Deflategate: Ball Pressure, Science and the Commissioner's Power

Timeline

1. Jan 18, 2015The Patriots beat the Colts in the AFC Championship Game; officials measure footballs at halftime after the Colts raise concerns.
2. May 6, 2015The Wells Report concludes it is "more probable than not" that two Patriots staff deflated balls and that Brady was "at least generally aware."
3. May 11, 2015The NFL suspends Brady for four games, fines the Patriots $1 million and removes two draft picks.
4. Jul 28, 2015Goodell upholds the suspension on appeal, citing Brady's destruction of a cell phone.
5. Sep 3, 2015U.S. District Judge Richard Berman vacates the suspension.
6. Apr 25, 2016A divided Second Circuit panel reinstates the suspension.
7. Jul 15, 2016Brady announces he will not pursue further appeals; he serves the suspension at the start of the 2016 season.

The ethical issues

• Standard of proof: is "more probable than not" enough to suspend a player for cheating?
• Scientific uncertainty: how should discipline account for disputed physics?
• Due process within collective bargaining: the commissioner investigated, decided, and heard the appeal.
• Cooperation and evidence: what should follow from a player's refusal to provide or preserve evidence?
• Proportionality: comparing the sanction to penalties for other equipment violations.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Tom Brady	His reputation, salary, and right to fair process.
New England Patriots	Competitive standing, draft picks, and reputation.
NFL and Commissioner Goodell	Authority to protect the integrity of the game under the CBA.
NFLPA	Limits on commissioner power and fair procedures for all players.
Opponents and fans	Confidence that games are played under equal conditions.

The case

NFL rules require game footballs to be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch, measured by officials before the game. The rules do not specify the temperature at the time of measurement. Gas pressure falls as temperature falls, so balls tested in a warm locker room will read lower on a cold field.^[1] Since 2006, each team has supplied its own balls when on offense, a change that quarterbacks, including Tom Brady, had supported.^[1]

During the AFC Championship Game on January 18, 2015, the Indianapolis Colts told league officials they suspected the New England Patriots were using underinflated balls. At halftime officials tested eleven other Patriots balls and four Colts balls with two gauges, one of which had been used before the game. All eleven Patriots balls measured below 12.5 psi on both gauges. Each of the four Colts balls was within the permitted range on at least one gauge.^[9] New England won the game 45–7 and went on to win the Super Bowl.

Background

The ball that started the formal inquiry reached the Colts by chance. In the first half, Brady threw an interception to Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson, who handed the ball to his team’s equipment manager as a souvenir. Teams rarely handle an opponent’s footballs except after a turnover.^[1] Early reports suggested Jackson had noticed something wrong, but he said he did not, and did not know about the controversy until he was being driven home after the flight back to Indianapolis.^[1] A later report said that NFL vice president of game operations Mike Kensil went to the officials’ locker room at halftime to inspect the balls.^[1]

The gauges became central. Referee Walt Anderson, who tested the balls before the game, recalled using one of his two personal gauges. The Wells Report concluded he had probably used the other one, a choice that affected how large the pressure drop appeared.^[1]

The rules and governance

The punishment did not come from the ball-pressure rule itself, which carried modest penalties. It came from the league’s broader authority. Troy Vincent’s letter to Brady said his actions “clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game.”^[1] Under the collective bargaining agreement, appeals of such discipline go to the commissioner, and Goodell heard Brady’s himself.^[1][2] That structure was at the heart of the court fight. Judge Berman focused on notice and fairness. The Second Circuit majority held that the union had bargained for this arrangement and courts must defer to it.^[3][4]

The team’s punishment followed a separate path. The Patriots indefinitely suspended the two equipment staff in May 2015, and the NFL said they could not be rehired without league approval. They were reinstated after Judge Berman’s ruling.^[1] Owner Robert Kraft had said the penalty “far exceeded” reasonable expectations and was based on circumstantial evidence. He then announced he would not appeal the team penalties, saying he hoped cooperation would help Brady. He later said, “I was wrong to put my faith in the league.”^[1]

The Wells Report

The NFL hired attorney Ted Wells to investigate. His report, released in May 2015 with scientific analysis by the consulting firm Exponent, concluded that it was “more probable than not” that two Patriots equipment staff had deliberately released air from the balls after they were inspected. It found Brady “at least generally aware” of their activities.^[1] The report relied in part on text messages between the staff, including one who called himself “the deflator.”^[1]

On May 11, 2015, the league suspended Brady for four games. It fined the Patriots $1 million and took away two draft picks.^[1] Brady appealed, and under the collective bargaining agreement the appeal was heard by Commissioner Roger Goodell himself. Goodell upheld the suspension. He emphasized that Brady had destroyed his cell phone around the time he met with investigators, and he called that a failure to cooperate.^[2][7] As the appeals court later summarized it, Brady said he was following his usual practice of disposing of old phones to protect his privacy. But he had kept phones used before and after the relevant period. Goodell drew an adverse inference that the phone would have contained inculpatory evidence. He found that Brady had participated in a scheme to tamper with the balls and had “willfully obstructed the investigation.”^[9]

The science dispute

Scientists and economists criticized the report’s analysis. Some argued that the Ideal Gas Law, together with the timing of the halftime measurements and wet conditions, could explain most or all of the pressure drop. Others questioned Exponent’s assumptions about which gauge was used before the game.^[6] The Patriots published their own rebuttal. In 2022, ProFootballTalk reported that NFL general counsel Jeff Pash had ordered 2015 spot-check data on ball pressure deleted. The league did not publicly release those measurements.^[8]

The courts

Brady and the NFL Players Association sued. In September 2015, Judge Richard Berman vacated the suspension. He found that Brady had not had notice that this conduct could bring a suspension, and that the appeal process had been unfair.^[3] In April 2016, a divided panel of the Second Circuit reinstated it. The majority held that the CBA gave the commissioner broad authority and that courts must defer to arbitration under a labor agreement. Chief Judge Robert Katzmann dissented, writing that the commissioner was “doling out his own brand of industrial justice.”^[1][4] The majority opinion, by Judge Barrington Parker, began from the principle that federal review of labor arbitration awards is “narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential—indeed, among the most deferential in the law.” The court said its role was not to decide “whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the Commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all.” The union and the league had agreed “that the Commissioner should investigate possible rule violations, should impose appropriate sanctions, and may preside at arbitrations challenging his discipline.” That “tripartite regime may appear somewhat unorthodox,” the court wrote, but it was the one the parties bargained for. On notice, the court said Judge Berman had “misapprehend[ed] the record.” Brady’s discipline was confirmed not for general awareness of others’ misconduct but on the commissioner’s findings that he took part in the scheme and obstructed the investigation. The court also said that comparing his suspension with the four games given to first-time steroid users was “much ado about very little,” because the same suspension could have been imposed without it.^[9]

After the full court declined to rehear the case, Brady ended his challenge and served the suspension at the start of the 2016 season.^[5]

Aftermath

Brady returned after his suspension, and the Patriots beat the Atlanta Falcons 34–28 in Super Bowl LI, with Brady named MVP for the fourth time.^[1]

The core dilemma

Should a league impose a serious penalty on a star player based on probabilistic findings and disputed science, under a process in which the commissioner controls both the decision and the appeal? And how should evidence, and a player’s refusal to provide it, count?

Competing values

• Integrity vs. fairness: protecting equal conditions for both teams against protecting players from weak findings.
• Authority vs. due process: a league needs disciplinary power, but a neutral process confers legitimacy.
• Deference vs. scrutiny: courts defer to labor arbitration, which can leave the merits unexamined.
• Scientific humility vs. decisiveness: acting despite uncertainty against waiting for clarity that may never come.

Strongest arguments

For the league: the text messages, the measurements, and Brady’s refusal to share evidence together justified the inference. The players’ union had bargained for the commissioner’s power, and the league had to protect integrity even without a confession.

For Brady: the physics may explain much of the pressure drop, the evidence of his involvement was circumstantial, and four games far exceeded penalties for comparable equipment violations. A process in which the commissioner investigates and then judges his own decision on appeal cannot be fair.

Applying the frameworks

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks two questions. First, if staff deliberately deflated balls after inspection, they broke a rule that both teams accepted, a clear breach. Second, did the league treat Brady as an end, with fair process and clear rules, or as a means to show it was enforcing integrity? A commissioner hearing the appeal of his own discipline sits uneasily with impartial duty.

Justice

Justice concerns proportionality and procedure. Was a four-game suspension proportionate to a probable equipment violation? Was “more probable than not” a fair standard for such a penalty? Courts split on these questions, and the dissent’s phrase “industrial justice” captures the concern about one person holding all the power.

Utilitarian

Consequentialists weigh the benefits of firm enforcement, deterring tampering and protecting public confidence, against the costs: a year-long public fight, damage to the league’s credibility on science and process, and a disputed result. The effect of underinflation on game outcomes may have been small, while the institutional costs of the dispute were large.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are NFL counsel in May 2015 with the Wells Report in hand. The stakeholders include Brady, the equipment staff, the Patriots, the Colts and other teams, the players’ union, fans and the league’s credibility. The codes in play are the ball-inflation rule, the CBA’s Article 46 and the league’s conduct-detrimental power.
2. Gather facts. What does the evidence prove, and what does it only suggest? How settled is the science? What bias might come from the team’s past violations or from public pressure?
3. Test options. Options: (a) fine the team and discipline staff only; (b) suspend Brady based on the report; (c) refer the appeal to a neutral arbitrator. Weigh deterrence against fairness and process.
4. Check codes and law. Would your penalty be consistent with past equipment violations? Did the player have notice that this conduct could bring a suspension?
5. Decide and document. Document the evidence standard used, the science relied on and the reasons for the penalty’s size.
6. Communicate and follow up. Announce the decision with clear reasons, propose a standard procedure for measuring ball pressure, and explain how appeals will be heard.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the penalties, the court rulings, and the CBA’s grant of authority as interpreted by the Second Circuit.
• Contested: whether any balls were deliberately deflated; whether Brady knew; whether the science supported the report.

Why this case matters

Deflategate is a teaching case on evidence, burdens of proof, and the structure of disciplinary power. It shows how procedural design, not just the facts, determines whether a sanction is seen as legitimate.

Key terms

Gamesmanship

Pushing the rules to their limits, without technically breaking them, to gain an edge. It tests, and can erode, the game.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Integrity

A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.

Sanction certainty

The principle that the likelihood of being caught and punished deters misconduct more than the severity of the punishment.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Was the "more probable than not" standard appropriate for a finding that a star player cheated? What standard should apply?
2. How much weight should Brady's destruction of his phone carry, given that it did not itself show deflation?
3. The courts mostly decided whether the CBA gave Goodell this power, not whether Brady was guilty. Is that a satisfying way to resolve disputes in sport?
4. Was the four-game suspension proportionate compared with fines for other equipment violations?
5. How should a league handle scientific evidence that experts dispute?

Sources

1. Deflategate — Wikipedia
2. NFL's statement on upholding Tom Brady's suspension at four games — ESPN
3. Full Text of Judge Richard Berman's Tom Brady Ruling — Heavy.com
4. Tom Brady's four-game suspension reinstated by court — NFL.com
5. Tom Brady won't further pursue suspension appeal — NFL.com
6. On the Wells Report — AEI Economic Perspectives
7. Goodell cites destroying phone in upholding Tom Brady's suspension — ProFootballTalk / NBC Sports
8. NFL general counsel Jeff Pash ordered expungement of 2015 air-pressure measurements — ProFootballTalk / NBC Sports
9. National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Association, Nos. 15-2801, 15-2805 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2016) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (via govinfo)