The season-long suspension of Vikings RB Adrian Peterson "has become a proxy fight for yet another round in the endless" NFL-NFLPA "battle that began with the last CBA negotiations" in '11, according to Don Banks of SI.com. The two sides "have become entirely predictable and tiresome at this point, and it’d be nice for everyone to at least acknowledge that it’s very much in the best interests of the entire league -- players and owners -- to get the issue of personal conduct discipline correct and consistent, and let the game begin to move past this sorry spectacle of both misdeeds and mismanagement." But if that kind of "reasonable middle ground were possible, the NFL would have had HGH testing more than three years ago, when it was actually agreed to." Instead, with the union and the league, "it’s Us against Them, chapter 47." Banks: "An exercise in zero sum game maneuvering. And the 'credibility gap' that the NFLPA loves to cite does indeed continue to grow, but for both sides, not just the league" (SI.com, 11/18). USA TODAY's Tom Pelissero writes under the header, "NFL-Union Divide Growing." For the NFLPA, the process leading to Peterson's suspension "might be more troublesome than the suspension itself" (USA TODAY, 11/19). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio wrote at a time when the NFL and NFLPA "have a hard time agreeing on anything, the NFL undermined the broader relationship by elevating gamesmanship over trust." Florio: "Good luck, NFL, getting the NFLPA to agree to anything else relating to the personal conduct policy generally or to any players caught in its gears. Real progress likely won’t be made until the next time the NFL finds itself in crisis mode" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 11/18).
UNION CONTINUES RESPONSE: NFLPA Exec Dir DeMaurice Smith said when the league “chooses to implement or impose arbitrary standards, we are not going to allow the NFL to hide behind their own misconduct" ("Evening News," CBS, 11/18). NFLPA Assistant Exec Dir of External Affairs George Atallah said, “We believe that the discipline was completely arbitrary. There was no due process for Adrian and frankly ... the NFL has continued to make stuff up as they go along. That's not the process that we've agreed to under our collective bargaining agreement." FS1’s Mike Hill asked, “When will we see a day when punishments will be consistent and things will be set in stone for all the players involved?” Atallah: “When some of the owners in the NFL show leadership. Plain and simple. The NFL is not run by the commissioner's office. It's run by the management council and the owners. Once the owners want to commit to a collectively bargained process and show some leadership and show some transparency in terms of what type of a process we want and can have, that's when we'll have a better result for players. That's when our fans will know exactly what's going on" ("America's Pregame," FS1, 11/18).
THE BIGGER PICTURE: USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes Peterson "is no martyr." Bell: "If it strikes you as a bit sticky the NFL Players Association is going to bat for a child abuser amid a climate of increased attention on domestic violence issues, then understand the bigger picture." This battle "is about NFL protocol." It also is "another opportunity for the NFLPA to go after a principle -- the personal conduct policy orchestrated" by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell -- that it "abandoned during the lockout in 2011 when the sides ultimately agreed on a new labor deal." Bell: "This is a pro football version of The Hundred Years War. There's always a negotiation." It is not that the NFL, "with the right intentions in taking a hard-line stand against Peterson, doesn't deserve pushback." It is "just tough to buy the NFL's motives when morality issues are involved" (USA TODAY, 11/19). In St. Paul, Brian Murphy writes Peterson's case "is a labor dispute destined for the courthouse." It also is a PR battle for the "hearts and minds of a society obsessed with the entertainment and commercial value of pro football -- but also troubled by the wayward acts of its players." The NFLPA "does not have much leverage beyond the bully pulpit" (ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, 11/19). CSNBAYAREA.com's Ray Ratto wrote since the NFLPA "did what all unions do and argued about money rather than players’ rights, this can only serve as a guidepost moment" for the NBA and MLB as they face their own CBA negotiations. Ratto: "Non-monetary issues matter. A lot. Ignore them, and you get what the NFL has been enjoying this year -- the scorn of a nation and an enormous rise in billable hours" (CSNBAYAREA.com, 11/18).
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: YAHOO SPORTS' Charles Robinson wrote Goodell "and the rest of the Park Avenue droid army won't be gambling on conduct anymore," as all the "house money has been lost." None of this "is a commentary on the morals of these decisions" but rather a "statement of the NFL's new world." Robinson: "Don't make the NFL look bad. Don't upset sponsors. Don't do things that make the league look morally bankrupt. God forbid there is another 'South Park' episode featuring the 'Goodell Bot.' And the second thing we've learned? The union has been obliterated when it comes to the NFL's conduct decisions. Players would be better off driving to the league office and spitting on the front door than having faith in a union that gets a laughable amount of respect from Goodell" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 11/18). In St. Paul, Tom Powers writes if Peterson "really wants to sue someone ... he ought to file against his own union, which has given him horrible advice." Peterson last week "should have met" with Goodell, "as scheduled." He "had everything to gain and nothing to lose." A face-to-face meeting with Goodell "might have resulted in him getting a little slack in terms of its length" (ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, 11/19). In Minneapolis, Jim Souhan writes Peterson by not displaying "remorse over his acts" played "into Goodell’s hands, and Goodell must have cackled at the opportunity presented to allow him to display strength." Peterson "chose to side with the NFLPA and his legal team in challenging Goodell’s power" (Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE, 11/19).
LEGAL LOOK: In L.A., Sam Farmer notes an arbitrator yesterday "sided with the NFL, saying the league was not required to remove Peterson from the exempt list when his legal issues were done, and the commissioner's office has the say as to when Peterson could come off the list" (L.A. TIMES, 11/19). SI.com's Michael McCann wrote expect the NFL to "portray appeals" by Ray Rice and Peterson as "apples and oranges." Unlike with Peterson’s appeal, Goodell’s "own conduct is a central issue in Rice’s appeal." By contrast, there "is no allegation of a 'cover-up'" with respect to Peterson's. The NFL also "is not contractually obligated to provide Peterson with a third-party arbitrator merely because it provided one to Rice." Moreover, Goodell "is unlikely to relinquish authority this time around for fear that other players and the NFLPA would then insist there is established precedent for third-party arbitration." While there "is widespread speculation that Peterson will sue the NFL, perhaps as soon as this week," do not "expect him to do so until he has exhausted all of the internal appeals." It is possible that the NFL "will voluntarily change its system for reviewing off-field conduct." Instead of filing a lawsuit, Peterson "could petition a federal judge for a temporary restraining order." This petition "could occur as soon as Goodell decides on an appeal." Peterson’s odds for "obtaining a temporary restraining order would be very low" (SI.com, 11/18).
