Flawed NFL arbitration process under scrutiny after Jon Gruden, Brian Flores rulings

In a written statement, the appeals court blasted the NFL's arbitration process, which allows Goodell to make decisions unilaterally, saying "It offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence."

The judges also argued that the NFL's process equates to "arbitration in name only."

It was the second time this week that Goodell's role as chief arbiter has come under scrutiny in U.S. courts.

On Monday, the Nevada Supreme Court described the NFL's argument that Jon Gruden's lawsuit should be handled through arbitration led by Goodell as "unconscionable."

In his original claim, Gruden alleged the NFL and Goodell leaked emails to the press, which led to his resignation as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders in October 2021.

The dual rulings against the league are the biggest hits its flawed arbitration process has taken. 

It's never made sense for the commissioner to arbitrate matters he's already decided after handing down punishments. Those situations should be left to an impartial party. 

Goodell was granted his unlimited authority in the 2011 collective bargaining agreement, which positioned him as the NFL's judge, jury and executioner.

The Gruden and Flores developments are illustrative of the fact that the league and NFLPA went too far in granting Goodell such wide-sweeping authority. 

The recent court rulings acknowledge the flaw in the NFL's system. That shield just added a few more dents.