NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

Because they want something in return for doing something that benefits their membership... At first the rule was said to effect players on the 53 in week 1, but apparently it was actually going to allow for one guy injured after practicing in camp to go on a 6 week IR. Now those guys will go on IR in most cases and lots of them will end up without an organization via injury settlement.

League, union can’t strike deal on IR, trade deadline changes | ProFootballTalk

They say the issue is trust but just who can't be trusted is debatable. The NFLPA agreed to HgH blood testing, too...only in the year since they haven't agreed to a standard method of testing which is clearly just a stall tactic. They don't give a rats you know what about player safety or rank and file players, it's all politics and billable hours to these guys.

Going to be interesting to listen to the wailing when 90 man rosters are cut to 53.

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

In a way, the in-season IR doesn't benefit them. In the current system, unless otherwise stated, players who are IRed are get their full salary unless an injury settlement is reached.

If the NFLPA were to agree to the in season IR, then the player who gets cut when the player on the IR is healthy, doesn't get full pay..

It's not very logical, I know, but this is the NFLPA we are talking about.

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

How is it not logical for the NFLPA to want more of its members to receive full wages? If that's the only problem, the NFL could just offer to pay full base salary to the player cut to make way for the returning player.

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

DB, I'm pretty sure that a large proportion of player contracts include a split salary that pays the the player significantly less on IR. (And then there are performance bonuses, etc. which are obviously forfeited.)

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

If they do, then it's something they've just started recently because, in the past, they haven't.

And, as for Deus remarks, it's not logical to have a star player who had to go onto the IR for 6 weeks, get healthy and then not be able to play until the following year because it costs him significantly more than it does a tail end of the roster player that replace him. And what does it cost him? The inactivity that erodes his skills.. The inability to participate with his teammates to keep sharp..

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

It doesn't cost him money the way it costs the cut player money, which is the issue here. You're claiming that the NFLPA isn't being logical. That's not the case.

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

I'm pretty sure it's a longstanding contract feature. Here's a blog where a player talks about receiving an IR split back in 1990:
Lionel James’ Severance Story - Dave Pear's Blog

There was also the dustup with Terry Glenn at the end of his career, where he accused the Cowboys of strong-arming him into adding a split-salary clause, maybe 2007?:
Why Glenn wants out out Dallas - NFL - Rumors - FanNation

In general, my impression is that big-money star contracts don't include the split provision, but most of the rank and file contracts do. (Of course, the NFLPA would never give greater weight to the concerns of its wealthiest members, right?)

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

Some old vets too; initially one of Junior Seau's (RIP) contracts with the Pats had a split salary clause, but the Pats found he made such a difference to the team that they waived it.

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

Why? I wouldn't be sure of that at all.

Not going to hit a lot of targets even if you come back part way through the season.

Re: NFLPA won't agree to IR/Trade deadline changes
 

Simply because of leverage, the same reason their deals are bigger in general. It's a negotiable contract term.

I don't know of any stats on this, but anecdotally we have cases like the Terry Glenn example above, where a player signed a big-$$ multiyear FA deal with no split salary clause, then as his health and skills declined the team tried to get that added (with the threat of cutting the player).

Jason of NYJetscap.com, who seems to have more split salary details than anybody around, says much the same as I did: