Add new comment

Yeah Doc, this isn't legal territory at all.  But, you've drove me to it:  Here's what the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement of 2011 says:  Credit Forbes for getting me started:
All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for 
conduct on the playing field (other than as described in Subsection (b) below) or involv­ing action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly: send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLP A. Within three (3) business days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player's approv­al, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner
CBA 2011 Article 46 § 1.(a)
The Collective bargaining agreement then lays out a complex arbitration process that is similar to a court trial and appeal procedure for disputes of this kind.  
Forbes argues that NFL CBA domestic violence abuse guidelines set down by Goodell himself, the Promptness Clause of Article 46 § 1 and the Double Jeopardy Clause of CBA Article 46 § 4, as well as settled arbitration principles preclude a lifetime ban.  
The Goodell sentencing guideline is a memo that Goodell allegedly sent to owners stating that players would get a six game suspension for a first DV offense.  The CBA double jeopardy clause reads as follows:
The Commissioner or a Cub will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct.  The Commissioner's disciplinary action will preclude disciplinary action by any Club for the same act or conduct.
Nothing in Article 46 says that the Commissioner gets to impose discipline on a player twice, and, if there was a 6 game guideline in place, then Rice may have something in arbitration.  It should be noted that the fact that the NFL has a double jeopardy clause has just joined my long list of reasons why I don't enjoy football games.
 
Now, about external pressure.  A group determines how important public pressure is to it.  For profit organizations generally have more of an eye to public pressure than not for profit organizations.  A church generally is more insulated from outside pressure than a company, but it doesn't mean that the company is wrong for caving to public opinion.  Think of it from a product angle:  
Steve Jobs thought that a large screen smart phone would never sell.  Tim Cook and the board of Apple decided that they were tired of losing their cellphone market to Samsung and LG, and so they changed up their product to include an iPhone 6,(big) and iPhone 6+ (Bigger).
The NFL is doing the same thing.  Ray Rice, like the four inch iPhone, has fallen out of public favor, and it is costing the NFL money.  Therefore, get rid of Ray Rice, problem solved, crisis averted.  This does seem kind of chicken, and it does violate the NFL's branding of itself as the league of rules and not men, but it doesn't seem too extraordinary given the circumstances.