The case is at the core of professional sport as it affects some of the most powerful men in the Football profession against one of the most respected quarterbacks in the history of the game. The parties involved in the dispute include Roger Goodell and Tom Brady. This is a civil liabilities case based on the issue of the player refusing to play and the manipulation of the ball in the air. The case is being assessed in the United States Court of Appeal through a three-judge panel (Belson 1).
The main contentious issue is the intensity of the game. The problems of the case are fundamental in the professional sports law as there have been controversial issues regarding the same matter. Concepts of justice simulate that there is a need for all parties to carry their obligation in the performance of their contracts. Natural justice stipulates that players are not warranted to refuse to play in any general circumstances. In the current world, the decisions taken by the court is the right choice as it allows for the utilisation of one's obligations.
The parties involved in the lawsuit are inclusive of the U.S committee of Olympics and a lawsuit brought by Nick Symmonds Company, who doubles up as a runner. The issue of contestation is on the types of sponsorships that athletes are expected to don on their shirts (Rachel 1). Rum Gum, Nick Symmonds Company is of the opinion that there should be no hindrances on the display of sponsorship as this is against antitrust laws. The other party, on the other hand, asserts that they have immunity from any lawsuits.
Professional’s opinion on the matter is that the issue should be considered carefully with recent additions on the shirts being significant for the shirt sponsors as athletes are brand items. During participation in national events, it is prudent that athletes should only represent their countries brand on the shirts worn. This indicates a sense of national identity and is not similar to having other name sponsors on the shirts of athletes. In the current realm, it is highly prudent that there should be no shirt sponsor names on the shirts of athletes.
The lawsuits pits several contractors against each other over bids to construct a stadium. Four companies submitted bids for construction, yet rivals claims that certain parties were favored in the bidding process, and this is a civil case. Another claim made by the belligerents is that the tendering process followed a monopolistic process of bidding (Kyle 1). Project timelines were also expected to cause disruptants on subsequent activities that are anticipated to follow i.e. the football season however this could be averted. Other allegations also assert that he bidding process was merely a sham that was not supposed to happen. The decision affects the operation of the stadium and in the carrying out of any professional sport for the school.
It’s widely held that under natural justice jurisdiction the process should not be flawed and should be conducted in a competitive and transparent manner that allows for the parties to compete on an equal measure. Professionally speaking the stadium should also be completed as it inhibits the continuation of sport in the area. In normal circumstances, it is extremely critical that the completion of contracts is carried out in full for the duration of the contract. This will ensure that all parameters are met, and inconveniences are averted. Subsequently and most importantly there is need to ensure that the bidding process for all contracts is carried out in a free and fair manner that allows for the necessary activities to be undertaken. The contractor with the best bid price and resources should be the one that is accepted for the project.
Works Cited.
Belson, Ken. "N.F.L. Wins Appeal, And Tom Brady Has Little Recourse". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 May 2016.
Kyle Schwab "OU Attorney Says Lawsuit Against The University Will Not Interrupt Football Stadium's Renovation". NewsOK.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 May 2016.
Rachel Axon ."USOC, USATF File Motions To Dismiss Lawsuit From Nick Symmonds' Company". Google.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 May 2016.
