Ezekiel Elliott played in the Cowboys' season-opening win over the Giants on Sunday night and could very well end up playing the entire season. This despite being suspended by the league for six games. And with that, Elliott became the most recent example of a player defeating the NFL in court.
We all know that the NFL's system of player discipline is incredibly flawed. Roger Baddell has way too much power in the current system. It's an issue that will be discussed heavily during the next round of collective bargaining, and it's one of the main reasons there will be a work stoppage when the current CBA expires. (I'm not being grim, I'm simply reiterating a declaration the NFLPA made when Baddell's contract was extended.)
Although, as stupid as it may be that Baddell gets to play judge, jury and executioner, the players have found the one forum where they actually have a chance--actual courts of law. Elliott is allowed to play because a federal judge blocked his suspension. The NFL has appealed, but he'll likely remain eligible until that appeal is heard. Which is why it's likely he won't serve a suspension until 2018, if at all.
Elliott isn't the first player to take the NFL to court over a suspension, and he almost certainly won't be the last. And why shouldn't he? Because time and again, legal challenges to NFL suspensions have proven to be the players' most viable recourse against a deck that really is stacked against them. Even the "neutral" arbitrators, who are appointed and paid by the league, simply serve to validate whatever punishment the commissioner decides to levy. There's nothing neutral about it.
It makes sense that you'd want a person who's actually impartial to hear the case. And as we've seen, the federal courts are much more favorable to the players' cases than anyone involved with the league, where Baddell has an iron-clad grip. Even if they don't get their suspensions reduced or thrown out, going through the federal courts proves a point. The current system doesn't work and is badly in need of improvement.
This isn't groundbreaking news. We all know that the NFL's system of player discipline is incredibly flawed. That's why it will, and should, be a significant point of emphasis during the CBA negotiations. Especially considering how arbitrary it is. Frankly, it doesn't make the NFL come off looking too good, either. Baddell usually comes out of these things looking like a fool.
Consider: Deflategate--Brady drags it on for more than a year...Bountygate--all of the suspensions are thrown out...Adrian Peterson--challenged, although the NFL ultimately won on appeal. Now another high-profile suspension where the player succeeds, even temporarily, in court.
The fact that this is the fourth NFL disciplinary case that has gone to the federal courts in the last several years is proof enough that the system is badly broken. An appeal to a higher court should be a last resort. Instead, we're surprised when an NFL player doesn't appeal a suspension for a violation of the extremely ambiguous personal conduct policy (which is part of the problem).
Now, I'm not saying these players didn't deserve to be suspended. Quite the contrary. I think all of these suspensions were completely warranted. But ever since he badly bungled the Ray Rice situation, Baddell has definitely been a little overzealous when it comes to violations of the personal conduct policy. And that's the problem.
There's plenty of blame to go around here. The league and commissioner have put themselves into this situation, where they have to spend millions on legal fees, because they refuse to admit they need to fix the system. The players, meanwhile, are just as responsible, since they granted Baddell that authority in the first place. Frankly, the only people who don't have an issue with things the way they are would probably be the lawyers.
Is there a solution to be found? Without a doubt. Baddell needs to realize that he has to give a little and yield some of his authoritarian power if he doesn't want every suspension he issues to be challenged in court. It shouldn't just be him. It should be a panel. There also needs to be a set of guidelines put in place so that the players have some general idea of what their punishment might be, rather than just the commissioner's whim. Lastly, the arbitration process needs to truly be neutral. The players need a chance to present their case to someone who'll actually be objective.
Otherwise, we're destined to continue with the ridiculously flawed system that's currently in place. A long, drawn-out process that we can all agree needs to be replaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment