In the 2014-2015 playoffs, the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell accused the New England Patriots, Quarterback Tom Brady in particular, of deliberately using deflated footballs which allows the receivers to catch the balls easier in the cold weather and gain an advantage over the Indianapolis Colts. The Patriots then went on to win Super Bowl XLIX against the Seahawks and a scandal titled “Deflategate” ensued. Following the conclusion of the playoffs, the league hired attorney Ted Wells to investigate the issue. Wells aimed to find the cause of use of the underinflated footballs and determined that Brady and the Patriots were accountable and should be punished. However, analysts have done extensive research which provides evidence contrary to Wells’ findings. The league should not have held the New England Patriots and Tom Brady accountable for Deflategate because there is a scientific explanation for the deflated balls, the league’s analysis of the issue was flawed, and the commissioner had ulterior motives for punishing the Patriots.

Ted Wells formulated a 243-page report detailing the accusations against the Patriots and arguing in favor of punishing the team. In the report, Wells stated, “…we have concluded that, in connection with the AFC Championship Game, it is more probable than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules” (Wells). Wells also states, “It also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls” (Citation). Throughout his report, Wells uses words such as “probable” and “generally” being sure not to make absolute statements about the allegations. By using such language, it is clear that the evidence gathered was not enough to convict Brady of the lingering accusations. In a court of law, the prosecutor must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict someone of a crime. However, it appears that the league and NFL based their punishment off of something that is “more probable than not,” which is not sufficient to punish the organization.  Brady and the Patriots’ organization knew the evidence was not substantial and filed an appeal, where the judge quickly came to the conclusion that more evidence was required to punish anyone involved.

Following the appeal, despite a lack of evidence, the courts ruled that the Commissioner of the league, Roger Goodell, had complete power over the punishments within the NFL. Goodell decided that Deflategate could not go unpunished. Consequently, solely based on the conclusion of Wells’ report, the league punished the Patriots and Tom Brady. Commissioner Goodell fined the Patriots $1 million, suspended Tom Brady for the first four games of the 2015 NFL season, and took two of the Patriots’ future draft picks. Tom Brady quickly appealed the NFL’s decision, and Judge Richard M. Berman vacated the four game suspension of Tom Brady, which clearly shows that there was controversy regarding the validity of the league’s argument. However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of appeals reinstated Brady’s four game suspension, which took effect in the 2016 NFL season rather than the 2015 season as it was initially planned. Brady concluded that it was no longer worth it to fight the league and decided that it would be best to accept the punishment and move on with his career. In addition to these tangible punishments, the New England Patriots also had their reputation wrongfully tarnished. Fans and other teams in the league now view the Patriots unfavorably and as cheaters due to Deflategate. Following the scandal, the Patriots’ viewership and sales decreased significantly (Botelho). Despite significant evidence opposing Wells’ report, the league irreparably punished the Patriots. 

The most compelling evidence against Wells’ report stems from basic properties of gases with temperature changes. When a football moves from a warm environment to a colder environment, its pressure decreases. Assuming the volume and amount of gas are held constant, Gay-Lussac’s Law states that the ratio of pressure to temperature will be constant. Therefore, using this law, scientists can predict what the pressure levels for the footballs should have been during the Patriot’s AFC Championship game (Leonard). The regulation pressure is 12.5 pounds per square inch gauge pressure (psig) at locker room temperature, which is about 71 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Gay-Lussac’s law, the Patriot’s footballs should have had a pressure of 11.32 psig during the game because the temperature was 48 degrees Fahrenheit (same citation as above). Katy Galimberti of AccuWeather also argues that cold and drenching conditions certainly play a factor into game equipment. The referees measured the pressure of the balls during halftime of the game. The values for the Patriots’ footballs were 11.80, 11.20, 11.50, 11.00, 11.45, 11.95, 12.30, 11.35, 10.90, and 11.35 psig, which averages to 11.49 psig (Galimberti). Eight out of these ten measurements, as well as the average value, are greater than 11.32 psig, which clearly contradicts Wells’ findings. 

The referees also utilized extremely cheap pressure gauges to measure the footballs, which further complicates the NFL’s evidence against the Patriots. The calibration of cheap gauges tends to change substantially over time. For example, the calibration of the specific gauges used to measure the Patriots’ footballs shifted in the relevant pressure range by about 0.1 pounds per square inch over the course of just a few days.  Even brand new versions of the gauges used during the football game can provide a wide range of values when measuring the same pressure (Galimberti). Therefore, it is illogical that the NFL was not content with an average reading of 11.49 psig, which is 0.17 psig above the expected value of the of the footballs. With such low-cost gauges, a reading of 11.49 psig is well within the expected range for fully inflated footballs at 48 degrees Fahrenheit. 

MIT Professor John Leonard believes that the analysis conducted by the league and Wells is seriously flawed. Leonard describes a “master error” in the study conducted by Wells.  Leonard believes that the entirety of the Deflategate scandal can be disproved through the Ideal Gas Law. The Ideal Gas Law (IDE) is the relationship between a gas’s volume, pressure, and temperature; this is crucial to understanding what happened to the footballs because the cold New England air could be used as substantial evidence to why the balls were deflated, freeing the Patriots of any charges. The study contains figures which show the momentary pressure curves for the pressure measurements of the teams’ footballs over the course of halftime, allowing one to accurately track the PSI of the footballs throughout the first half. It was concluded that the gauges used to measure the footballs during the investigation were inaccurate; the figures apply a calibration conversion of the gauge used in the game to match a more accurate gauge used in the experiments. However, the calibration conversion was not applied to the starting pressure of the footballs, which caused the curve to the graphed about 0.3 psi too high.  Failing to account for this conversion creates an error of 0.33 psi. Additionally, while conducting the experiments, the scientists did not use the true temperature of the locker room, which was 71 degrees. Rather they used 67 degrees, which would cause the expected pressure of the footballs to be higher than it actually should be (Leonard). If the scientists were to fix these flaws in their studies, the expected values of the pressure of the footballs would align with the actual value of the pressure of the balls. Leonard argues that fixing these fundamental flaws in the studies would fully exonerate the Patriots of any wrongdoings. 

Many players, owners, and sports analysts believe that Roger Goodell utilized Deflategate as a method of alleviating his poor handling of Spygate, a prior Patriots scandal from 2007. In the 2007 NFL season, a 26-year-old Patriots video assistant named Matt Estrella was caught on the sideline illegally videotaping the New York Jets’ defensive signals. Following this incident, the scandal titled “Spygate” ensued, in which the Patriots were accused of cheating. The Patriots, head coach Bill Belichick in particular, claimed that they merely misinterpreted a league rule. Goodell claimed that no games were affected by the spying and minimally punished the Patriots with small fines and a loss of a draft pick. The rest of the league and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania were furious about the way in which Goodell handled the scandal. He destroyed the evidence immediately after finding it and took very little action. Consequently, Goodell promised his colleagues that he would deal with cheaters forcefully from that point on. 

Many owners around the league view Deflategate as a “makeup call” for Goodell’s mishandling of Spygate. They believe that Goodell was trying to repair his reputation as commissioner and prove that he could handle scandals effectively. Judge Richard M. Berman initially overturned Goodell’s suspension of Brady, stating that the commissioner had “dispensed his own brand of industrial justice” (Van Natta). Following the conclusion of Spygate, Goodell’s job security was very low. Therefore, it is likely that Goodell utilized this scandal to improve his job security. His handling of Deflategate appeased owners still angry over Spygate and it is clear that he now much more secure in his job (Van Natta).

Many owners and analysts around the league also believe that Goodell has a pre-existing bias against the Patriots as a result of the outcome of Spygate. Goodell nearly lost his job due to his handling of Spygate, so he is not a fan of the Patriots. Since Spygate occurred, numerous other scandals involving teams other than the Patriots have taken place in the NFL. However, Goodell has not been as harsh against these teams. In 2010, the NFL investigated the Broncos for videotaping a San Francisco 49ers walkthrough practice. While this is a similar offense of those committed during Spygate, the Broncos were merely fined $50,000 (Molloy). Also, the New York Giants faked injuries during the 2011 season in an attempt to stop opposing teams’ hurry up offenses. Similar to the 49ers, the Giants faced minimal repercussions for their actions. However, when Deflategate occurred, Goodell decided to severely punish the Patriots. The Patriots ended up winning the game by 38 points, which clearly must be attributed to something more than just underinflated balls. For an action that seems so minimal compared to filming practices and faking injuries to gain an advantage in a game, the Patriots were punished much more severely, which clearly shows that Goodell has a bias against the Patriots. 

Despite substantial evidence clearing the Patriots of Deflategate, there are still those who linger on the idea that New England constantly cheats.  Many sports experts believe that Deflategate is still a controversial topic is because of the pettiness of the entire situation.  Sports analyst Avery Stone believes that since the act of solely deflating footballs is a no-harm no-foul type of situation, compared to other scandals where there is a clear victim that has been harmed, allows the conversation to be ensued for longer. Many scandals that are discussed for shorter periods of time involve domestic violence or trouble with the law which provides a clear standing point in the argument of whether or not it is morally tolerable.  When it comes to Deflategate, sadly there are no laws guiding one’s moral compass.  Although the Colts would argue that their organization was the clear loser (need new word) in the situation, there is enough known evidence that allows for a playful argument to be made.  In the end, despite extensive research, the argument against the Patriots for the events that took place during Deflategate is still alive and well.

Over the course of the past few years the New England Patriots have been the targets of a scandal known as Deflategate.  Despite substantial evidence clearing the Patriots’ legacy, the discussion of whether or not the organization is innocent is still a prevalent argument.  Tom Brady and the New England Patriots should not be held accountable for the deflation of the footballs in the 2014-2015 AFC Championship against the Indianapolis Colts.  Through clear scientific evidence, many scientists have disproven the claims made in Ted Well’s investigative report.  In addition to the Ideal Gas Law findings, the history between the Patriots and Roger Goodell influenced the harsh punishment, compared to similar situations with other teams, that was enforced on the organization as a whole.  The evidence surrounding Deflategate is predominately in the Patriots’ favor and the discussion to whether or not the Patriots are innocent has never been so clear.  Tom Brady and the New England Patriots should not be held responsible for the deflated footballs that sparked one of the most controversial scandals in sports history.  
