As you point out, sponsors are interested in viewers. And unless the game became a blowout, I would argue that sponsors would get a bigger bang for their buck under a hypothetical scenario where the Pats have to play without Brady, who is serving his suspension after an unfortunately-timed court ruling.The idea being that a beleaguered Tom Brady on the field would draw a bigger audience than Jimmy G. If the sponsors think that the backup QB would result in fewer viewers, or that TB would boost viewers, that's potentially meaningful to them and to the (32 owners of) the league.
This isn't a given, obviously. Maybe the fact that TB isn't playjng would be a big draw anyway.
Edit: more simply: RG would reschedule the suspension of it served his interests, meaning the interests of the owners. The interests of the owners are tied to the interests of the networks. The interests of the networks are tied to the interest of the sponsors.
So I guess it would be the networks that would apply pressure on RG if they saw the potential for a + or - effect on viewership.
Unless RG rules that his initial suspension covered regular season games only (and I cannot imagine that he would, but maybe there is precedence out there that I don't know about) I'm pretty sure that he would not change the schedule for any punishments based on network or the sponsor concerns.
Last edited: