Replies

“It doesn’t have to be an endorsement of Goodell or the process. It simply has to recognize that this was the product of a contractual agreement reached by two sophisticated parties.”

In this case the opposing party(Goodell) and the arbitrator(Goodell) were one in the same. The first court ruled on the dishonesty and fraudulent practices of Goodell the arbitrator.

This court ruled:

“Even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained-for authority,” two of the judges on a three-man panel ruled. Judge Robert Katzmann dissented.

They as much as said Goodell did not follow the law and was dishonest but by 2-1 the judges said that it does not matter.

This is an arbitration, based on contractually bargained-for rights. It isn't a criminal issue, so talking about what the law is doesn't really matter.

It's really pretty simple. The Union signed a collective bargaining agreement that gives Goodell incredible authority. So if he's judge, jury, and executioner, that's perfectly fine as long as the Union agreed to it. Which, they did.