Deflategate PR Case Study: How the NFL and Patriots Fought
Deflategate was the NFL's 2015 to 2016 dispute over under-inflated footballs in the Patriots' win over the Colts in the January 2015 AFC Championship Game. The NFL released the Wells Report on May 6, 2015, suspended quarterback Tom Brady for four games on May 11, and the Patriots answered with a public rebuttal website on May 12. Brady ended his legal fight on July 15, 2016.
How did Deflategate start?
Deflategate started after the New England Patriots beat the Indianapolis Colts 45-7 on January 18, 2015, and reports questioned whether the Patriots' footballs were below the league's minimum inflation level of 12.5 psi. ESPN's timeline records that Newsday reported on January 20, 2015 that the Colts noticed something unusual after an interception by linebacker D'Qwell Jackson.
The NFL appointed attorney Ted Wells to investigate. The league did not release findings for more than three months, which left the story to run on leaks, speculation and fan humor until the report arrived.
What did the Wells Report conclude?
The Wells Report, published on May 6, 2015, concluded it was "more probable than not" that Patriots personnel deliberately deflated footballs before the AFC Championship Game, according to the NBC News timeline. The 243-page report also found that Brady was probably aware of the activity at a general level.
The report faulted two Patriots employees, locker room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski. Wells said his investigation was hindered because Brady declined to provide his own emails, texts and phone records, according to ESPN's Deflategate timeline.
Naming two low-level employees and the team's quarterback in a single document gave the story three faces within one news cycle. The inflation numbers, which were the technical heart of the case, became secondary to the question of who knew what.
How did the NFL punish Brady and the Patriots?
The NFL punished Brady and the Patriots on May 11, 2015, five days after the Wells Report. Brady received a four-game suspension without pay, and the Patriots were fined $1 million and forfeited a first-round pick in 2016 and a fourth-round pick in 2017, according to ESPN.
The NBC News timeline reports that the discipline cited Brady's failure to cooperate fully with the investigation. That choice shifted part of the case from football equipment to Brady's conduct during the inquiry, which mattered later in court.
How did the Patriots fight back in public?
The Patriots fought back in public on May 12, 2015, one day after the penalties, by publishing a point-by-point rebuttal of the Wells Report on a dedicated website, wellsreportcontext.com. ESPN's timeline records that the team called the report's conclusions "incomplete, incorrect, and lack context," and argued the scientific evidence had been ignored.
Brady and the NFL Players Association filed an appeal on May 14, 2015, according to the CBS Boston timeline.
The rebuttal also created a second storyline. ESPN reported on May 15, 2015 that Roderick MacKinnon, a Nobel laureate who contributed to the rebuttal, was compensated by a drug company in which the Kraft Group is an investor. Three days after the website launched, the credibility of its scientific voice was under question.
On March 21, 2016, Patriots owner Robert Kraft asked the NFL to restore the team's draft picks, citing doubts raised about the evidence, according to the Fox News timeline.
What happened in court after Goodell upheld the suspension?
Commissioner Roger Goodell upheld Brady's suspension on July 28, 2015, and the dispute then moved through a federal district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals over the next year. The table below lists each step and what it meant for the public story.
Date
Event
Communications effect
May 6, 2015
Wells Report published
The league's findings named two employees and Brady.
May 11, 2015
Brady suspended four games; Patriots fined $1 million and lose two picks
The penalty cited Brady's cooperation with the investigation.
May 12, 2015
Patriots publish rebuttal website
The team answered within one day with its own documents.
May 15, 2015
ESPN reports on MacKinnon's compensation
The rebuttal's expert became part of the story.
July 28, 2015
Goodell upholds suspension
The ruling accused Brady of having his phone destroyed before meeting investigators, according to NBC News.
September 3, 2015
Judge Richard Berman overturns suspension
The judge criticized legal deficiencies, including no prior notice of a possible suspension, according to NBC News.
April 25, 2016
Second Circuit reinstates suspension, 2-1
The court said Goodell acted within authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement, per Fox News.
July 13, 2016
Second Circuit denies rehearing
Brady's last appeal route short of the Supreme Court closed, per CBS Boston.
July 15, 2016
Brady announces he will not continue the fight
He accepted the four-game suspension on Facebook, according to Patch.
The Patriots drew one more public moment from the process. At the 2016 draft on April 29, retired Patriots player Kevin Faulk wore a Brady jersey on stage while announcing the team's second-round pick, according to CBS Boston. The Patriots had no first-round pick that year.
What can communicators learn from the Deflategate case?
Communicators can learn four lessons from Deflategate, drawn here from the dated record above and labeled as EPR's analysis rather than an established standard.
First, speed shapes the first week. The Patriots published a long rebuttal the day after the penalties, while the league had taken more than three months to produce its report.
Second, outside experts bring their relationships with them. The compensation story about the rebuttal's Nobel laureate surfaced three days after the website went live.
Third, process arguments can outlast factual ones. Judge Berman's September 2015 ruling turned on notice and legal process, and the appeals court later sided with the league on authority, yet the dispute over how the league reached its decision stayed part of the story.
Fourth, long disputes need a plan beyond the first statement. The case ran 544 days from the January 2015 game to Brady's July 2016 announcement, a count Patch published in its report on Brady dropping the appeal, and every court date reopened the coverage.
Where does Deflategate fit in NFL crisis history?
Deflategate sits alongside the Ray Rice case, the 2022 and 2023 gambling suspensions, the Commanders investigation and Damar Hamlin's collapse as one of the NFL's most-studied crisis cases. EPR compares how the league handled all of them in its NFL public relations guide.
Deflategate was the NFL's dispute over whether the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the January 18, 2015 AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts. It led to the Wells Report, a four-game suspension for Tom Brady and a $1 million fine for the Patriots.
What did the Wells Report find?
The Wells Report, published on May 6, 2015, found it "more probable than not" that Patriots personnel intentionally deflated footballs and that Tom Brady was probably aware of it at a general level, according to NBC News. It named locker room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski.
What punishment did the Patriots and Tom Brady receive?
Tom Brady received a four-game suspension without pay, and the Patriots were fined $1 million and lost a 2016 first-round pick and a 2017 fourth-round pick, according to ESPN. The NFL announced the penalties on May 11, 2015.
How did the Patriots respond publicly to the Wells Report?
The Patriots published a point-by-point rebuttal on wellsreportcontext.com on May 12, 2015, one day after the penalties. ESPN's timeline records that the team called the report's conclusions incomplete, incorrect and lacking context.
How long did Deflategate last?
Deflategate lasted 544 days from the January 2015 AFC Championship Game to July 15, 2016, when Tom Brady announced he would not continue his legal challenge, according to Patch. He served the four-game suspension at the start of the 2016 season.
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team is the staff byline for news, analysis and features on communications, reputation, AI visibility and digital discovery. Everything-PR has published since 2009. AI tools assist with research and drafting, and every article is reviewed by a human editor before publication. Coverage follows the Editorial Policy, and substantive corrections are noted on the article under the Corrections Policy.
