Scandals & Feuds ·
The Court Restored Brady’s Suspension, Not a Verdict on the Footballs
The appeals ruling upheld Roger Goodell’s authority under the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement, reversing a judge who had found the disciplinary process deficient.
On April 25, 2016, a federal appeals court restored Tom Brady’s four-game suspension over allegedly deflated footballs used in the 2015 AFC Championship Game. The New England Patriots quarterback had won an earlier ruling that set the punishment aside. The Second Circuit concluded that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had acted within the broad authority granted by the league’s collective bargaining agreement. The court also made a distinction that mattered: Its job was not to decide for itself whether Brady had participated in a deflation scheme.
The dispute arose from the January 18, 2015, game between the Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. Asked about reports of an investigation during his scheduled radio appearance the next morning, Brady said he had not heard the story and knew nothing about the topic. The investigators’ subsequent report described him as laughing off the allegations. “I think I’ve heard it all at this point,” he said.
The investigation led by Theodore V. Wells Jr. examined communications, the handling of the footballs and pressure measurements. In their May 6 report, investigators cited McNally’s breach of pregame procedure and his disappearance into a locked bathroom with the game balls for a period they judged sufficient to deflate them with a needle. They also cited halftime measurements showing a larger pressure reduction in the Patriots’ balls than in the Colts’ balls. These were elements of the investigators’ case, not an account from someone who said they had watched the balls being deflated.
Brady denied knowing about or taking part in any effort to deflate footballs after officials inspected them. He also told investigators that, before the championship-game controversy, he had not known McNally’s name or game-day responsibilities. The report rejected those claims as implausible, citing contrary accounts, including McNally’s statement to NFL Security that Brady had personally told him his preferred inflation level. Brady had publicly acknowledged liking footballs inflated at the low end of the permitted range.
The NFL imposed a four-game suspension on May 11, 2015. Brady appealed, and Goodell designated himself as arbitrator. After a June hearing, the commissioner upheld the punishment on July 28. The league sought court confirmation of that decision; the players’ association sought to have it vacated.
On September 3, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman set the suspension aside. His ruling identified three significant legal deficiencies: inadequate notice of the alleged misconduct and possible punishment, Brady’s inability to question NFL executive and investigator Jeff Pash, and unequal access to investigative files, including witness interview notes. Berman found that Brady had not been given notice that the alleged conduct and non-cooperation could bring a four-game suspension equivalent to the punishment for using performance-enhancing drugs.
The appeals court rejected those grounds for overturning the award. Its majority held that Goodell’s procedural decisions were grounded in the bargaining agreement and had not deprived Brady of fundamental fairness. Chief Judge Robert Katzmann dissented, writing that the commissioner’s “murky explanation” of the discipline undermined protections negotiated for players. The majority nevertheless directed the lower court to confirm the suspension, emphasizing the limits of judicial review: “Our role is not to determine for ourselves whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs.”