grudger

Most commentators I've seen who called the ruling wrong were all making the same mistake. They were asking "What DOES the CBA say?" rather than what Kessler argued and Berman decided "What CAN a CBA say?"

What if the CBA said explicitly that the penalty for deflating balls was to have your left hand cut off. The NFL could argue all day that was a collectively bargained provision but the judge would (presumably) say it can't be legally enforced.

Was this not the question at hand? The CBA says, in effect "The commissioner as arbitrator can do whatever he wants" but there are legal limits that supersede the power granted by the CBA (fairness due process etc).

What if the CBA contained an explicit provision that said "Players have no right to call or cross examine witnesses during an arbitration"? CAN a CBA legally say that? Would it be enforcable? If not what legal rights CAN be surrendered in a CBA, certainly some are by the very existence of arbitration agreements.

Do you now what the word satire means?

I've never seen any commentary on this case http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=86195 from Missouri. The Supreme Court found that the appointment of Goodell as arbitrator was unconscionable and therefore invalid. I know it is only binding in Missouri but could the same legal arguments be used in other states? Was this only because of some unique Missouri law?