As mentioned Friday, it’s no surprise that the NFL closed its latest investigation of Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson. Once he settled the lawsuit that sparked the probe — with a confidentiality agreement — the NFL had no way to properly review the situation.
Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports that the NFL made multiple attempts to speak to the accuser. She was not made available.
This case was different from others filed against Watson. Unlike the others, which alleged sexual misconduct during massage-therapy sessions, the most recent case alleged sexual assault.
Attorney Tony Buzbee, who represented the accuser (along with multiple others who have sued Watson), told Maske via email: “We don’t meet with the NFL. We settled the case. We have nothing else to say about it.”
They have nothing else to say about it because the settlement prevents it. If the NFL were a true law-enforcement agency, a subpoena could be issued, regardless of the confidentiality provision. Because the NFL has no such power, it can’t force the accuser to cooperate.
Buzbee previously said the accuser would meet with the NFL. That was part of the effort to squeeze Watson to choose between settling the case now, and possibly losing $92 million later. If Watson had been suspended for the latest accusation and if he hadn’t disclosed this specific accuser to the Browns before signing with the team, the Browns could have voided his remaining guarantees.
So if Watson paid, say, $1 million to settle the case, it’s a smart business proposition. It saves $92 million.
Right or wrong, good or bad, players who are sued for behavior that violates the Personal Conduct Policy have a fairly simple path to avoiding a suspension, and the potential consequences flowing from it: Settle the case with a non-disclosure agreement. It short circuits the league’s investigative function, especially if the only people who know what happened are the player and the accuser.
In this case, the league could have tried to muster a case based on the allegations, the settlement, and Watson’s denial. Judge Sue Robinson, who presided over the 2022 disciplinary proceeding against Watson, already has expressed concerns about his credibility.
Still, it’s not enough to say to Watson, “I don’t believe you.” There must be some credible evidence to show that he did what he claims he didn’t do. By settling the case quickly, Watson prevented that from happening.