All five points speak to ILLEGAL acts by the czar of the NFL, an man whom is employed at the whim of 32 owners, who comprise management, which the union is opposing. No court cares a bit about unfairness. I am not skipping over anything..
It's a good thing you're not a lawyer.
Let me tell you a non-Brady story to explain this. I once fired an employee for theft. He filed for unemployment. In his application, it wasn't enough for him to just claim that we fired him for no reason.
He had to cite the specific statutes and regulations that afforded him relief through unemployment compensation (of course, he didn't do this himself, the folks at JFS are more than happy to help people with this part of it). As a response (and, of course, without help from anyone), I was required to show evidence of the actions he was fired for, demonstrate why they were violations of our employment policy, and
cite specific statutes and regulations which justified the termination under Ohio law.
For Brady to win in court, he'll have to prove:
1. The NFL treated him unfairly. (This probably won't be that hard.)
2. Said unfair treatment was a violation of the CBA. (This will be harder, because the NFLPA sucks, but he has the right lawyer to do it.)
3. Federal Court is the appropriate forum for addressing his complaint. (This is easy; he's appealing an arbitration decision.)
4. The Court is justified in granting relief. (This will be the most difficult, because the CBA makes it clear that discipline is at the discretion of the Commish; in that case, it won't be enough to prove that the Rog was wrong, or even unfair; he'll need to convince the court that the Rog was arbitrary and capricious, which is a near-impossible task.)*
A good legal theory combines the facts (1&2 above) with the law (3&4) in order to get relief. It's simply not enough to prove that someone wronged you. You have to also demonstrate how the law offers judicial relief for said wrong.
Let me offer a simple, colorful example. If I were to walk up to you in person and accuse you of something horrible, say, raping kittens, that would be wrong. I would have aggrieved you. But you'd have no legal recourse to do anything about it. If, however, I took out a full-page ad in your local paper claiming you raped kittens, the law would give you recourse to sue me (and the paper).
* Here's a freebie: Brady's legal team should argue to the court that the disciplinary process under the CBA is inherently arbitrary and capricious so long as the Rog himself hears appeals. If the court agrees, the judge will either then hear evidence and rule on the matter de novo (without giving any deference to the Rog's decision), or vacate the Rog's order and send the matter to an independent arbitrator.