The league challenged the punishment handed down Monday by a third disciplinary officer as a result of a hearing into allegations that Watson had engaged in sexually coercive and lewd behavior toward two dozen women he hired for massages. The NFL is arguing for an indefinite suspension with the possibility of reinstatement after a year, according to a person with knowledge of the league’s appeal who was not authorized to speak publicly. The league also recommended a fine and treatment for Watson and cited concerns about his lack of remorse in the briefing it filed Wednesday, the person said. The union, which declined to comment, has until the close of business Friday to respond. Following a process agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association, the appeal will be heard by Commissioner Roger Goodell or a person of his choice. The league did not immediately say who would oversee the appeal, which will be heard on an “expedited” basis. There is no set timeline set out in the CBA for a decision to be made. Sue L. Robinson, the retired federal judge appointed jointly by the NFL and the players’ union to oversee the disciplinary hearing, found that Watson violated the league’s personal conduct policy by engaging in unwanted sexual contact with another person, endangering safety and well-being. he is another person and undermines the integrity of the NFL. He suggested in his 16-page report that Watson’s behavior, which he called “predatory” and “disastrous,” may have merited a stiffer penalty, but that it was limited by league policies and past disciplinary records. Watson denied the charges against him, and two Texas grand juries declined to indict him. He settled all but one of the 24 lawsuits filed against him by women he hired for massages. Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam said they will “continue to support” the quarterback they gave to a five-year, $230 million fully guaranteed contract in March. Robinson said in her report that Watson’s denials did not appear credible and that he had shown no remorse. The players’ union said before Robinson’s decision it would not appeal, but after the suspension was announced Monday, the NFL said it would review its findings and “decide on next steps” within three business days that the CBA allows challenges. The six-game suspension was criticized by Tony Buzbee, the attorney representing most of Watson’s accusers, as well as sports law experts and an advocate for sexual abuse victims. The league had argued to Robinson that Watson deserved at least a full suspension, while the union had fought for a lesser penalty. Robinson said her decision to suspend Watson for six games was based on penalties the league had handed down in other cases involving gender-based violence. The league began its investigation of Watson in March 2021, when Ashley Solis, a licensed massage therapist in Houston, filed the first lawsuit against him. The women said he assaulted or harassed them during massage dates in 2020 and 2021 when Watson played for the Houston Texans. In a brief filed with Robinson, the union wrote that Watson had “used his status as an NFL player as a pretext to engage in a premeditated pattern of predatory behavior toward multiple women.” Watson’s case was the first to be dealt with under a new process established in the 2020 CBA By assigning an arbitrator to oversee the events and decide on the original penalty, the revision aimed to stop criticism of the oversize and Goodell’s sometimes capricious authority over the disciplinary process. If Robinson had found that Watson did not violate the personal conduct policy, there would have been no discipline and neither side could have appealed. But he concluded there was enough evidence, including four women’s accounts that he said were “substantially corroborated,” to support multiple policy violations by Watson. According to the CBA, the decisions of Goodell, or his designee, are “full, final and complete” and binding on all parties, including the player. The union can challenge the league’s appeal in federal court, as it has done for player conduct decisions in the past. A notable example came in 2015, when quarterback Tom Brady challenged his four-game suspension in the so-called Deflategate scandal. A district court judge sided with Brady, saying Goodell exceeded his authority in expelling the quarterback for his role in an alleged scheme to remove air from game balls to improve their traction. Goodell’s decision, however, was upheld in 2016 by a federal appeals panel that affirmed his broad authority to discipline players. Michael LeRoy, an arbitrator who teaches labor law at the University of Illinois, said the CBA’s language made an “emphatic point” about the end result of the process being agreed upon by both sides. “I think it’s almost airtight against judicial overturning,” LeRoy said. “Courts give great deference to findings of fact as well as conclusions as to whether or not there has been a contractual breach. So I think Watson will be tilting at windmills if he challenges it in federal court.” Watson may continue to work out with the Browns during training camp as the appeal continues.
