate Martell, realizing that he was no longer slated to be the Ohio State starting quarterback, decided to transfer to a program where he would see meaningful playing time. The argument goes that Martell should have “battled” Fields for the starting position because that was “how it was done back in the day.” However, “back in the day” also provided seniority to those who were upperclassmen. A freshman or sophomore starting at quarterback was unheard of unless the upperclassmen were injured. This has changed as many freshmen have routinely beaten out their upperclassmen competition. Look no further than the reigning 2019 National Champion, Clemson Tigers. They started the season with their senior quarterback, Kelly Bryant, who was replaced, not due to any bad play or team losses, but because he was simply outplayed by phenom freshman quarterback – Trevor Lawrence. Kelly has transferred to play quarterback at the University of Missouri.




The fact that “many [coaches] cite stories of how older players fought through adversity early in their careers, stayed with the program and became stars or major contributors” seems hollow. Tate Martell as a freshman was redshirted and sat behind J.T. Barrett. Then the following year Martell backed up Dwayne Haskins. Then, when in his redshirt junior year, Martell again saw his starting quarterback dream plummet when Ohio State coaches paraded sophomore Justin Fields around campus and introduced him during halftime of an OSU men’s basketball game. I don’t think OSU could have given Martell a better sign that if he stayed he wouldn’t see the field. In turn, this example proves the coaches’ argument that “players are becoming soft” is completely false. More importantly, players are learning to look out for themselves rather than abide by loyalty to a coach or a team, especially when that coach or team assumes no loyalty towards them.




The second argument coaches make is the “student-athlete” argument. The increase in transfers under the new NCAA Transfer Policy “greatly concerns some coaches and administrators who . . . say it not only hurts teams that players are leaving but decreases the chances of graduation for those transferring without sitting.” In the old transfer system, a player who transferred for no extreme reason was forced to sit out a season. This penalty seemed frivolous because it wasn’t exactly clear what the purpose behind the need for a player to sit out a year was for. That’s one reason, it seems, the NCAA has chosen to move forward with this more lenient transfer policy. More importantly, the players who are transferring are doing so because, like Tate Martell or Justin Fields, they know they are capable of starting. Unlike what most coaches claim, these top recruits didn’t come to college to gain an education, but because it is the only route to their true dream job – playing in the NFL. Juwan Johnson, a graduate transfer from Penn State stated, “a lot of the time, people transfer because they can’t play at the school that they’re at . . . I feel like people should be playing because you only have so many years to show what you got before trying to fulfill your dream in the NFL. . . sitting out a year is tough on anybody.” Juwan’s logic should come as no surprise to rational college football fans. College football players’ first priority is to play. Education comes somewhere further down the priority list.




Coaches who use the education argument should do more to make it more convincing. Too many athletes receive worthless degrees, but colleges and coaches can state that their program rests on its players receiving an adequate education. The coaches fail to state that the degrees most players receive will help them very little in getting them a job anywhere five feet away from the gridiron. In an article written by SBNation’s Kevin Trahan called, Athletes are Getting Degrees, but Does That Actually Mean Anything?, it finds that there is a, “[f]ocus on eligibility rather than education . . . [colleges] put [players] in easy majors – and things that aren’t even majors . . . These majors allow players to get easy degrees that give them little chance of finding a job consistent with their peers, many of whom had more time and academic prowess to spend on more challenging majors or will go to graduate school.” So, coaches who claim that the new transfer policy places players in harm of not finishing their education fail to grasp the greater question – are the players even receiving a meaningful education under the current formula? The answer seems to be an unequivocal “no.”




The last futile argument that coaches make is that the new transfer policy will hurt high school football players entering college. “Penn State’s Franklin said some high school coaches are becoming concerned about their top players competing with transfers for scholarship spots.” However, Franklin, and all coaches can only blame themselves for this fear. That is because if a coach doesn’t want his current quarterback to leave, he shouldn’t be trying to entice a high school protégé to come to his program. In addition, if a coach is doing this, he should make clear to the incoming high school player that he will be sitting behind the current starter and/or back up in line. If a coach doesn’t do this then there should be no surprise that there will be an increase in the amount of transfers, especially those that are in the same position in which Clemson’s former quarterback, Kelly Bryant, was placed in. Hence, if there are fewer transfers because coaches are being honest salesman to high schoolers, then high schoolers wouldn’t have to fear having to compete with transfers.






Frankly, coaches who are against the new transfer policy have the power to end this “apocalyptic death sentence” that has been cast upon college football. It’s very simple – coaches can stop permitting transfers to their team. In turn, players could try and put themselves out there to transfer but NCAA football coaches will refuse to offer them a spot on their team. In other words, the authoritarian millionaire college football coaches can still control the labor that makes them so rich. However, this would require each of these millionaires to collectively bind together and refuse to accept transfers. That would not happen though, because what is under each of these three arguments isn’t anything moral but is the very fact that college football coaches love nothing more than winning. Coaches love winning even more than having complete control of their program. Coaches only use the “players are getting soft” argument because they are afraid that they will lose talented players and incur more losses. Coaches only use the “education” excuse because they want to sell the appearance that they are about education over winning games, when they are not. Finally, coaches could care less about high school players feelings, so long as they keep winning.




College football coaches are ruthless liars that rage against even the smallest inclination that a player may receive even an ounce of power and the coach may lose an ounce of his. And that is because, “[t]he goal is to win, and to make winning look good in the process, regardless of the reality.” Coaches have the power to stop the “lenient” transfer policy, but their fear of losing prevents that. So, coaches will continue to lash out at players transferring, while continuing to fuel the need for transfers.

Tools of The NFL: Issue 2 - The NFL Itself

The Commissioner and de facto face of the NFL, Roger Goodell, is routinely jeered by the very fans that provide life to his business. It is ironic that the most viewed sports draft (in terms of the “big three” American professional sports: MLB, NBA, and NFL) initiates with a rousing rebuke as fans drown out Goodell’s sheepishly, whimpering voice during the opening of the NFL draft. It is also ironic that the NFL season ends with the same nasty rebuke as fans jeer Goodell when he hands the Super Bowl victors with the Lombardy Trophy. Why is the man, the face of the most popular form of live entertainment, hated by the very people who prop up his lucrative enterprise? It is due to a lack of governance.

The Commissioner receives his power from Article VIII, Section 8.1 of the NFL’s Constitution and Bylaws. Section 8.1 states:

“The League shall select and employ a person of unquestionable integrity to serve as Commissioner of the League and shall determine the period and fix the compensation of his employment. All voting requirements and procedures for the selection of or successor to the office of Commissioner shall be determined by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds or 18, whichever is greater, of the members of the League.”

In short, the Commissioner receives his power from the franchise owners. Furthermore, these owners also determine whether his term will be renewed or not. Assuming the Commissioner has the same self-serving, greedy instincts as his bosses (the franchise owners) then Goodell will make sure he does all in his power to please at least 22 owners (two-thirds), thus extending his term as commissioner.

This form of power and authority has a democratic semblance because a “vote” occurs. Unlike in a political democracy, in which the people elect a political figure to govern over them with limited authority, “corporate democracy” (which goes along with “jumbo shrimp” and “business ethics” as examples of oxymorons) has an oligarchy choose the leader who does not need to answer to the governed.  For the most part this is because a corporate CEO must be responsive to the shareholders, who elect the directors who then elect the CEO. This corporate governance, though, poses an issue when the shareholders are absent from the equation – like in the NFL.

The NFL is a private entity in which its power is derived from 32 billionaires who each own a distinct franchise within the league. As stated earlier, two-thirds of these billionaires must elect a “person with unquestionable integrity” (whatever that means) to be Commissioner of the league. The Commissioner is then provided with vast jurisdiction to resolve disputes between any combination of players, officials, team employees, owners, and coaches of the NFL. Furthermore, under Article VIII Section 8.3:

“The Commissioner shall have full, complete and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate: any dispute involving a member or members in the League or any players or employees . . .of the League . . . that in the opinion of the Commissioner constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interest of the League or professional football.”

So essentially the Commissioner has complete judicial authority over the league, yet also has a vested interest to remain in good favor with the owners, or in laymen terms, his bosses. More importantly, if there was a dispute between a player and an owner, Goodell is in charge of remedying the situation. That hardly seems like a fair form of mediation, considering Goodell receives his paycheck from the owners. There is a real-life example of this very situation happening – Ray Rice.

Most people have a good understanding of the Ray Rice situation in which he knocked out his then fiancé in an Atlantic City hotel elevator and was caught on video committing said act. The NFL, Goodell at first, issued Rice a two-game suspension. This punishment quickly shifted after the public received video of the actual punch. The NFL claimed they had not seen the video prior to it being released to the public. This fact is disputed and, according to an ESPN article written by Don Van Natta Jr. and Van Valkenburg, “When evidence of it [the elevator video] surfaced anyway, the NFL and the Ravens quickly shifted gears and simultaneously attempted to pin the blame on Rice and his alleged lack of truthfulness with Goodell about what had happened in the elevator.” The NFL, in an attempt to look as though they never saw the elevator video prior, which seems laughable considering the NFL is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and also the very fact that TMZ (who was the entity who released the elevator video) was able to obtain a copy of the video by, according to one of its journalist, “in one phone call.” Furthermore, as referenced in the ESPN article, there is ample evidence that the NFL had news of the video’s existence from the day after the event occurred.  It stated the Raven’s Director of Security reported such a video to a team executive in Baltimore. More importantly, the Ravens’ President, Dick Cass, was told by Rice’s defense attorney, Michael J. Diamondstein, how horrible the video was. “Cass did not request a copy of the video from Diamondstein but instead began urging Rice’s legal team to get Rice accepted into a pretrial intervention program after being told some of the program’s benefits . . . Among them: It would keep the inside-the elevator footage from becoming public.”

This example is not to defend Ray Rice’s actions but to illustrate how arbitrarily Goodell is able to issue punishment without following any sort of equitable justice.   Despite how the NFL spun it, it does not appear that Rice lied to the NFL, but rather the Ravens desperately did not want their most marketable (and lucrative) player to be released. With Goodell’s help, the Ravens attempted to conceal the video, enabling Goodell to issue a two-game suspension without the worry of public backlash because the public would have trouble comprehending the gruesomeness of Rice’s actions. However, when that plan came to a crashing halt, Goodell had to choose – does he side with the player, who claims he told the complete truth of what happened or does he side with the owner who unethically tried to conceal the facts from reaching the media? For Goodell, the issue was easy – throw the player under the bus and side with the owner who holds power over Goodell’s wallet.

Therefore, to ensure equitable justice in the NFL it is necessary that the method in which the Commissioner is elected is amended. Rather than the owners having the sole power to elect the commissioner, they should be limited. This limitation should be done in such a way that affords the NFL’s assets – its players – a say in who the Commissioner should be. In turn, the NFL players (via through their union representatives) should have the right to nominate three candidates to be the NFL commissioner. From the three candidates nominated by the players, the Owners shall choose, by a two-third vote, one of these candidates to be the next commissioner. The commissioner shall have a five-year term.  At the end of the five-year term the nomination/election process should commence again. No commissioner may serve more than two five year terms.

This simple governance break up will (1) ensure that the players have a say in who governs their league (2) also gives the owners a say in who governs their league and (3) causes the Commissioner to appoint or create a separate department to hear and issue discipline. The third aspect is incredibly important because by altering the way in which the Commissioner is elected (both players and owners having a vote) it incentivizes the Commissioner to remain neutral between players or owners. For instance, by setting up a separate and independent disciplinary body that oversees hearings and issues sanctions, the Commissioner cannot be blamed for a team or player’s punishment. The Commissioner may propose, voted on by the Owners, certain policies that the disciplinary body is to follow over certain issues. For example, if a player is found to be using performance enhancing drugs, he should be suspended for a third of the season. Overall, this change in governance allows for fans to have better trust in the NFL and for there to be less conflict and ambiguity when a player may actually get suspended or punished.

The obvious target for this proposal is the notion that management, who presumably invested money, should have a greater say in how their business is run than the labor that is hired by the management. Furthermore, many would say that the NFL players’ union (NFLPA) is already a body that provides the players with a voice. To the latter statement the NFLPA helps provide the players with many resources, but the players are still required to have their hearing in front of “Czar” Goodell. The union provides them with a forum for defending themselves in front of the judge, jury, and executioner, but the player is hardly afforded a “fighting” chance.

The former notion about management is understandable if the NFL was, say, a manufacturing company that produced cars. Customers are directly paying for the car, not the laborer who put the wheels on the car (indirectly the customer is, yes, but the customer isn’t paying to watch the wheels get fastened onto the car). However, the NFL and all professional sports are unique in which the human capital (i.e. the players) are the very item that fans are paying for. The fans only turn to T.V. or buy a ticket for the NFL’s labor unit and nothing else. Further, the players should be provided a say in the commissioner for the simple reason in that they are in a highly limited employment field. Unlike an accountant, who can find a job at thousands of companies, an NFL running back may only be employed by a finite business – the NFL. In turn, the accountant who doesn’t like a company’s management may leave and find a new job, but an NFL player who doesn’t like management can quit, yes, but his alternatives are slim to none in finding another running back position.

The NFL is the greatest professional sports league, but it is the only league in which the fans boo at both the opener and season finale. That needs to change. 

The AFC May Collapse

By: Kris Mead

As Tom Brady makes his ninth Super Bowl appearance this Sunday, many fans (and presumably players and coaches) are hoping it isn’t just his last championship appearance, but his last NFL football game. If these fans get their wish it will be a detriment, especially to the American Football Conference (“AFC”).

The theory is something similar to Peyton Manning’s Super Bowl victory when he defeated the Carolina Panthers and road off into the sunlight hoisting the Lombardi Trophy. However, Peyton and Tom are two entirely different quarterbacks. Manning won Super Bowl L while his performance was anything, but fluent. In 2015, according to Pro Football Reference, Manning’s 2015 (his last year) performance was statistically not stellar. In 2015 Manning had the lowest QBR of any of his seventeen seasons in the NFL, had the lowest passer rating in his career, and threw the most interceptions in any one of his seasons. If it wasn’t for Denver’s great defense, it would be extremely unlikely that Denver, even with Manning, would have made it to the Super Bowl. On the other hand, if Tom Brady was not the quarterback for the Patriots, it would be unlikely that they would even be representing the AFC in this year’s Super Bowl.

The first issue with this “appeasement theory,” is the fact that Tom himself has said, explicitly that he has no intention of retiring after this season. In an interview with ESPN’s Jeff Darlington, Brady stated “there is zero chance” after the Super Bowl. However, this shouldn’t be a groundbreaking realization as Brady has previously stated that he plans to retire when he turns 45 (currently he is 41).

The second reason why the “appeasement theory” is not beneficial to the NFL, particularly the AFC, is simply because there will be an unequal balance of power. Sure, it could be said that currently the balance of power is unequal because the Patriots have been in four of the past ten super bowls, but, ironically, Peyton Manning and the Pittsburgh Steelers’ quarterback, Ben Rapistberger, have been the balance of power to prevent that number from skyrocketing. In the ten years prior to Peyton’s retirement (2016), Tom made a Super Bowl appearance only three times. One of those appearances was in a season when Peyton was out for the year with a neck injury (2011 Season). Even more alarming is that in those ten years (2007 - 2016 season) Peyton made four super bowl appearances and then Rapistberger had two of those Super Bowl appearances. Yes, New England was a dynasty because they have won more times than not when they have entered a Super Bowl, but it isn’t because they have routinely – year after year – been to the Super Bowl.

Of course, once Manning retired the balance of power in the AFC was ripped away and Brady, alongside his fellow Patriots, assumed complete control. There is nothing more indicative of this notion than the fact that the Patriots, after Sunday, will have represented the AFC in the past three consecutive Super Bowls.

If Tom Brady were to follow through with this “appeasement theory” what would happen? First, there would be a power vacuum in the AFC. That being said, many of the great quarterbacks (naturally good quarterbacks are associated with good teams) are some of the oldest quarterbacks in the league. For instance Phillip Rivers and Ben Rapistberger are both in their late thirties. Unlike Brady both of these quarterbacks have shown depreciation. Rivers, although he had a great year this year, seems to already be preparing his life to be one of the first Hall of Fame quarterbacks to not only not win a super bowl, but never appear in one either. In a January 2019 New York Times article, written by Benjamin Hoffman, it discusses how “while [Rivers] may not have as high of a profile as two other big-name quarterbacks taken in the 2004 draft — Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger — the case can be made that he was better than either of his famous peers in the regular season.” The key phrase is “regular season.” A power vacuum cannot be relegated to simply the regular season, but must be won in the playoffs.

As for Rapistberger, he has already flirted with the thought of retirement and made it expressly known to the world. Further, although Rapistberger just signed an extension, it does not absolve him of the fact that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the closest NFL franchise to being the equivalent of MTV’s Jersey Shore. With arguably the best running back in the NFL, Le’Veon Bell, holding out for the entire 2018 season and looking more and more like he will never play for the Steelers again, and the fact that fellow pro bowl wide receiver, Antonio Brown,  is looking like he will be traded, after not feeling “respected” in Pittsburgh, it isn’t hard to argue that the Steelers are no longer the perennial force in the AFC North, let alone a favorite to represent the AFC in the super bowl.

So then there are the younger AFC quarterbacks. First there is DeShaun Watson of the Houston Texans. However, Houston appears to be more and more like what the Cincinnati Bengals were back when Andy Dalton first arrived – one and done in the playoffs. Further, this past year Watson’s QBR took a drastic drop compared to his rookie year. The other issue is the Houston Texan’s defense is never fully healthy. When the backside is fully healthy, JJ Watt or Clowney are sidelined and vice versa, as it was this year. Then there is Andrew Luck who had an amazing season after being sidelined all of last year, but that was about all there was to say about the Colts. The Colts still seem to be riding the same strategy that they used when they had Peyton Manning – make Manning carry both the offense and the defense to victory. If anything, the only other notable player on the Colts is Luck’s wide receiver T.Y. Hilton. This is the same when Peyton played the only notable players were – Reggie Wayne or wide receiver, Marvin Harrison (of course defensive ends, Dwight Freeney and Robert Mathis, were there but it still seemed that Peyton had to make up for the defense’ deficiencies most of the time).

In turn, if Tom were to leave, and this is assuming that New England would have a significant drop off, then that leaves only one AFC team to assume that power vacuum – Kansas City Chiefs. The Chiefs have everything to be the next dynasty in the AFC. They have an outstanding young quarterback in Patrick Mahomes. Even with Kareem Hunt’s departure, they have not missed a beat running the ball and their wide receivers are led by the likes of Tyreek Hill. The defense, namely their secondary, needs assistance but for the most part is sturdy. However, what makes them even better isn’t the addition of any one player but the subtraction of Brady from the NFL. For if any of the other aforementioned quarterbacks were going up against the Chiefs in this year’s AFC Championship Game, the Chiefs would have won and done so relatively easily. The Chiefs are the only hope for a balanced AFC, and although the Chiefs lost this year, they did not do so embarrassingly nor did they lose without controversy. However, Brady is the Ying to the Chiefs’ Yang. To keep Brady in check the Chiefs are necessary and to keep the Chiefs in check Brady is necessary.

Therefore, if the “appeasement theory” were to become true, the only people to be happy would be Chief fans. However, all the other NFL fans would be upset, just as they are upset now with New England. That is because the Chiefs would become an unchecked power in the AFC. Right now they are only partially checked by the Patriots, since if the Chiefs were to play the Patriots again, Kansas City would have a fair chance at beating them. Hence, what a Brady does for NFL fans is provide them with entertaining, competitive games. If Tom were to retire, it would be like the USSR crumbling in 1945. Yes America would be the world’s lone super power, but it wouldn’t nearly be as advanced as it is today. The Chiefs are the AFC’s America, and they will be the next great AFC super power.  But they will never be the greatest super power until they beat the greatest super power – New England Patriots – in the playoffs.