Super Bowl LIII(E), The Past vs. The Future: The Potential For Unrest (Within the Sport Edition)

Well, it looks like we may be brewing for something in Atlanta next week, on at least one of a couple of different levels.

Someone is going to, however, have to educate two lawyers and a bunch of Saints fans on one of the most abominable decisions in history, the one which legalized league-based game rigging in the United States of America:

Mayer v. Belichick, New England Patriots, and National Football League

The decision even notes that "Simply put, no one in the past has ever brought a legal action quite like this one."

And the decision notes correctly that:  "Reduced to its essence, the current appeal before us is concerned with the alleged existence of a very specific but very different and unusual right: namely, the right of a ticket-holder to see an “honest” game played in compliance with the fundamental rules of the NFL itself (which was then allegedly denied to Mayer and his fellow ticket-holders because of the secret and illicit videotaping program undertaken by the Patriots and Belichick)."

It then cites the failed Indy Grand Prix, and lawsuits fans filed against Formula One on it, and the decision there said:  "Of particular significance here, the appellate court initially stated that any breach of contract claim “arguably should fail because IMS [the race track hosting the event] promised only to admit the plaintiffs to the race grounds on the days of the grand prix.” Id. at 321. It went on to state the following:

While we are unaware of any Indiana case addressing the nature of a contract formed by the sale of an admission ticket, cf. [Skalbania, 443 N.E.2d at 352] (addressing a class certification question in a breach of contract action by season ticket holders against a hockey franchise, but explicitly reserving the merits), most states agree that the seller contracts only to admit the plaintiff to its property at a given time. The plaintiff buys the ticket, of course, in order to see an event that is scheduled to occur on the ticket-seller's grounds, but the seller does not contract to provide the spectacle, only to license the plaintiff to enter and “view whatever event transpire[s].” [Castillo, 701 N.Y.S.2d at 423]."

(Emphases mine.)

So the court, using precedence concludes:

"In conclusion, this Court will affirm the dismissal of Mayer's amended complaint. Again, it bears repeating that our reasoning here is limited to the unusual and even unique circumstances presented by this appeal. We do not condone the conduct on the part of the Patriots and the team's head coach, and we likewise refrain from assessing whether the NFL's sanctions (and its alleged destruction of the videotapes themselves) were otherwise appropriate. We further recognize that professional football, like other professional sports, is a multi-billion dollar business. In turn, ticket-holders and other fans may have legitimate issues with the manner in which they are treated. See, e.g., Charpentier, 75 Cal.App. 4th at 314 (“It is common knowledge that professional sports franchisees have a sordid history of arrogant disdain for the consumers of the product.” (footnote omitted)). Significantly, our ruling also does not leave Mayer and other ticket-holders without any recourse. Instead, fans could speak out against the Patriots, their coach, and the NFL itself. In fact, they could even go so far as to refuse to purchase tickets or NFL-related merchandise. See, e.g., Bowers, 489 F.3d at 321 (noting possible effects of bad reputation on future prospects of sport); Seko, 22 F.3d at 774 (stating that, “instead of going to the Cubs game, the fan may head south for Comiskey Park and the White Sox”). However, the one thing they cannot do is bring a legal action in a court of law."

The court did say they did not feel they could become the final arbiters of every bad call...

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT'S THIS FUCKING OBVIOUS??

Anyway, back to my point...

Two lawsuits have been filed in court in New Orleans to force Roger Goodell to invoke his extraordinary powers to replay the final 1:40 or so of the NFC Championship Game, all but awarding the game to the Saints, because of the circumstances.  (Three kneel-downs/centering and a short field goal, and it's New Orleans playing New England.)

They will fail, because of Mayer making it legal for leagues to rig the contests because the only guarantee precedent of law has given a fan is a seat at the contest -- no guarantee of anything else except, as the Indianapolis decision notes, to "view whatever event transpire[s]".

But you then have the situation regarding Matt Bowers, a Saints fan who has decided to take matters into his own hands and buy billboards in Atlanta saying the Saints were screwed.

What if that sentiment hits the streets of Atlanta and other factors (which will be discussed in another post, outside the sport) boil in and the preparations and/or game of Super Bowl LIII become more than a bit problematic?

Stay tuned.  Turbulence may not only be in the air this time.