The NFL is writing a check to keep Roger Goodell off the stand
The NFL has settled a lawsuit brought against it by a children’s charity in order to avoid the possibility that its commissioner will have to testify about the league’s hypocritical and vague policy on gambling.
It seems that keeping Roger Goodell from even the possibility of having to be deposed about the NFL’s inconsistent stance on gambling is worth nearly any price to the NFL.
This story began about two years ago, when a children’s charity named Strikes for Kids made preparations for a fundraising event. The originally-planed venue for the event was a bowling alley inside the Sunset Station Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. The same Las Vegas, Nevada that the now-Oakland Raiders will soon call home.
Other than the riveting pin-smashing action, Strikes for Kids also promised the appearances of over 25 NFL players to entice potential donors. All was going along swimmingly until a lawyer for the NFL notified Strikes for Kids that NFL players are sometimes barred from making promotional appearances inside casinos because of the league’s anti-gambling policy. For whatever reason, whomever makes that decision for the NFL decided that an event to raise money for school supplies and college scholarships was one of those sometimes.
A slight aside: in April, nearly three dozen NFL players appeared at an arm-wrestling competition held at the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino, which is also in Las Vegas, Nevada. No suits from the league put the kibosh on that event beforehand. Jarrett Bell of USA Today Sports reports that Alan Brickman, who co-owns the entertainment company which ran the event, insists that he reached out to the NFL on two separate occasions prior to the event. The NFL claims ignorance of player participation and that they are “investigating” the situation. Thus far, no discipline of any kind has befallen the players who took part. Maybe NFL brass prefer the MGM to the Sunset, or maybe some people in the league were running a pool on which player would win the arm-wrestling tournament. For whatever reason, the NFL has done nothing about this event.
Returning to the Strikes for Kids drama, the charity demonstrated some resilience and relocated its event to a much-smaller venue, which technically wasn’t inside but still connected to the LINQ casino. The event was held with the NFL players, but that is really where the story just begins.
Shortly thereafter, Strikes for Kids filed suit against the NFL. It alleged that it was misled by the league and lost revenue because of the relocation of the event to the smaller bowling alley. The response to the suit by the NFL was minimal, until the charity made a legal move that is akin to a Bobby Fisher checkmate.
According to Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today Sports, this is the statement that Strikes for Kids attorney Julie Pettit made to a federal magistrate judge last month:
"“There’s only one person that can tell us what’s the difference between the non-approved venue and the approved venue, and he’s this Oz behind the curtain, this person that the NFL will not allow us to talk to. And everyone points their finger at him, saying he’s the only one that can make that determination.”"
That person is Goodell. Only Goodell could provide some degree of clarity on how the league seemingly-arbitrarily decides on these matters. Not only is he the only person who could provide those answers, but as Pettit stated, the one person that the NFL desperately wishes to keep off the stand on the issue of gambling.
Goodell is the face of the NFL. His public statements, especially under oath, might as well be written into the league’s by-laws. Had Goodell testified and made carte blanche anti-gambling statements, that would have hindered the NFL’s ability to do a 180 degree turn on the matter when betting on sports becomes legal and the NFL figures out how it can get a cut of the profits. Had Goodell testified and revealed what’s more likely to be true, that the league is just watching the legal battles across the country and trying to figure out how to get ahead of the game so it can profit off gambling once it’s legal, that would have essentially nullified its ability to control what players engage in until a more-specific player conduct policy on gambling can be drafted. Additionally, an admission of anything less than a hardline anti-gambling stance would have contradicted Goodell’s earlier statements and peeled back the curtain on the league’s insistence that the integrity of the game, not the bottom line, is priority number one.
The petition to put Goodell on the stand was originally denied, but Strikes for Kids made another plea to a different judge. That’s what got the NFL’s counsel on the phone with Strikes for Kids’ counsel talking dollars. Pettit didn’t state how much the NFL and Strikes for Kids agreed to, but for the NFL, the settlement has to be considered a win no matter the amount.
Next: NFL uniform power rankings
Writing the check has kept Goodell off the stand regarding gambling for now. It’s possible that this scenario could happen again, however. There are other potential conflicts between league policy and activity, like how NFL teams are allowed to accept a limited amount of advertising dollars from casinos but not allow players to sign endorsement contracts with casinos, that could prompt challenges. Eventually, the league may not be able to just throw money at the problem to make it go away. Until then, the dollar has truly proven to be almighty for the NFL.