A quick settlement could short-circuit NFL's investigation of Justin Tucker
To properly investigate the matter, the NFL will need to identify the six accusers from Thursday's story in The Baltimore Banner and interview them. Because the NFL has no subpoena power, the investigation will go nowhere if they don't cooperate.
Even though there's no suggestion in the report that any of them have sued, and despite the possibility that the statute of limitations has expired as to any civil claims, Tucker could negotiate settlements with each of them. And if the settlements include (as most do) a confidentiality agreement, the accusers won't be able to cooperate with the league.
That's likely what happened with the most recent lawsuit filed against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, in September 2024. The NFL launched an investigation, Watson settled the case (presumably with a confidentiality clause), and the NFL's investigation went nowhere.
Right or wrong, it's a legitimate legal strategy. And cash settlements are one of the most basic devices for resolving civil claims.
The entire system is based on pursuing claims that, if not settled, will potentially result in a verdict that compensates the plaintiff for harm suffered due to misconduct that is proven in court. The vast majority of civil cases are settled short of a full-blown trial.
That's why the league needs to revisit the Personal Conduct Policy when it comes to claims of misconduct made against players. One possibility would be to prevent settlements until the accuser(s) are interviewed. Another would be to ban NDAs as part of the settlement process.
It's still impossible to ensure that a non-employee of the league or its teams will cooperate. And if the accuser(s) won't, the league will never be able to conduct a proper investigation.
Tucker has a $4.2 million salary in 2025. He'd lose $233,333 for each week of an unpaid suspension. With six accusers, he could possibly spend less than a game check to quickly and quietly end the NFL's investigation before it even gets started.
Unless and util the league changes the Personal Conduct Policy, it's a legitimate path toward managing risk and avoiding scrutiny.
That said, Tucker calls the accusations 'unequivocally false.' He might flatly refuse to offer a penny to any of the six accusers.
Which would then set the stage for the league finding them, the league talking to them, and the league possibly attempting to take action against Tucker — the same way the league took action against Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, who eventually was suspended 11 games without pay in 2023.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Astros vs. Rockies odds, predictions: MLB picks, best bets Thursday
Gambling content 21+. The New York Post may receive an affiliate commission if you sign up through our links. Read our editorial standards for more information. We have a split decision. Bail denied for Sean 'Diddy' Combs after being found guilty of 'lesser charges.' Should Combs be released, the kicker/punter will be free to work out for all NFL teams, including the Pittsburgh Steelers, home of the 'Terrible Towel.' The Rockies' Kyle Freeland has been kicked around as well. He has one win from 15 starts. Shall I go on? Forty-eight runs on 106 hits in 77 innings. The Astros visit. Brandon Walter allowed one run at home but was blown up for seven runs on the road. Brandon Walter Getty Images Play $50 on the Rockies. Guilty! No, not Diddy. Reed Garrett. Learn all you need to know about MLB Betting Tight game before the Mets relief pitcher gave up three hits, a walk and a grand slam in two-thirds of an inning. There hasn't been a line that lethal since Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison were sniffing around. It killed the Mutts. Lost twinbill opener 7-2 to the Brewers. Down -401 clendenons. Why Trust New York Post Betting The one and only Stitches has been handicapping baseball, daily, for the Post since 2019. Miraculously, he has finished in the black twice. But wait there's more. He showed his versatility by winning the Post's NFL Best Bet crown last year.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb isn't happy about the Browns' relocation to Brook Park
The Cleveland Browns got what they wanted from Ohio, in the form of $600 million in taxpayer money and a change to the law that would have otherwise kept them from leaving downtown Cleveland for suburban Brook Park. And while the Browns are very happy about the outcome, Cleveland is not. "We are deeply disappointed that the final state budget includes both a $600 million public subsidy for a domed stadium in Brook Park and changes to Ohio's [Art] Modell Law — provisions we strongly opposed and requested be removed," Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb said Tuesday, via "Relocating the Browns will divert economic activity from downtown, create a competing entertainment district, and disrupt the momentum of our lakefront redevelopment." The change to the Art Modell Law allows Ohio teams to move within Ohio. Given that the Ohio legislature created the initial law after the Browns moved to Baltimore in 1996, it seems that there's little room for Cleveland to fight the legislature's decision to change the law. The planned use of unclaimed funds to pay the $600 million to the Browns may become a bigger impediment to the plan. A 2009 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court could provide the basis of a challenge to the plan to tap into the money for the purposes of funding the new stadium. Put simply, "unclaimed funds" are not abandoned. They remain the property of those who have not claimed them. The argument would be that those funds cannot be redistributed by the state for the purposes of building a new football stadium. And so, even as the Browns declare victory and rush forward to make plans for selling season tickets to their new stadium, there's a chance that Ohio will have to scrap the plan to pay the $600 million via unclaimed funds and come up with an alternative approach. The one approach that will never happen is to put the issue to the voters. When the voters have a chance to say whether their money will be used to subsidize the multibillionaire owners of sports teams, the response is usually, "Hell no." As it arguably should be. With the values of NFL teams skyrocketing, why shouldn't NFL teams pay for their own stadiums? The habit of using public funds for such projects feels less like good governance and more like the misadventures of Dennis Moore.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
De Smith: Some at NFLPA thought collusion case was "waste of time"
The story of the collusion ruling is slowly dying on the vine, undoubtedly to the delight of the NFL and the NFL Players Association. It's dying because the people who cover the NFL aren't willing or able to advance the story. (It's unclear whether they're even trying.) Advertisement Despite no new reporting, the story of last week received a mild jolt of adrenaline from former executive director DeMaurice Smith's upcoming book. Via Daniel Kaplan of Smith's book (Turf Wars) addresses the collusion case, which was filed when Smith was still in the job. 'There were people inside our building who thought it was a waste of time, but internally, our office had evidence of collusion, including hearing from multiple sources that the league and teams were discussing their avoidance of fully guaranteed contracts,' Smith writes. The NFLPA proved that the NFL encouraged teams to collude regarding guaranteed contracts, with clear evidence of internal communications aimed at getting teams to hold the line following the Deshaun Watson contract. And the ruling contains plenty of evidence of actual collusion, even if the arbitrator chose to ignore it. Still, the story goes nowhere if there are no developments. And there will be no developments if the people who receive paychecks to cover the NFL take steps to preserve those paychecks by tiptoeing around something that could piss off the league and/or the union.
