NFL: Cuts Overturn Arbitration, Coaches Win Against Goodell and League

Judicial Decisions Shake Up NFL Arbitration

A significant change could be brewing in the NFL’s practice of resolving coaches’ labor disputes through closed-door arbitration. Recent court rulings have questioned the validity of the league’s rules in this area. Two different courts have ruled in favor of coaches who challenged the NFL’s arbitration requirements. One of the panels called the league’s arbitration process “unconscionable,” while another deemed it “unworthy of the name of arbitration.” The disputes centered on the arbitration clause of the NFL constitution, which grants Commissioner Roger Goodell final authority in labor disputes, even when he is a defendant. Although the NFL hasn’t issued official comments, legal analysts suggest that these decisions could have a considerable impact on the power dynamics between the league and its employees. Judicial proceedings often involve the discovery of evidence and a greater possibility that the league’s internal documents and communications will become public. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause is inherently unfair and therefore unenforceable in the case of former Raiders coach Jon Gruden against the league and Goodell. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit called the process “arbitration in name only” and determined that current Minnesota Vikings defensive coordinator Brian Flores could bring his hiring discrimination claims to court against the NFL and several teams. While the scope of these decisions is limited to Nevada and the Second Circuit, the precedents established could spur future legal challenges. Both courts questioned the constitutional language that grants the commissioner “full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate” disputes between coaches and teams. The Second Circuit’s opinion was especially critical of the NFL’s arbitration clause. In essence, the courts determined that the arbitration clause allows the commissioner to act unfairly as both defendant and judge.

The current arbitration clause is “an abomination of the justice system”.

Mike Caspino, lawyer

Mike Caspino, a lawyer who successfully represented former Arizona Cardinals executive Terry McDonough in an arbitration against the team in 2024, described the current arbitration clause as “an abomination of the justice system.” Caspino suggested that these decisions could lead to new claims from people previously subject to the arbitration clause.

This will make people much less reluctant to file claims against the NFL.

Mike Caspino, lawyer

Due to the Second Circuit’s decision, Flores asked a district judge on September 16 to reconsider a previous decision that forced him to submit to arbitration regarding his claims against the Miami Dolphins, where he was head coach from 2019 to 2021. The Dolphins did not respond to a request for comment. Flores was also a coach with the Patriots and Steelers, before joining the Vikings in 2023.

David Gottlieb, Flores’ lawyer, described the process as a “secret and obviously false process”. The immediate impact of the decisions for Flores and Gruden is that, pending any appeal by the NFL, each can bring their individual claims to court, which could subject all parties to discovery, a jury trial, and broader public scrutiny.

We have two courts, prominent courts, that have… come to the same conclusion. And I can’t see how any other court is going to come to a different conclusion.

Mike Caspino, lawyer

Analysts suggest that these decisions could grant greater influence to employees, coaches, and players in the negotiation of future agreements. Professor of law Jeremi Duru considers these decisions victories for the “underdogs” and calls them a “turning point” in the fight of players, coaches, and employees against arbitration. Jean Kuei, who represents employers, describes the decisions as “a wake-up call” for the NFL, suggesting that they could push teams to modify their policies and “work cultures to align more with what is typically seen in American companies.” Case law will impact coaches and other employees more than players, who bargain collectively, Kuei explained. Karla Gilbride, former general counsel at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, disagrees with Kuei’s assessment, arguing that players may now have a roadmap to nullify their own arbitration clauses in light of the two decisions. Gilbride claims that these court decisions will serve as a guide for players in future negotiations and “increase their ability to push for greater rights for players and greater bargaining power equality.”