Colorado fan suing NFL for $100M over Shedeur Sanders Draft Slide
When former University of Colorado quarterback Shedeur Sanders concluded his final collegiate season, he was in the conversation to be the #1 overall pick in the 2025 NFL Draft. Entering draft night, he was widely regarded to be a potential top ten selection. So when he slid all the way down to the fifth round, on the draft's final day, it shocked pretty much everybody. The Cleveland Browns then picked the son of NFL Hall-of-Famer Deion Sanders with the 144th overall selection.
One Colorado fan, who remains anonymous, took the Sanders tumble (which seems, at least partially, somewhat self-inflicted) pretty hard. Filed under the name "John Doe," this man is suing the NFL for $100 million in punitive damages.
Advertisement
Yes, nine figures, "for the harm caused to the Plaintiff and the impact of the NFL's actions on his emotional well being," according to the court documents, publicized by MSNBC.
The lawsuit claims that the NFL is in Violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (a law that most people equate with punishing monopolistic behavior, but in this case, the fan is accusing the teams of collusion), Violation of the Civil Rights Act, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Trauma and Violations of Consumer Protection Laws.
Yes, he's serious. This isn't from an article in The Onion or anything.
On a personal, individual level, the Plaintiff is claiming that the Sanders slide caused him "frustration, disappointment and psychological harm as a fan."
Advertisement
Frustration, disappointment and psychological harm are basically part of the deal when you sign up to become a sports fan. This is more true for some teams than others. In the grand scheme of things, this feels like the very definition of a "first world problem," and the odds of Doe winning this lawsuit are laughably long.
How laughably long? Your average undrafted free agent has a better chance of making it through camp, passing the final cut and winning a starting job for opening day.
Obviously, the person who suffered the most from the Sanders slide is the rookie quarterback himself. And if he's actually very depressed about this, then he can use the royalties that he's going to get from the NFL shop to wipe away his tears. Shedeur Sanders is currently the top selling jersey in the NFL.
This article originally appeared on Draft Wire: "John Doe" is suing the NFL for $100 million in punitive damages.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NFL, NFLPA continue to hide ruling from collusion grievance
The NFL benefits from an endless stream of bright, shiny objects. Even in the offseason, there's always something to distract fans and media from taking a closer look at something the powers-that-be are trying to hide. As it relates to a significant collusion grievance that resulted in a 61-page written ruling from an arbitrator, both the NFL and the NFL Players Association continue to conceal the document. Advertisement The grievance focused on the refusal to give fully-guaranteed contracts to specific veteran quarterbacks — with primary focus on Lamar Jackson, Russell Wilson, and Kyler Murray. The arbitrator found, we're told, that the NFL encouraged teams not to give those players fully-guaranteed contracts. However, the evidence presented regarding the impact of this approach on the three quarterbacks at the heart of the case wasn't strong enough to trigger damages. So it was a mixed result. The NFLPA won, to the extent that evidence of collusion was found. The NFL won, to the extent that no money was awarded to any of the players. But neither side felt sufficiently good about the outcome to disclose it. The NFL danced around it in January. The NFLPA has said nothing about it, either. If this dispute had played out in court, the ruling would be a matter of public record. The NFL and NFLPA have created a private system for resolving disputes. And while the arbitrators who handle such matters typically insist on confidentiality while the cases are pending, there's nothing that prevents either the league or the union from publishing the ruling. Advertisement From the Super Bowl to the Scouting Combine to free agency to the draft to OTAs, it's been easy to forget about the 61-page collusion grievance ruling. A ruling that apparently contains something they don't want us to see. So what can it be? It could be (and we're not saying it is) that the evidence in the case includes some frank and candid internal communications that one side doesn't want to see the light of day — and that the other side has gone along with that. It also could be that the two sides were at one point actively negotiating redactions to the 61-page order to ensure that such frank and candid internal communications would not be communicated externally. Whatever the explanation, there's an important document that the NFL and the NFLPA are hiding from everyone. Despite the private nature of the arbitration agreement, pro football is an inherently public entity. It has millions of customers. It finagles billions in taxpayer money. It has a federal antitrust exemption that results in significantly more valuable TV rights. The NFL should be expected to release this document. The union should be, too. But with no one pressuring them to do it, they can jointly continue to hide behind the various bright, shiny objects that will continue to keep us properly distracted.
Black America Web
32 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Washington Post
34 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What Aaron Rodgers's choice means for the Steelers — and others
Aaron Rodgers's free agent decision was long awaited but entirely predictable, as the Hall of Fame-bound quarterback finally did Thursday as practically everyone had expected and chose to spend the upcoming season with the Pittsburgh Steelers. But if the Rodgers resolution came as no surprise, it still has meaningful implications in Pittsburgh and beyond.
