The Arrogance of the NFL and Other Lessons Learned in 2005

As 2006 enters its second week, it may be instructive throughout our stint as guest bloggers to pause and look back upon some of the more interesting legal issues or stories in the worlds of sports in 2005. As co-hosts of Sports Court, a weekly radio show, we had the good fortune of examining many topics. Although, given the time constraints of our show, admittedly we did not delve into our topics as deeply as we would have liked. Additionally, our “during the week jobs” do not always allow to examine legal issues in the world of sports.

In any event, the NFL’s arrogance in two separate cases was quite notable. First, the NFL showed how little it does to protect its players during the course of the suit brought by Kelci Stringer, the widow Korey Stringer. As you many will recall was an offensive lineman for the Minnesota Vikings. He passed away during training camp in 2001. As the indicated by family attorney Paul DeMarco of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, the standard of care that Stringer received in the moments leading up to his death was tragically inadequate. DeMarco related his frustration in dealing with NFL. One cannot blame that the NFL for being defensive about actions that may have occurred and for being diligent in its defense. However, from what we have seen, the league has done little to improve the quality of care or to issue any significant guidelines. How many more tragedies will occur before the league acts to protect its players?

In Tampa, high school civics teacher Gordon Johnston was offended by the notion that he would be subject to pat-downs on the way into Raymond James Stadium prior to a Tampa Bay Buccaneers game. Surprisingly, Circuit Court judge Perry A. Little agreed that the searches violated Johnston’s Constitutional rights. As a result Johnston won injunctive relief. We are not aware of the current status of the case, however, thanks to the Tampa Bay "offense" the issue is no longer urgent.

What was curious in that case was what we learned about the NFL’s policy relative to pat-downs. Apparently the league required additional security measures, but at the expense of whatever entity operated the stadium. As a result, the taxpayers in Tampa were left with significant additional cost. Faced with this reality, one politician argued the merits of complying with the new policy, reminding his colleagues that to do otherwise could damage Tampa’s relationship with the NFL prior to hosting the 2009 Super Bowl. The NFL apparently received similar cooperation in most other venues, thereby allowing the league to pass along the cost of the added to security to already cash-strapped public agencies.

Posted in: