By Yoojung Rhee, Simon A. Brandon-Lai and John T. Holden
The National Football League (NFL) is exceptionally popular. The NFL has averaged a total attendance at regular season games of 17 million between 2013 and 2015 (Statista, 2015). Despite the small number of games in the NFL, television and online demand remains unprecedented (Brown, 2015). NFL fans are known for their loyalty and devotion to their teams, recently a group of New England Patriots fans took the rare step of bringing a lawsuit to challenge Roger Goodell’s ability to sanction the Patriots by eliminating the team’s first-round draft pick.
On January 18, 2015, the Deflategate scandal erupted following the AFC Championship game between the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. During the game, Colts linebacker, D’Qwell Jackson noticed the ball felt unusual following an interception. After the notification, Jackson gave the ball to a member of Colts’ equipment staff, who also noticed that the ball did not hold enough air. The staff notified Colts Chuck Pagano. After the game Patriots Coach Bill Belichick, addressed the media stated that the Patriots would cooperate with the league and noted that he did not have any idea how the balls became underinflated. The NFL started investigating the Deflategate scandal on January 23, 2015. Following the NFL investigation, the team was fined $1 million and forced to surrender two draft picks, a first-round pick in 2016 and a fourth-round pick in 2017.
On April 5, 2016, Maine lawyer, Seth T. Carey filed a lawsuit on behalf of New England Patriots fans against NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, the NFL and Patriots owner Robert Kraft.[1] The Complaint relies on various outside media sources to establish the facts surrounding the details of Deflategate.[2] Carey alleges that the Defendants have violated Massachusetts Consumer Protection laws by virtue of their removal of the Patriots’ 2016 draft pick.[3] Carey asserted the New York District Court “basically cleared” the Patriots and Tom Brady of wrongdoing and as a result the removal of the Patriots’ draft pick is unjust.[4] In addition to the Massachusetts law claim the plaintiffs are alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, common law fraud, state and federal RICO law claims and a variety of negligence based claims.[5] Despite calls from a number of scholars to provide fans with remedies when teams behave outrageously, historically fan lawsuits have been unsuccessful.[6]
Underpinning the present lawsuit is the central premise that consumers—fans of the New England Patriots—are adversely affected by the NFL’s disciplinary proceedings. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and infliction emotional distress, among other claims. In stating the basis for these claims, the plaintiffs refer to a number of instances in which they believe the NFL failed to ensure procedural justice, which has been conceptualized as a perceptual construct, comprising two factors: (1) formal proceedings, which refers to perceptions that the nature of proceedings are fair[7]; and (2) interactional justice, which refers to the extent to which proceedings are viewed as being carried out in a fair manner.[8]
The plaintiffs appear focused on the latter—the interactional justice of proceedings. For example, concerns were raised regarding (a) the independence of the Wells report; (b) the burden of proof relied upon to determine whether the deflating of footballs was an intentional and premediated act by Patriots employees; and (c) the integrity of the scientific evidence relied upon by the NFL in determining subsequent discipline. As such, the plaintiffs argued that the lack of procedural due process resulted in unjust punishment of the Patriots, which subsequently had negative consequences for those who are emotionally attached to the team.
The lawsuit filed by New England Patriots fans faces long odds given a trilogy of fan lawsuits that were unsuccessful. In 2000 the New York Appellate Division addressed arguments from Plaintiffs who brought a variety of claims against Mike Tyson including: breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of express and implied warranties, following Tyson’s disqualification from the fight after biting Evander Holyfield’s ear.[9] The Plaintiffs alleged that the disqualification of Tyson breached a contractual obligation to provide a fight that was ended by a conclusion, other than by disqualification.[10] The New York Appellate Division held that the Plaintiffs lacked privity of contract with any of the defendants, and received the fight that they paid for, despite the disqualification.[11]
Similarly fans of auto-racing brought suit against the Federation Internationale de L’Automobile (FIA) following an auto race at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, when a race scheduled to be run with 20 cars took place with only six cars following an unresolvable tire defect discovered during practice laps.[12] The Seventh Circuit in Bowers held that a ticket to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway for the race only guaranteed admission to the grounds, not that the race be run with a specified number of cars.[13]
Following a previous allegation against the New England Patriots, where the team was found to have videotaped opponents practice activities in contravention of National Football League rules.[14] Carl J. Mayer, a New York Jets fan and lawyer sued Belichick and the New England Patriots after attending a game between the Jets and the Patriots, which the Jets lost.[15] Mayer alleged a variety of claims including: tortious interference with contractual relations and common law fraud.[16] While Mayer’s complaint was dismissed, the Third Circuit stated: “We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team’s head coach.”[17]
The New England Patriots fans, while undoubtedly angered by the loss of a first round draft pick, are unlikely to be successful in establishing that there was any relationship between themselves and the defendants in order.[18]
Rhee is a doctoral student at the University of Florida. Brandon-Lai is a doctoral student at Florida State University. Holden is a doctoral student at Florida State University.
[1] See Compl. New England Patriots v. Nat’l Football League, 1:16-CV-10659-FDS (D. Mass. April 5, 2016).
[2] See id. at 3 — 10.
[3] Id. at 10.
[4] Id. at 11.
[5] Id. at 10-15.
[6] See generally Dan Markel et al., Catalyzing Fan, 6 Harv. J. Sports & Ent. L. 1 (2015).
[7] See Gerald S. Leventhal, What Should Be Done with Equity Theory, Springer (1980)
[8] See Robert J. Bies, Beyond “Views”: The Influential of Decision-Maker Justification and Society on Procedural Judgments, 17 Research in Soc. Psych. 14 (1987).
[9] See Castillo v. Tyson, 268 A.D.2d. 366 (2000).
[10] See id. at 337.
[11] Id.
[12] See Bowers v. Federation Internationale de L’Automobile, 489 F.3d 316 (7th cir. 2007).
[13] See id. at 321.
[14] See Don Van Natta Jr. & Seth Wickersham, Spygate to Deflategate: Inside what Split the NFL and Patriots Apart, ESPN (Sep. 8, 2015), http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart.
[15] See Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 2010).
[16] Id. at 228.
[17] Id. at 237.
[18] Indeed, legal commentator Daniel Wallach observed that the law suit was a “long shot.” See Daniel Wallach, @Wallachlegal, Patriots fans lawsuit vs. NFL a ‘long shot’ due to lack of standing & lengthy delay in seeking TRO (Tweet) (Apr. 8, 2016 1:21 PM).
