First, Wilson’s position of influence as a quarterbacks coach is certainly not greater than Belichick’s as the head coach. Further, I don’t see the performance enhancing drug policy as a higher league priority than the policy against cheating and other conduct that might have an impact on the outcome of the game. I think a reasonable case can be made that the cheating policy is actually more important. That said, I understand why the league may want to take a hard line on the drug policy. So the real question is why not Belichick? But I don’t think the relative influence of the coaches or the underlying importance of the policies justify the different punishments.

Second, I don’t believe the individual v. team distinction gets you there either. After all, the benefits of any enhanced performance accrues not only to the individual but also to the team. Of course, in reality neither Wilson’s HGH use or the Patriots videotaping actually impacted anything on the field. Further, I’m fairly comfortable with Belichick taking a personal hit on this. He’s responsible for the decision to the videotaping. The NFL made a point to say this was not allowed. And of course, Belichick admitted that it was his erroneous interpretation of this rule that led to the violation. It makes sense to me that he bear some of the responsibility for the violation.

Now, why would Belichick get a lesser sanction? I think the league recognized that the intent behind the violation was to benefit the Patriots as a team, and therefore the weight of the sanction should fall on the team, not the individual who authorized the infraction. I personally believe that, for this reason, it would have been fully justifiable to impose no sanction on Belichick at all — his actions were for the benefit of the Patriots and should be imputed to the Patriots.

However, politically, the league could not let Belichick off with no punishment, so they imposed a stiff fine.