Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Media & Entertainment Law Blogs -> Sports Law Blog

Media & Entertainment Law

: Sports Law Blog

NFL Asserts Bias in Judge's Ruling in Vick Contract Dispute

By Rick Karcher, Michael McCann, Geoffrey Rapp, Greg Skidmore, and Howard Wasserman

After pleading guilty to federal charges in a dogfighting operation, the Falcons tried to recover about $20 million in bonuses Michael Vick earned from 2004 to 2007. Two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge David Doty ruled that Vick cannot be forced to repay $16.5 million in bonuses under the terms of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, which reversed a decision last November in the Falcons' favor by arbitrator Stephen Burbank. Vick had already received approximately $20 million in bonuses by the Falcons under the terms of the $130 million contract he signed in 2004. However, Judge Doty also ruled that Vick needs to return $3.75 million based on amendments to the CBA.

Last Thursday, it was reported that the NFL is now asking the federal court to vacate Judge Doty's ruling and the NFL also wants to end Judge Doty's jurisdiction over labor matters. The press release reports that "the league argues that Doty's public comments show he is biased against them." According to the AP release:

"Michael Vick breached his contract and cannot play because he was convicted of a felony and is sitting in jail," the NFL said in a statement. "Despite those facts, the judge held that Vick is entitled to keep nearly $20 million in bonus money paid to him for playing football through the 2014 season."

The league also questioned whether Doty, who presided during the 1992 antitrust suit that led to the 1993 labor agreement after six years without a contract, should continue to oversee its dealings with the NFL Players Association.

"No other industry has its labor relations supervised by a federal judge in the way we do, and at this point, after 15 years of labor peace, it is hard to understand why such oversight is necessary or (why it is) an appropriate use of judicial resources," the statement said.

Biased? I find it hard to believe that the NFL is claiming bias here. Judge Doty is, arguably, as neutral and impartial as they come. He is a federal judge who (1) is not a party to the CBA relationship, (2) has not been unilaterally selected by either party to the dispute such that there is a concern for what's known as "institutional bias," and (3) has no incentive, and nothing to gain, by ruling in either party's favor. Although I sympathize with the NFL that 15 years is a very long period with the same decision maker, the NFL has had numerous opportunities over these years to negotiate away Judge Doty's jurisdiction pursuant to arm's length collective bargaining negotiations with the NFLPA. There are no factual issues in this matter; it involves solely a contract interpretation issue. While the NFL disagrees with Judge Doty's interpretation of the CBA, there are no due process concerns here whatsoever.

I can't help but to note how disciplinary matters involving player misconduct are decided in the NFL, and to highlight the irony inherent in the NFL's assertion that Judge Doty is biased. Do you think the Vick contract dispute would have turned out differently if the commissioner was deciding the matter and he also heard the appeal?

Full post as published by Sports Law Blog on February 18, 2008 (boomark / email).