Judge Berman has made it clear since he has been involved that he wants Tom Brady and the NFL to come to a settlement before the situation winds up in court.
With Wednesday's meeting between the two sides rapidly approaching, Tom E. Curran believes Tom Brady should start thinking about a settlement.
On the other hand, UNH law professor Michael McCann says it would be dangerous for the NFL to reach a settlement after all they've gone through.
"If they settle here, they would create a precedent where players would go to court just to cut a deal with the NFL when they're suspended," said McCann. "They've already lost with Adrian Peterson. If they cut a deal with Brady here, that could create incentives for future suspended players to try the same.
"I also think Roger Goodell has to be thinking about how it would be perceived among the owners. He invested heavily in going after Tom Brady, you could argue he staked his legacy on going after Tom Brady. To now cut a deal in which it could appear that Brady won -- although I don't think it's going to threaten Goodell's job -- I think it would remind us, first of all, why did he punish Tom Brady? Secondly, why are the Patriots being punished?"
This case is no longer about Tom Brady's innocence. It's about the process and if the NFL lawfully interpreted Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement. McCann breaks down Article 46 and compares the case to Bountygate.
"We know Bountygate occurred, we know the NFL suspended four players," said McCann. "The players said, 'What are you talking about? There's no rule against what you're alleging against us. You didn't give us adequate notice.' Very similar to the argument here for Tom Brady. Where is the notice that there's some kind of rule about ball deflation and ball pressure? That's not in the collective bargaining agreement. That's a team rule. That's about fining a team for footballs not being properly inflated. Brady is going to say, and has said, that doesn't apply to him."
