More serious than just footballs
Five Urgent Questions the NFL needs to address
Produced by Fans United for Accountability (FUA)
“The corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst.”
Fans United for Accountability (FUA) has produced this presentation because we have concerns about the National Football League (NFL) –– many concerns in fact, and not about footballs.
In recent months we have seen a disturbing pattern of behavior by League officials, including the selective enforcement of rules, the distorted disclosure of information, the concealment of key evidence, and efforts to mislead or otherwise manipulate the public. We feel that unless this behavior is investigated these actions will damage the integrity professional football.
In the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, League officials pursued an investigation into allegations that the New England Patriots may have improperly tampered with footballs. The manner in which this investigation was carried out concerns us. It is one thing to accuse a team of cheating, but when a multi-billion dollar industry resorts to falsifying evidence, then that becomes a cause for far greater concern –– one truly “more serious than just footballs.”
We want to clarify that we do not intend to promote any one particular team. The mission of FUA is to build and preserve a culture of accountability. It’s important to us that those who preside over the sports industry use their power both ethically and responsibly so as not to abuse the public’s trust.
What does “accountability” mean to us? Accountability means taking a firm stance against corruption in sports. It means building better safeguards that protect fans, players, fans, and teams from unnecessary harms. Above all, accountability means looking beneath the distortions that keep us from knowing and responding to the facts.
It is not our intention to misrepresent the National Football League. However, we want to provide the fans and the public with a brief outline of events, and leave it to you to consider five urgent questions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
“Did the NFL orchestrate a sting operation against one of its teams?”
“Did the NFL knowingly provide false information to the Patriots?”
“Did the NFL intend to deceive and manipulate the public?”
“Did the NFL ignore scientific evidence in order to prolong a punitive investigation?”
“Did the NFL selectively enforce rules to place the Patriots at a disadvantage?”
January 17: The Pre-Game Conduct of League Officials
On January 17, 2015 the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts played in the AFC Championship Game to determine which team would advance to the Super Bowl. The two teams have a history of intense rivalry, but in recent years, the Patriots have enjoyed the upper hand, convincingly defeating the Colts on multiple occasions. Prior to the championship game, the Colts General Manager, Ryan Grigson, and head coach Chuck Pagano, had harbored suspicions about the Patriots. They believed the Patriots had deflated footballs below league standards. NFL rules require that footballs be inflated to a pressure between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch (psi). The presumption was that balls beneath 12.5 psi would be easier to grip, throw and catch, particularly in cold rainy conditions. Considering this an unfair advantage, Grigson reported his concerns in an email sent directly to League Senior Officials, David Gardi and Mike Kensil. Yet when these suspicions were shared with the League, the Colts never specifically asked the NFL to keep the balls from falling out of the required range. Their only request at the time was that: “It would be great if someone would be able to check the air in the game footballs as the game goes on.”
Once word reached Senior NFL Officials, these suspicions were brought to the attention of James Daniel, the Director of Operations, and Dean Blandino and Alberto Riverton, senior members of the Officiating Department. Each of these men had clear knowledge of these allegations, but failed to take firm measures to prevent the balls from falling out of the proper psi range. A referee by the name of Walt Andersen was instructed to measure the footballs prior to the start of the game, but the League failed to stress the need to document those measurements. So when later questioned by investigators, Anderson was forced to rely on his own personal memory. Even more problematic, Anderson relied on two entirely separate devices that each gave different results. Yet to his best recollection, he found that the Patriots footballs, while not entirely consistent with psi requirements, were neither suspicious nor indicated any tampering.
It was only after the game was underway, that the officiating crew finally received instructions to record the balls for the correct air pressure. But these instructions were highly unusual, since no referee had ever been asked to perform an action of this kind halfway into a game. According to the NFL’s own account, the Colts decided to take matters into their own hands when they measured a Patriots football that came into their possession. They felt this ball was suspiciously below the 12.5 psi threshold, and after informing officials about this, the League decided to inspect all the Patriots balls at halftime. Once this occurred, it was found that eleven of the twelve balls belonging to the Patriots were below the required psi minimum. Surprisingly, they also discovered that three out of the four Colts footballs were likewise below the allowable limit. Yet as soon as the fourth ball was measured, League personnel immediately stopped measuring the Colts footballs, and allowed the game to continue. The NFL would later try to suggest that this particular finding was not of any consequence, and argued that the balls used by the Patriots had fallen by a much larger margin. Having then made this determination, the League began an immediate investigation into allegations of cheating.
Question 1: “Did the NFL conduct a sting operation against one of its own teams?”
Consider the following questions:
The NFL’s Response To This?
At a press conference on January 29, Dean Blandino tried to suggest that no one from the League Office had heard any complaints from the Colts. His statement to reporters was that the Colts’ concerns were only brought up during the first half of the game. When hit with a follow-up question about the possibility of a sting operation, Blandino firmly denied receiving any knowledge of doctored footballs. “I don’t know where [the idea of a sting] came from,” Blandino told reporters. “This was a problem that came up in the first half.” But less than a month later on February 20, Grigson publicly confirmed he had alerted the NFL just a week prior to the AFC Championship Game. That Blandino would try to mislead reporters gives credence to the idea that NFL officials did in fact, orchestrate a “sting” operation. So far, the NFL has not commented on whether League Officials knew of, or were complicit in, a sting operation against the Patriots. David Gardi and Mike Kensil, the two Senior Officials responsible for handling complaints from the Colts, have chosen not to comment on the matter. Nor have the Officials responsible for pre-game preparation offered an explanation as to why no measures were taken to better document psi levels.
Ted Wells, the lead NFL investigator, circumvents this issue and only addresses it in a footnote on page 46 of his report, where he flatly denies the existence of a sting operation. Wells also tries to argue that the reason why only four of the Colts balls were measured was due to time constraints. On pages 68-69, he writes that “Halftime for the game was scheduled to last thirteen minutes and time was running short before the scheduled start of the second half.” Yet the report clearly indicates that game day officials had sufficient time to at least inspect and readjust all twelve footballs used by the Patriots.
Since then, the Patriots have called attention to the unwarranted actions taken by the Colts during the game. They would later write that, “The Colts…took the matter into their own hands and had an intern gauge the football [at halftime]” This is a violation of NFL rules, which state that “neither team is allowed to gauge the footballs, pump them, or the like. That is solely the province of the referee, who is to be the ‘sole judge’ of whether footballs comply.” Yet nowhere does the Wells Report identify this misconduct. Wells also fails to make mention punitive remarks believed to have been said by Mike Kensil, who was present at the game. According to a source within the Patriots organization, Kensil walked up to the sideline during halftime, and said to an equipment manager, “We weighed the balls. You are in big f------ trouble.” The Patriots thought this incident, and several others, showed clear intent by the League to implicate the team in wrongdoing, and assumed it would be explored in the Wells report. Yet the Report simply refers to the sideline incident as a difference in recollection.
When later asked by reporters whether the NFL should have notified the Patriots about the Colts complaints in advance, Wells went on to dismiss the seriousness of this oversight: “That's a discretionary policy issue, and that doesn't have anything to do with my report."
Denial and Lies
January 19: Statements contained in David Gardi’s letter to the Patriots
On January 19, the day after the Patriots handily defeated the Colts (45-7) and began preparing to compete in the Super Bowl, NFL senior vice president David Gardi sent a letter to Patriots chairman and CEO Robert Kraft. The letter contained the following statements:
“The inspection, which involved each ball being inspected twice with different gauges, revealed that none of the Patriots’ game balls were inflated to the specifications required under Rule 2, Section 1. In fact, one of the game balls was inflated to 10.1 psi, far below the requirement of 12-1/2 to 13-1⁄2 psi.”
In this statement, the league had come to a “preliminary finding,” in which it firmly concluded that the Patriots had deliberately deflated game balls beneath league standards to gain an unfair competitive edge. On exactly that same day, a source within the NFL informed Indianapolis sportswriter Bob Kravitz, that the league would begin investigating the Patriots for allegations of cheating. Grigson tweeted out this report and news of the investigation quickly spread.
Shockingly, it was revealed three months later in May, that measurements cited by Gardi were false. As mentioned in the Wells Report, there were no footballs measured at halftime that checked in at 10.1 PSI. In fact, the lowest psi of the Patriots’ footballs was 10.5 PSI, directly contradicting Gardi’s claim. Not only did Gardi allow false information about the Patriots’ footballs to go uncorrected for several months, he failed to report the truth regarding the Colts’ footballs. In writing about the Colts, Gardi wrote that each of their game balls were consistent with league requirements. But as mentioned earlier, three of the four Colts footballs were beneath the required psi minimum. Despite this being a violation of the psi threshold, the League had chosen not to investigate their infraction –– focusing solely on the Patriots.
Question 2: Did the NFL knowingly provide false information?
Consider the following questions:
The NFL’s Response To This?
In his report, Ted Wells treats these inaccuracies as inconsequential. Nowhere does he question how and why League made serious errors in their findings. And when disclosing the actual measurements in his report, Wells attributed the false information given by Gardi as simply a consequence of him not being present at the game. His report states that:
“Gardi did not personally attend the AFC Championship Game (he had been in Seattle for the NFC Championship Game), and drafted the letter based on communications with colleagues with first-hand knowledge of events that had taken place at Gillette Stadium.”
Beyond this unconvincing explanation, Wells hardly devotes a page to explaining how such a blatant error was allowed to go uncorrected for over three months. To date, the NFL has offered no apology for misinforming the Patriots.
Downplaying the Distortions of Evidence
January 20: The Public Reaction to “leaked” information
The NFL’s conduct quickly took another disturbing turn when on January 20, Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported that 11 of the 12 Patriots footballs used in the AFC title game were measured at a full two pounds under the 12.5 psi minimum. Mortensen claims to have received these measurements from an unidentified source within NFL headquarters. Mortensen’s report further gave the impression that the Patriots had been deliberately tampering with footballs. Concerned with preserving game integrity, the public accepted this information as fact and responded with outrage. Initially, the public had little to no concern about the topic of air pressure in footballs. But once Mortensen had published this new information, it triggered a public uproar and spawned the controversy we know today as “Deflategate.” Allegations of tampering suddenly became the topic of talk shows, and the story received a tremendous amount of media coverage in the days leading up the Super Bowl.
But as it turns out, the public was reacting to a fraudulent source. The measurements Mortensen had cited were completely fabricated. As soon as Mortensen revealed these measurements, the NFL must have surely known that his report was untrue. No one outside the League would have known about the existence of the real measurements. Yet rather than challenge this false information, the NFL chose to do nothing and continued to hide the real measurements from the public.
The League’s refusal to dispel these rumors stands in direct contrast to a recent event on June 23. On the day of Tom Brady’s appeal hearing, Adam Schefter of ESPN reported that Brady would receive up to four hours to offer a defense. But within moments of hearing this, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello promptly tweeted out that Brady was receiving much more time than was reported. Aiello’s rapid response to this faulty “leak” shows that the League was more than capable of responding to rumors in the media. But it did no such thing during the entire two weeks leading up the Super Bowl, and instead continued to hide the true measurements until May.
Question 3: Did the NFL intend to deceive and manipulate the Public?
Consider the following questions:
The NFL’s Response to This?
The NFL has yet to acknowledge the significance of these leaks in instigating the deflation controversy. No one from the NFL Office has explained why the League chose not refute the measurements reported to the public. When asked during a press conference about the League’s silence, Roger Goodell simply stated that Wells “had the opportunity to evaluate that” during his investigation. But in the Wells Report, there is no mention of any such evaluation ever taking place. If he wanted to, Wells could have easily explored this vital issue. Yet the 243-page document says nothing whatsoever about the leaks or the harm they may have caused to the Patriots.
Mortensen meanwhile, continues to insist that he received these measurements from a “league source” in NFL headquarters. Despite his insistence, there has been no attempt by the NFL to uncover those individuals responsible for misreporting facts to the media.
Refusal to Acknowledge The Significance of These Leaks
January 23 - The Punitive Launching of the Ted Wells Investigation (1 of 2)
In the week leading up to the Super Bowl, the NFL recognized the need to mitigate the fallout from the controversy. It assured both the public and the Patriots that it would conduct a prompt investigation that would conclude in matter of days. The League ostensibly understood that if an investigation were allowed to continue without a firm timetable, it would surely distract the Patriots as they tried to prepare for the biggest game of their season. On January 20, NFL Executive vice president of Football Operations, Troy Vincent, publicly affirmed the League’s commitment to expedite the investigation: “We’re hoping to wrap that up in the next two or three days,” Vincent said. “We obviously want to … get that behind us so that we can really get back to the game itself.”
Yet just three days after Vincent made these remarks, the NFL announced that it would expand its investigation and retain attorney Ted Wells as an “independent” investigator. The NFL agreed to pay millions of dollars in legal fees to finance this investigation. In the meantime, the League continued to mislead the public. “As we develop more information and are in a position to reach conclusions,” the league said, “we will share them publicly.” Of course, this was a blatant lie, since we now know that the League was secretly withholding evidence –– allowing the public to further buy into allegations of cheating. When the Patriots had agreed to comply, the investigators interviewed every full- and part-time employee and every game official. In an official statement, the NFL confirmed it had held “nearly 40 interviews” and would, in the coming weeks, conduct several more. The Patriots were even asked to turn over all videotapes and electronic communications, with the League bringing in “sophisticated forensic expertise to assist in reviewing electronic and video information”
Frustrated with the pace of the investigation, the Patriots were more desperate than ever to clear themselves of any wrongdoing. They finally decided to go to the public and explain how their game balls came to be deflated without their knowledge. In a press conference on January 25, Coach Bill Belichick announced that the team had conducted their own experiments to explain how temperatures and other atmospheric conditions could impact the internal air pressure of footballs. The Patriots first pointed to the different readings offered by the gauges used at different phases of the game –– emphasizing their lack of consistency. More importantly, they demonstrated that footballs, when inflated in indoors, could gradually lose air pressure in cold temperatures. One simulation even proved that under certain weather conditions, a football could lose as much as 1.5 pounds per square inch of air pressure.
Scientists, including MIT’s Richard P. Binzel, who told The Boston Globe that “’Professor’ Belichick got it exactly right,” found this explanation entirely plausible. So did Boston University's James Bird, who said “Everything they said doesn’t seem impossible to me. Based on simple ideal-gas-law calculations, I would not be surprised if the Patriots are vindicated.” Using Ideal Gas Law calculations, it was safe to assume that other teams were also using below-regulation footballs — without even realizing it. To prove this point, Belichick had quarterback Tom Brady (a veteran player of many years) try to discern the difference in balls that lost one psi. Neither he nor his teammate, quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo, could discern the difference in grip or texture. This would disprove the notion that Brady –– or any other quarterback –– would have been able to feel the difference.
The investigators hired by the NFL to look into these facts conducted their own experiments as well and began consulting experts on whether this explanation was true. According to a New York Times article on January 26, Ted Well’s law firm had contacted Columbia University for help in understanding the natural effects of temperature on footballs. Lorin L. Reisner, a partner in the litigation department, called the Columbia physics department to request their services. We know this to be true, since notes were taken by a university administrator. “He would like to consult with a physicist on matters relating to gas physics,” the notes said. By now, the League must have surely gathered enough scientific evidence to make a determination that the case against the Patriots was at the very least in doubt. Yet the NFL allowed the investigation to carry on full steam ahead into the Super Bowl.
It was already clear that League had shifted its focus away from ending the investigation to instead prolonging it. At some point, it seems, Ted Wells had stopped being an “independent” investigator and instead became a prosecutor determined to convict the Patriots on whatever grounds he could find. This was reflected in the 103 days it took him to produce his report, showing that he went extraordinary lengths to find an elusive “smoking gun.”
Question 4: Did the NFL ignore scientific evidence in order to to prolong a punitive investigation?
Consider the following questions:
The NFL’s Response To This?
In their final report, the NFL chose ignore the scientific explanation offered by the Patriots, and the obvious issues concerning gauge inconsistencies. Instead of accepting well-supported arguments, the League decided to hire Exponent –– an engineering consulting firm with a history of representing high-profile corporations. While collaborating with Dr. Daniel R. Marlow, a physics professor at Princeton University, Exponent determined that the loss of air pressure in footballs could not be explained by any “environmental or physical factors.” Citing the “absence of a credible scientific explanation for the Patriots’ halftime measurements” they determined that human intervention was the only explanation for the loss in air pressure. Yet buried deep in the report, Wells concedes that “the air pressure of all of the game balls tested at halftime decreased from the levels measured prior to the game.” In other words, the report essentially affirms Belichick’s basic point that weather naturally deflates footballs over time.
Questions have also been raised about the League’s reliance on Exponent. In 2010, The Los Angeles Times described Exponent as a “hired gun” called upon by major corporations to “weather messy [public] disputes.” Exponent’s research has come under fire from critics who claim that the company tends to deliver “scientific” results that favor their clients. Exponent has been known to offer questionable conclusions based on their allegiances. In the past Exponent has tried argue that (a) secondhand smoke does not cause cancer (b) that asbestos does not harm the health of workers and (c) that there is no environmental harm in dumping toxic waste in the Amazon rainforest.
In addition, the science in the Wells Reports has been debunked by numerous engineers, scientists, and academics, including leading physicists Neil deGrasse Tyson and Nobel-Prize Winner Roderick MacKinnon. Even the researchers of the Libertarian think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have published compelling evidence refuting the findings made by Exponent.
Since then, Exponent has declined to comment on the report’s findings. Professor Marlow has not spoken publicly about his involvement, simply stating that the report “speaks for itself.” He has been instructed by the Ted Well’s law firm to refer all future questions to the NFL.
Denying and Misrepresenting Scientific Evidence
Ever since Roger Goodell took over as NFL commissioner in 2006, he has worked to establish a reputation as a disciplinarian. During his first year as Commissioner, he suspended Adam "Pacman" Jones for a full season due to his multiple arrests. The suspension came with a formal announcement by the League that there would be a stringent personal-conduct policy, which would include “longer suspensions and larger fines for individuals who violate the policy.” Yet when it comes these policies, Goodell has been selectively severe, handing out meager fines in some cases, and harshly punishing players for minor infractions in others.
Under Roger Goodell, players are routinely suspended for four or more games for harmless violations of the NFL's policy on drug use. For instance, while Josh Gordon was forced to miss the majority of the 2014 season for smoking marijuana, Goodell initially suspended Ray Rice for just two games, after he was caught on camera assaulting his fiancée and dragging her unconscious body out an elevator. When damning evidence about Rice was made public, Goodell attempted save face by suspending Rice indefinitely. However a neutral arbitrator overturned that sentence on appeal, deciding that the double-penalty for the same offense was “an abuse of discretion.”
Within the NFL, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that all players and teams receive the same warning, the same due process, and the same protections. The lack of appropriate guidelines gives the Commissioner the ability to inject his own prejudices and misinterpretations into his judgments. As it currently stands, the Commissioner enjoys unrestricted discretion in deciding whom, what, and how to investigate. In other words, Roger Goodell can choose to target teams and players with any criteria he pleases.
2006 - 2015: Roger Goodell’s History of Selective Enforcement and its Disruptive Effects on the Patriots (1 of 3)
During his tenure, Goodell has shown a clear pattern of selective enforcement. He has not enforced disciplinary policies with any sort uniformity. It is worth noting that prior to receiving complaints from the Colts, the NFL had never once considered the deflation of footballs an urgent concern. In the few cases when equipment violations were reported, the League responded with relative leniency. For instance, in 2012 League officials fined the San Diego Chargers $20,000 for failing to hand over towels believed to be covered in “Stickum.” The League had explicitly banned players from using the adhesive substance since 1981, claiming that the use of Stickum on gloves made it easier to catch footballs. Despite this violation, the NFL came to the conclusion that use of grip-improving towels had not infringed upon any rule. Similarly, just two months prior to the deflation controversy, the League was notified of a game between the Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings, in which attendants from both teams were seen warming footballs in front of heaters — presumably at the behest of the quarterbacks. The League has protocols that expressly forbid footballs from being placed in front of heaters. Yet despite this being a clear example of football tampering, the League merely chose to issue a warning. No serious punishment came to either team.
In vivid comparison, once the Patriots were accused of tampering with footballs, the Commissioner responded excessively — with the consequence of nearly crippling the team as it tried to prepare for the Super Bowl. Each phase of the investigation process — from the issuing of the notice to the punitive search for wrongdoing — was an abuse of discretion, in which the League selectively chose target a team rather simply correct a minor infraction. The deflation controversy occurred at a time when public trust in the NFL had reached a low point. Between player safety concerns and numerous scandals involving domestic violence, Roger Goodell had come under sharp criticism for failing to protect the image of the League. He also suffered a series of judicial embarrassments that undermined his authority. Arbitrator Barbara Jones found his testimony “not credible,” and overturned him for suspending Ray Rice twice for the same offense. And in 2011, former commissioner Paul Tagliabue issued a stunning rebuke in which he not only reversed all the player’s suspensions in the BountyGate case, but publically criticized Goodell for his pattern of “arbitrary” as well as “selective, ad hoc or inconsistent” punishments.
Yet the Patriots, perhaps due to their success on the field, have earned a polarizing reputation that has given them little sympathy from the public. Having already been implicated in rule violations involving the placement of cameras in 2007 (an incident called ‘Spygate’), the team was a convenient target for another well-publicized investigation. Once allegations of cheating came to light, it gave the Commissioner an opportunity to his reestablish his reputation with the public. We cannot fully determine whether Roger Goodell had deliberate intentions to place the Patriots at a disadvantage, but his opportunism failed to consider the consequences for the team and the players. This abuse of discretion could have easily cost the Patriots the Super Bowl - were it not for their extreme determination to compete and win.
Once accusations of cheating leaked to the public, the Patriots immediately found themselves engulfed in a nation-wide controversy, very likely not of their making. They were now forced to deal with something that no team ever wants to confront: a major distraction before an extremely important game. The timing of this controversy could not have been worse. When the Patriots arrived for their first practice, they were greeted with a huge media contingent eager to question them. When media members first got inside the locker room before practice, a vast majority of the questions dealt with deflated footballs. Never had there been this much controversy so early surrounding a Super Bowl team.
The team did their best to deal with the added attention and made honest efforts to try to determine how air pressure in footballs could have fallen without their knowledge. Those within the organization spent two weeks running all sorts of tests on footballs and consulted expert opinion. Meanwhile, the players themselves did what they could to prepare for the game, while simultaneously cooperating with investigators. Coach Belichick held two major news briefings and Tom Brady held his own press conference. Both vigorously denied any wrongdoing, but the hysteria continued to play out on nearly every level of society. There were popular parodies ridiculing the two men, and bakeries even began promoting limited-supply “deflategate cookies,” that nearly sold out. Aware of the toll these men had suffered, Robert Kraft came to the defense of Belichick and Brady. At the team's press conference, he asserted that:
“If the Wells investigation is not able to definitively determine that our organization tampered with the air pressure on the footballs, I would expect and hope that the league would apologize to our entire team and, in particular, coach Belichick and Tom Brady for what they have had to endure this past week."
The deflation issue was brought up once again at Super Bowl media day, when each player was required to answer questions from the press. Almost every opportunity they had to address the subject, the players continued to stress the need to stay focused. "Here we are with the biggest game of our career," said Vince Wilfork, “[We've] got to be able to eliminate all distractions right now, and I'm pretty sure we'll have more distractions.” Yet to some observers, it was unclear whether the Patriots would be able to maintain a sufficient level of play to compete and win in the game.
Putting all these distractions aside proved a tremendous challenge. But the players vigorously maintained their confidence heading into the game, and refused to allow the scandal to affect their performance. President Obama took note of their achievement when he honored the team for winning the Super Bowl despite, in his words, having to deal with a “huge distraction and media circus.” That the team ultimately won is testament to the sheer resilience of the players and an organization uniquely equipped to deal with adversity.
Question 5: Did the NFL selectively enforce rules to place the Patriots at a disadvantage?
Consider the following questions:
The League’s Response To This?
In the months immediately following the Super Bowl, the League not only continued to pursue an investigation based on slight evidence, but came to the determination that the Patriots, specifically Tom Brady, had knowingly deflated footballs. In their final report, they concluded that Brady was “at least generally aware” that footballs were being tampered with. For this infraction, Brady received a suspension of four games without pay. The Patriots, meanwhile, were forced to forfeit a first-round draft pick in 2016 and fourth-round draft pick in 2017. The team was also fined up to one million dollars -- the largest fine ever issued in League history. The NFL’s letter outlining the penalty cited “the club's prior record” as a factor “in determining the discipline in this case.” The letter also cites “the failure of Tom Brady to produce any electronic evidence” when the League requested his cell phone records.
The severity of this punishment underscores, yet again, the League’s abuse of discretion. The league’s manual of operations stipulates a fine for football alteration of just $25,000. While the language of the rule allows for harsher penalties, the manual clearly points to an infraction of minimal importance. The NFL’s own letter the Patriots acknowledges this: “There seems little question that the outcome of the AFC Championship Game was not affected” by the illegal deflation. Further underscoring this pattern of discretionary abuse was a ruling issued just two months prior, in which the Atlanta Falcons were lightly punished for pumping artificial crowd noise into their stadium. For this infraction, the Falcons received only a $350,000 fine and the loss of a fifth-round draft pick, and a three-month suspension for a team executive.
The League again overstepped its discretionary powers, when it chose to suspend Brady for refusing to submit his personal cell phone records, with the potential to lose $1,882,352 in earnings. In 2010, quarterback Brett Favre was fined a mere $50,000 for failing to provide the League with his personal cell phone, after being accused of sending lewd photos to a female sports reporter. And for this, Favre received no suspension. It should also be noted that star quarterback Aaron Rodgers has publically admitted his willingness to “push the limits” in raising the air pressure in footballs –– stating that he prefers to have them overinflated. Yet to date, neither Rodgers nor any other quarterback have been privately polled by League to discuss the subject of tampering. And the NFL has declined to inquire other teams about their own protocols in football alteration.
Pushing the Limits of Selective Enforcement
Where FUA stands on these issues
As you can see, none of these five questions have been adequately addressed by the NFL –– but this should not discourage us from seeking the truth. It is our considered judgment and sincere belief that the deflation controversy was not just the result of a concerned public, but may have in fact been deliberately instigated and inflamed by the League.
We are deeply troubled by the methods used by the NFL, including misreporting facts to the public, attempting to conceal and fabricate evidence, and the unequal enforcement of rules to accuse and target teams on questionable grounds. Furthermore, it our belief that the investigation conducted by the League, due to its reckless timing and undue aggressiveness, might have easily changed the outcome of the Super Bowl.
Football teaches us important values – values such as fairness, teamwork, and perseverance. It is not too much to suggest that these values serve as ethical underpinnings for our society. The National Football League ought to embrace these values and never disregard its duties to the players, the teams, and the fans. That is why we are demanding better guidelines and safeguards that prevent roguish and unethical decision-making in sports.
With your help, we hope to convince our elected officials to engage in this effort and initiate a public investigation into the League’s conduct; because when it comes to these five urgent questions, it is important that we receive honest answers from the NFL.
If you share our concerns, please contact your elected officals and let them know you are seeking change. Share the link to this presentation with others online. Like us on our Facebook page. Sign our petition to the Massachusetts State Attorney and others in Congress –– and be sure to tell your friends to do the same. Together we can make this happen!