Reaction to the report that the NFL and NFLPA are working on a deal that would strip Commissioner Roger Goodell of some of his off-field power regarding player discipline poured in yesterday, with YAHOO SPORTS' Eric Edholm noting the move "could be a big win for the players." Many players currently do not feel that they are "being served fairly in these matters." Edholm asked, "Could this be the first domino toward [Tom] Brady's case with the league being settled?" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 3/15). ESPN's Sarah Spain said this "could actually make the NFL function better, because there will be fewer court cases and things will be handled correctly the first time around" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 3/15). In Buffalo, Vic Carucci writes Goodell is "plenty powerful" and does not need that power to "include being judge and jury for off-field player discipline." That part of his job "has put a fairly nasty stain" on his run at the top of the NFL. Carucci: "You shouldn’t want to be in this damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t position. Your strength is your business and marketing savvy. It’s in keeping the league open to new ideas for growth and development on and off the field. It isn’t in the handling of player punishment" (BUFFALO NEWS, 3/16).
TAKING TOO MUCH POWER AWAY? ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser noted Goodell may be willing to relinquish some power “because he’s been hammered so much on wrongheaded decisions.” But Kornheiser added, "One of the most important powers a commissioner has is discipline. ... You don’t give that up. You may as well quit” (“PTI,” ESPN, 3/15). ESPN's Bomani Jones said, "You take this away, and he looks a lot more like a figurehead than he ever did before.” The Washington Post’s Kevin Blackistone: “I’ve always thought that the commissioner was far too imperialistic in just about every sport, and certainly in the NFL. ... This is just a further erosion of his power” (“Around The Horn,” ESPN, 3/15). CSNBayArea.com's Monte Poole said if Goodell loses his discipline powers, it “will be long overdue” (“Sports Talk Live,” CSN Bay Area, 3/15).
CHANGING WITH THE TIMES: ESPN's Mike Greenberg said Goodell has had "his hands more than full running the business of the league" in recent years, and that "is a full-time job." Greenberg: "You’ve got network partners, you’ve got to deal with all sorts of other issues. Getting into the nitty-gritty and minutiae of player-discipline ... look how badly it has gone for the last couple of years." Goodell has gone from "being someone who I think was a very well-respected commissioner to being now almost universally despised, I think, in the court of public opinion, exclusively because of player discipline." Greenberg: "If I am him, I don’t know why I want that on my plate. Put together a committee that does this" (“Mike & Mike,” ESPN Radio, 3/16). ESPN's Michael Wilbon said, "Maybe the job has evolved where he just thinks that dealing with television contracts -- which means just printing money -- is what he’s supposed to do” ("PTI," ESPN, 3/15).
GETTING SOMETHING IN RETURN: ESPN's Dan Le Batard predicted Goodell is "going to want something in return" for losing his disciplinary powers, as he "doesn't give away stuff like this.” Le Batard said the NFLPA "made a huge error ever conceding to this in collective bargaining." He said, "They never should have agreed to this. ... They gave up this power, they now regret it and now they want it back" (“Highly Questionable,” ESPN, 3/15). SI.com's Michael McCann noted the league would "stress that no matter how it is portrayed, a reduced role for the commissioner in player discipline would be perceived as a demotion for Goodell and as a repudiation of his decision-making." The league might demand that the union "agree to extend the current CBA -- which is considered favorable for the NFL and its owners" and set to expire after the '20 season -- for another year. A more "reasonable area for the NFLPA to 'give up ground' would be in testing for performance-enhancing drugs and painkillers." Both sides "could reason that stricter testing would benefit players' health." Stricter testing would also "communicate to the public -- including lawmakers -- that the league is serious about health matters" (SI.com, 3/15).
