Lawsuit of the Day, Michael Vick, Sports

Lawsuit of the Day: Atlanta Falcons v. Michael Vick

By  
on

Ok, so strictly speaking it’s not a lawsuit. It’s an arbitration hearing before a special master pursuant to the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Falcons are seeking to recoup $22 million already paid to Vick in signing bonuses. The Falcons claim that, since Vick knew at the time that he signed the contract and received the bonuses that he was running a dogfighting operation and should have known that that could cause him to not be able to play, he has forfeited the bonuses. The NFL Players Association says once bonuses are paid, there’s no forfeiture, period.
They seem to be almost right. Under the new CBA approved last year, forfeiture of signing bonuses are allowed for only one reason (quoted here from Section 9 (a) of Article XIV of the CBA):

Section 9. Limitations on Salary Forfeitures:
(a) No forfeitures of signing bonuses shall be permitted, except that players and Clubs may agree: (i)
to proportionate forfeitures of a signing bonus if a player voluntarily retires or willfully withholds his
services from one or more regular season games; and/or (ii) that if a player willfully takes action that has
the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason
training camp or the regular season (including by willfully withholding his services in either preseason
training camp or during the regular season or willfully missing one or more games), the player may forfeit
the greater of: (a) 25% of the prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable League Year for the
first time such conduct occurs after the beginning of training camp until the end of the season for his Club,
and the remaining 75% prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable year for the second time
such conduct occurs during that period that year; or (b) the proportionate amount of his signing bonus
allocation for each week missed (1/17th for each regular season week or game missed).

What do you sports lawyers out there think? Do Vick’s actions constitute willful action that “has the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason training camp or the regular season”? He willfully ran the dogfighting operation, and as a result he has been suspended. Seems to me that the Falcons have a pretty good case.
Special Master Stephen B. Burbank (definitely a top-tier guy; Harvard (twice) and current Penn Law faculty) heard the case yesterday.
Stephen B. Burbank bio [Penn Law]
NFL CBA [NFLPA]
Falcons Seek $22M From Suspended Vick [KNBC]

Sponsored

Topics