Trade Protests: A Job for the League Commissioner or a League Vote?

Over the past month, the SportsJudge.com Court of Fantasy Football has seen more deadline trade disputes than most fantasy football owners see in a lifetime. In most of those deals, a trade was made between one team in playoff contention and another that has been mathematically eliminated. In many of these leagues there is no league constitution to determine the standard for trade review.

So, if a league does not have a constitution, how should it decide whether to overturn a trade? Should a commissioner unilaterally decide the issue? Should the issue go to league vote? Or, should it go to an outside party?

Derrick Eckardt of Rotonation recently wrote a strong defense of the Kensesaw Mountain Landis-style (pictured) "ubiquitous commissioner," as well as of the outside arbitrator. According to Derrick:

One of the things that drives me crazy in fantasy leagues is the need for consensus–on everything. Consensus is fine when you are talking about minor things like the draft site, what kind of wings to get at the draft, and even the scoring system. However, the line must be drawn at anything that involves player movement. That means things like trades, adds, or drops should only be judged by the league’s commissioner.

As the founder of SportsJudge, I generally agree that a ubiquitous commissioner works better than a league vote. However, where the commissioner is also an owner, the ubiquitous commissioner fails. That is why SportsJudge offers its trade review service.

Also, I encourage fantasy team owners to include in their constitutions the standard under which a trade should be reviewed. Absent such language, SportsJudge.com applies the default rule that a trade shall be upheld as long as it reasonably benefits both teams. However, it always is better for a dispute arbitrator to adopt a standard that reflects the fantasy team owners' preferences, rather than simply a default.

Related Posts by Subject