Broncos Bench Russell Wilson

[Spider-Dan]

Can your employee tell you to stay home, but we will pay you anyway?

You and I can leave our current employer at any time and get hired by someone else who will pay us more money, the same day.  Russell Wilson cannot.

As I already said, if the Broncos wanted to cut Wilson for not restructuring his contract, fine.  If they cut him, then - provided no other team willing to pay his existing contract claims him on waivers - he is free to sign with whichever team he pleases.  But if they bench him, he is not.

Can the Broncos bench Wilson?  Yes.
Can the Broncos tell Wilson he must restructure his contract or he'll be cut?  Again, yes.
Can the Broncos tell Wilson he must restructure his contract or he'll be benched, while the Broncos retain control of his rights?  No.

The key here is that they asked him to restructure and told him he would be benched if he didn't agree.  Had they not done that, they could have benched him, just like Jimmy G is benched now and Derek Carr was benched last year.  It is the tying of restructuring to benching that is the CBA violation.

To say "They have the right to bench him, regardless of what they told him before they benched him" is no different than saying "It's legal to expose cheating, regardless of whether you told the person you're exposing 'Give me money or I will expose you' first."  Circumstances matter.

[Phishfan]

I am not versed in the CBA but I expect the NFLPA is grasping at straws. I  bet this situation is not spelled out so they are trying to stretch something that is written out hoping that someone would bite.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm surprised y'all don't see why teams telling players "Renegotiate your contract immediately or you won't play, for us or anyone else" is something that would be explicitly prohibited under a CBA.

[Dave Gray]

They can choose to play him or not, but he still gets paid under his contract, right?  I don't see anything weird about that.  They don't want to play him because the injury risk is too high.  That just makes smart sense to me.

Maybe there's some part of this I don't understand.  As long as they abide by the contract, they can choose to sit him, no?

[Spider-Dan]

They don't want to play him because the injury risk is too high.  That just makes smart sense to me.

Maybe there's some part of this I don't understand.  As long as they abide by the contract, they can choose to sit him, no?

Not wanting to play him because the injury risk is too high is what the Raiders did with Derek Carr last year and Jimmy G this year.  This is fine.
What you cannot do is say, "Hey, restructure your contract or we'll bench you."  You can bench him, but you cannot tie it to a request to restructure his contract.

I mean, you guys understand why tampering is prohibited, right?  Even though Michigan alum (and Dolphins owner) Stephen Ross is allowed to have a conversation with Michigan alum (and Tampa Bay QB) Tom Brady, and Tom Brady is allowed to retire, that conversation cannot be "Hey, if you retire, I'll trade for you and the Bucs will be coerced to take the deal."

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm surprised y'all don't see why teams telling players "Renegotiate your contract immediately or you won't play, for us or anyone else" is something that would be explicitly prohibited under a CBA.

You have used the terms "black letter"  and "explicitly prohibited"   It is neither as if it was you could point to a specific term in the CBA.

At best you are arguing that it is implied as unfair or coercive. 

It is not.  He is being paid not to play.  There is no limitations in the CBA on when a player can be benched.  As for the concern that allowing this would lead to widespread, it won't.  The standard response to "take a pay cut or be benched" is "okay, as long as I am still getting paid."

[Spider-Dan]

You have used the terms "black letter"  and "explicitly prohibited"   It is neither as if it was you could point to a specific term in the CBA.

Neither one of us has access to the text of the CBA, yet we can both say that tampering is "explicitly prohibited" as a "black letter" provision.

There is no limitations in the CBA on when a player can be benched.

False.
For example, if a head coach tells a player, "I am benching you in Week 1 specifically because you missed a voluntary offseason workout," that is also a black letter violation of the CBA.  And you don't need access to the text of the CBA to understand this.

The standard response to "take a pay cut or be benched" is "okay, as long as I am still getting paid."

In the world you describe, no player would complain about being benched because hey, they're still getting the same paycheck either way!

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Neither one of us has access to the text of the CBA, yet we can both say that tampering is "explicitly prohibited" as a "black letter" provision.

I have access to it. 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/website/PDFs/CBA/March-15-2020-NFL-NFLPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-Final-Executed-Copy.pdf

And this is not tampering.  In order for tampering to occur you need a second team.

False.
For example, if a head coach tells a player, "I am benching you in Week 1 specifically because you missed a voluntary offseason workout," that is also a black letter violation of the CBA.  And you don't need access to the text of the CBA to understand this.

That would not be a black letter violation of the CBA.  Cutting the player for missing a voluntary offseason work out would be a black letter violation.  Not playing them or not starting them might be implied as a violation of no adverse, but in general that means not getting paid. 

[Spider-Dan]

[I deleted this post because it was unproductive]

[Spider-Dan]

I took a look at the linked CBA.  Benching a player for missing a voluntary workout is definitely prohibited:

[N]o club official may indicate to a player that such individual workouts are not voluntary, or that a player’s failure to participate in such workouts will result in the player’s failure to make the Club (or that a player’s failure to participate in a workout program or classroom instruction will result in the player’s failure to make the Club or result in any other adverse consequences affecting his working conditions).

As to the question of benching Wilson for refusing to restructure:

Kessler could question Payton and other Broncos officials regarding their discussions with Wilson about how—and why—they reached a decision to bench him. Kessler would want to show the decision wasn’t made to improve the team but to instead manipulate Wilson’s contract situation in a way that was anti-competitive (i.e., starting an inferior player over Wilson) and damaging to Wilson’s NFL reputation (he’s now a benched QB).

Wilson and the NFLPA could more specifically argue the benching violates Article 4, Section 8 of the CBA. It mandates a team and player “negotiate in good faith.” A contract-based benching in the context of a failed renegotiation over an injury provision could be portrayed as bad faith.

I'm not saying the case is open-and-shut, because the Broncos are going to argue that they didn't bench him because of the failed negotiation; they're going to claim (and already have) that it was strictly a football decision.  What I am saying is that admitting that they benched him over the failed negotiation would make it open-and-shut.  So the crux of the matter is whether the arbitrator believes that's why he was benched.

[Fau Teixeira]

I don't think it's an actually CBA violation that i could see. the NFLPA and wilson are salty about it, but what can you do.

As long as he's getting paid, and the team isn't making him do something that isn't outlined in his contract (like cleaning toilets) i don't think he has a leg to stand on.

Benching a player however, so you don't have to pay them bonuses or otherwise purely for financial considerations after you gave them the contract you did is busch league bullshit at best. It doesn't reflect well on the organization or on free agents when given a choice between a garbage org and a winning org that treats their players right.

[masterfins]

I'm not sure if it matters, but Wilson's injury guarantee for 2025 gets locked in on March 1st I believe.  If the Bronco's designate him a June 1st cut, then the cap hit to them is much smaller.  So I think they want that injury guarantee removed so it doesn't get locked in March 1st, and then they can wait until June 1st to take a lower cap hit.  Or, I could be wrong but I think this has something to do with it if they wanted to trade him, it would be more beneficial without the injury guarantee locked in.

[Spider-Dan]

There's no way to trade him (i.e. under the same contract) without the injury guarantee triggering.