RSS
Denver Post
September 19, 2015
by Roger Pielke, Jr.
The NFL season is finally underway after an off season focused on deflated footballs. The so-called “Deflategate” controversy started with an allegation that Tom Brady and the New England Patriots intentionally altered footballs in pursuit of a competitive advantage in last year’s playoffs.
The issue evolved into a legal battle centered on what, with hindsight, looks to be a deeply flawed dispute resolution process of the NFL.
Lost in the talk radio debates over Brady’s moral integrity and legal wrangling over NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s authority is a more basic principle: Sport is made possible because of the integrity of rules.
Deflategate occurred because the NFL and the Players Association together agreed that each team would have responsibility for providing the balls that it uses while on offense. There were few checks in place to ensure compliance with the rules for equipment preparation. Under such an arrangement, the opportunities for mischief are many.
Imagine if instead of each team providing its own footballs, that each team had responsibility for providing its own referees. Each team would contract individually with a licensed NFL referee to officiate their games. What possibly could go wrong?
If this hypothetical scenario sounds ridiculous, it is. Throughout business and government, policies are put into place to ensure that conflicts of interest — either real or perceived — don’t compromise the integrity of decision- making.
However, it seems that the world of sports missed a memo somewhere.
Consider drug testing in sport. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, located in Colorado Springs, was given responsibility by Congress for overseeing American athletes who participate in Olympic sports, such as track and field. The USADA is best known for its investigation and punishment of Lance Armstrong, who had his seven Tour de France titles stripped due to his long-term violation of doping rules. Read more …
