At 5:00 AM Eastern time—seven minutes before Petitioner’s sister delivered her second child—Petitioner’s mother-in-law executed a trade with Petitioner’s father-in-law. The mother-in-law, sporting a 7-4 record, sent Darius Slayton and Bam Knight to the father-in-law’s 6-5 team in exchange for Javonte Williams and Stefon Diggs. This transaction is, to put it mildly, lopsided. Stefon Diggs remains a productive NFL wide receiver. Javonte Williams, while relegated to backup duties in Denver, possesses more fantasy value than Bam Knight—a third-string running back who has not played meaningful snaps. Darius Slayton is a serviceable depth piece, but hardly equivalent compensation for Diggs.
Petitioner, the defending champion who would bear the $30 cost of shipping the trophy across the country if his mother-in-law prevails, now seeks guidance on whether to challenge this suspicious early-morning transaction. The league plays for bragging rights only, with no money at stake. The two families—Petitioner’s and his brother’s wife’s family—combined their separate leagues when the brother married, and they are not particularly close. They “get along but do separate holidays.” The holiday season approaches, and Petitioner fears that challenging the trade will precipitate family discord.
We hold that Petitioner should not challenge this trade. Not because it passes muster under principles of fair dealing—it does not. Not because spousal trades executed at 5:00 AM raise no concerns—they raise significant concerns. But because in a family league playing for bragging rights only, with the holidays approaching and the families not particularly close, the cost of intervention exceeds the benefit. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. This is one of those times.
I
Let us be clear about what this trade represents. It has every hallmark of impropriety. The timing is suspicious—5:00 AM Eastern time, when most league members are asleep and unable to observe or object. The parties are spouses, creating obvious conflicts of interest. The consideration is manifestly lopsided, favoring the mother-in-law’s 7-4 team at the expense of the father-in-law’s 6-5 roster. And as one of us observed during discussion, there is even a possibility that “the wife doesn’t even know the trade occurred and that the husband grabbed both phones” at 5:00 AM before she woke up. That scenario would transform this from a suspicious spousal trade into outright fraud.
In most circumstances, these facts would warrant immediate intervention. We have voided trades involving less egregious conflicts. See Andrew v. Commissioner, 24-0830-1 (2024) (voiding commissioner’s trade with father-in-law executed after Stefon Diggs injury); Ryan v. His Brother, 24-0814-1 (2024) (voiding father-son trade where father exploited nine-year-old’s ignorance of player values). By these standards, the present trade fails.
II
But these are not ordinary circumstances. This is a family league with no money at stake—the competition is purely for bragging rights and a trophy. The families are not particularly close; they “do separate holidays.” And Petitioner is the defending champion whose roster is unaffected by this trade. His only stake is whether he’ll have to pay $30 to ship the trophy to the East Coast if his mother-in-law wins.
Voiding this trade would poison the holiday season. Petitioner would be branded as the defending champion who threw his weight around to stop his mother-in-law from improving her roster. The father-in-law would be humiliated. And all of this conflict would simmer through family gatherings for months. For what? For a trophy in a league with no money at stake. For bragging rights in a combined family league that has existed for less than two years. For an abstract principle we can vindicate prospectively through clear rules rather than retroactive voidance.
III
We have held that spousal trades, while they raise legitimate concerns, do not automatically constitute collusion. In Jenna v. League, 21-1230-1 (2021), we upheld a trade between a commissioner and her husband as “substantively fair” where “both parties had legitimate strategic reasons for the exchange.” The critical question is “whether either manager is sacrificing their championship odds to benefit the other.” Here, we cannot definitively resolve that question—but even if we could, the remedy calculus differs. Neither spouse is the commissioner. Both are adults who presumably understand what they are doing. And Petitioner, an uninvolved third party whose roster is unaffected, would be precipitating family conflict to vindicate competitive fairness in a league with no monetary stakes.
Our holding that Petitioner should not challenge this trade does not mean such trades are permissible going forward. The league should adopt clear rules for next season: requiring enhanced scrutiny of spousal trades, treating 5:00 AM transactions with suspicion, and establishing policies about family participation before conflicts arise. We do not void this trade because no such rules existed when it was executed. But going forward, the league cannot make that excuse.
* * *
What comes first? Family. Not because family relationships excuse improper trading—they do not. See Ryan v. His Brother, 24-0814-1 (2024) (voiding father-son trade despite Thanksgiving dinner implications). But because in a league with no money at stake, preserving family relationships during the holiday season takes precedence over vindicating abstract principles through retroactive trade voidance.
Sometimes you swallow one. This is one of those times. But establish the rules going forward so you don’t have to swallow the next one.
Petition for guidance granted. Petitioner counseled not to challenge trade. League directed to adopt clear rules governing spousal trades and irregular-hour transactions for future seasons.