The NFL and NFL Players Association had its second settlement hearing in court on Wednesday, and it sounds like it went horribly for the NFL.
Since the NFLPA took the NFL to court over Tom Brady's four-game suspension, the two sides haven't made any progress on a settlement.
While Judge Richard Berman, who is overseeing the case, can't force either side to come to a settlement, he can push in one direction to encourage a settlement, perhaps hinting that he favors one side's argument.
Based on the reports from Wednesday's hearing, it sounds like Berman may be pushing the NFL to come to a settlement.
Berman was apparently very critical of the NFL's argument:
If Judge Berman was critical of NFL last week, he was even more critical today. Questions of fundamental fairness and evident impartiality.
— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) August 19, 2015 UPDATE: Hearing over after 2:15. No settlement. Judge Berman was very, very critical of NFL. Brady/NFLPA are making a good case
— Ben Volin (@BenVolin) August 19, 2015Berman was reportedly critical of the Wells Report saying Brady was "generally aware" as a way for the NFL to argue Brady was part of the scheme.
Berman: "There is a bit of a quantum leap from the finding of Mr. Wells to the finding of Mr. Goodell." (from general awareness to scheme)
— Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) August 19, 2015 Berman wondered why Wells Report was not more specific to January 18th, why Wells didn't specify. "He's a smart guy, right?"
— Andrew Brandt (@adbrandt) August 19, 2015Though, in fairness, the NFL had a good counterargument:
Nash, for NFL, countered that entire Wells Report revolved around that game, so that should be assumed. Berman seemed skeptical.
— Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) August 19, 2015 Berman also wanted to know how Goodell settled on four game suspension.
— Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) August 19, 2015 Berman: "Which of the four games were for ball tampering and which were for non cooperation?"
— Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) August 19, 2015 Questions re apportioning 4 games between deflation and non-cooperation. "What if there was deflation and cooperation? How many games?"
— Andrew Brandt (@adbrandt) August 19, 2015When league lawyer Daniel Nash said he would defer to Roger Goodell on that, saying Goodell weighed all evidence and made a decision, Berman responded:
To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
— Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) August 19, 2015Berman was also unhappy with Goodell comparing the situation to a player being on steroids:
Berman uncomfortable with Goodell's comparison to steroid suspension "to secure competitive advantage." Wondered why that comparison used.
— Andrew Brandt (@adbrandt) August 19, 2015 Berman: "I don't see how four games (for deflation, non cooperation) is comparable to using steroids and a masking agent."
— Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) August 19, 2015Berman ultimately didn't side too heavily with Brady, however:
Judge: "There are enough strengths and weaknesses on both sides..all the more reason why a settlement seems a logical and rational outcome."
— Max Stendahl (@MaxLaw360) August 19, 2015As Andrew Brandt mentioned, this could be Berman's way of pushing the NFL closer to a settlement. Berman doesn't want to make a decision; he wants to push the sides to come to a settlement. So by grilling the NFL today, he may be pointing out the biggest flaws in their arguments in hopes that they'll bend a little bit toward Brady and the NFLPA's side.
Unless the two sides come to a settlement out of court, the next settlement hearing will be August 31 — just two weeks before the regular season begins.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Curious things most people don’t know about Tom Brady
