Big companies prefer arbitration to litigation for many reasons.
Here’s an important one. Court proceedings are open and transparent. Arbitration happens in a closed, private setting.
This summer, for example, the NFL has defended (unsuccessfully, so far) an antitrust lawsuit that played out in the public eye. At the same time, the NFL has been dealing with the trial of an arbitration grievance, out of the prying eyes of the media or the public.
The claim arises from the allegation that the NFL’s teams colluded on the issue of not giving guaranteed contracts to certain players.
Information isn’t easy to come by regarding the case, because no one wants to alienate the arbitrator by blabbing. We’ve nevertheless picked up a few nuggets.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the arbitration hearing resumes (and is expected to end) next week. Last month, a week was devoted to the case.
After the hearing concludes, the arbitrator (appointed by the NFL and NFL Players Association) will issue a decision.
In the Sunday Ticket case, a final judgment (if any) will be shared in equal measure by the plaintiffs, based presumably on the number of years that each plaintiff purchased Sunday Ticket during the class period. In this case, specific players could ultimately receive significant amounts of money, based on the damages evidence submitted to date at the trial.
One such player would most likely be Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson. He received no external interest or contract offers while subject to the non-exclusive franchise tag in 2023, and his five-year contract was not fully guaranteed.
The NFL could still prevail. Collusion cases are hard to prove, because those who collude aren’t inclined to admit it. The case will have to be established with circumstantial evidence and/or any silver bullets the NFLPA might have found during the discovery process.
Unlike the Sunday Ticket case, the league will have little or no recourse if it loses. In the court system, multiple layers and levels of appeal are available. Here, the arbitrator has the final say — and there are very limited avenues for attacking the ruling in court.