Suspended Saints LB Jonathan Vilma sued NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell personally for defamation in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Thursday, claiming the NFLer never participated in an alleged bounty program. Vilma is the most severely punished player among the four NFLers suspended by Goodell, receiving a season suspension for allegedly helping to orchestrate a bounty system at the Saints between '09-11. Vilma, through his attorney Peter Ginsburg, has previously denied a role in such a program. Through Ginsberg and the NFLPA, Vilma is appealing the suspensions via the mechanisms laid out in the CBA, but the lawsuit is the first measure taken through the courts by any of the accused. In the complaint, Vilma denied all the accusations made against him, and specifically stated that he never paid or intended to pay a $10,000 bounty on then-Vikings QB Brett Favre. Notably, Vilma in the complaint did not deny saying he would pay such money, only that he did not pay such money or ever intend to pay such money. In a story in SportsBusiness Journal this week, a source close to suspended former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams said the so-called bounty program was more of a motivational exercise, and money frequently was not paid out. The complaint alleged that not only has Vilma’s reputation been hurt by the charges, but he would have difficulty obtaining employment when he retired. He is asking the court for punitive and compensatory damages, as well as all other costs (Daniel Kaplan, SportsBusiness Journal).
SOURCE CODE: The NFL Thursday responded in a statement, with Senior VP/PR Greg Aiello saying, "We have not yet reviewed the filing. However, our commitment to player safety and the integrity of the game is our main consideration. We recognize that not everyone will agree with decisions that need to be made." In N.Y., Judy Battista notes if the case reaches the discovery phase, the NFL "could be forced by the court to reveal what the league says is voluminous evidence against players and coaches, including firsthand accounts from multiple sources, handwritten notes, e-mails and PowerPoint presentations" (N.Y. TIMES, 5/18). SI.com's Michael McCann wrote Vilma's lawsuit "sets the table for a historic challenge to a historic commissioner." The league's "best argument may be the simplest: truth is an absolute defense to defamation." The problem for the league in making such an argument "is that, through the discovery process, it would likely have to disclose information it does not want to reveal." For instance, the NFL "may have to divulge it's sources of information, including the identities of players and coaches who were informants." The backlash of such disclosures "could be considerable" (SI.com, 5/17). ESPN.com's Pat Yasinskas noted Saints fans, who have been "screaming for the NFL to produce more evidence in the bounty scandal, just might get their wish." Vilma's lawsuit "may take the ball out of the NFL's court." When Goodell was "playing judge and jury, the NFL only revealed the evidence it wanted to." Yasinskas wrote, "The lawsuit asks for unspecified legal damages, but I don’t think Vilma is simply looking for money. I think he’s trying to clear his name and resume his career. Vilma is the only person to take to the legal system so far, but I wouldn’t be surprised if any of the coaches, administrators or other players who have been punished or named in the investigation follow his lead" (ESPN.com, 5/17). NFL Network’s Steve Wyche said Ginsberg told him that “he expects Vilma to be on the field in 2012, it’s just unknown if by filing this lawsuit that opens the door for Vilma to play while this legal process irons things out” (“NFL Total Access,” NFL Network, 5/17)
TAKING ON THE MAN? CBSSPORTS.com's Mike Freeman wrote the "problem for the Saints continues to be their arrogance." That has been "the issue for the Saints in the Sean Payton era and that arrogance is again showing its multi-faceted head" with the defamation suit. Vilma's lawsuit "is about arrogance but it's also about a refusal to take responsibility for one's actions." The Saints are presenting themselves "as freedom fighters taking up arms against the dictator Goodell who refuses to provide proof of their crimes." Freeman wrote, "It plays well with a Saints base that believes this entire thing is one cooked up conspiracy, but ignores the simple question of why would the NFL risk its entire reputation on a lack of proof. ... The true hope of Vilma is to get Goodell deposed and tell Vilma who sold the Saints out. That likely will never happen." A less "arrogant person would take his medicine like an adult but Vilma won't." He is "going to keep pushing that strategy because Vilma knows he can play the base for suckers" (CBSSPORTS.com, 5/17). YAHOO SPORTS' Michael Silver wrote whatever the outcome of his lawsuit, Vilma's "political capital among his peers is the equivalent of a blank check." By taking on Goodell, Vilma "not only issued a challenge to the commissioner to produce some concrete evidence against the four players disciplined in the Saints' bounty case, but he also took a symbolic shot at Goodell's omnipotence." The move is "not without risk." In addition to a "great deal of money, the suit could cost Vilma further damage to his reputation, and possibly expose him to criminal liability." If concrete evidence "surfaces that Vilma did, in fact, serve as the ringleader of a pay-for-injure operation, he will likely regret that he filed the suit" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 5/17).
