Ja'Wuan James might lose $10 million because he listened to the player's union

[FreeTedWilliams]

Ja'Wuan James injury underscores importance of working out at team facility

The Broncos privately were pleased that tackle Ja'Wuan James opted out in 2020, because it meant that they avoided his $9.85 million guaranteed salary.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

So he was working out at the Bronco's facility and then he listened to the NFLPA and left the "voluntary workouts" and tore his achilles while working out at an outside facility. The Broncos can pretty much void most of his previously guaranteed contract! His contract would have had to been honored if the same injury happened while working out at the Broco's facility.

Yikes! and stupid me, I thought the purpose of a union is to protect its members and make sure they get the most compensation for the least amount of work.

If the NFLPA did not include this possibilty when they told their members to not work out at the team's facilities, they should be disbanded as a union!

more on this...

Patrick Mahomes, other players confused by Broncos' ability to not pay Ja’Wuan James

The Ja’Wuan James injury, while bad for him, could be good for NFL players generally.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

he news that James, who has (or at least had) a $9.85 million fully-guaranteed salary for 2021, will most likely lose that money because he suffered a torn Achilles tendon while working out away from the team facility was met with confused by players like Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes.

“So they are going to take his contract for working out in the off-season???” Mahomes said on Twitter.

Yes, they will. They will because they can. They especially will because the NFL Players Association has tried to get players to boycott voluntary offseason workouts this year, prompting the league to directly remind teams (and to indirectly remind players) that any player who suffers a serious injury away from work risks losing his salary. In the case of Ja'Wuan James, the price could be even greater.

 

[50-yard-line]

The problem here isn't the union, it's the greedy owners. "Voluntary" is supposed to mean something, right? The NFL is a multi-billion $$ industry.
NFI injuries like this one should be paid and maybe don't have them count fully against the CAP.

The union, by the way, is pushing this because the veteran players are pissed off about the league's decision to add an extra game. The veterans didn't want that. And they didn't even increase the active roster.

THe owners are playing with fire. Ask the publishing industry what happens when you start pushing the talent too hard.

 

[jah]

NFLPA has never really been a good union to me. They give up a whole lot of concessions, usually at the expense of the lower-paid players. 17 game season is something they agreed to when they had no business doing so.

 

[IllegalContact]

Ja'Wuan James injury underscores importance of working out at team facility

The Broncos privately were pleased that tackle Ja'Wuan James opted out in 2020, because it meant that they avoided his $9.85 million guaranteed salary.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

So he was working out at the Bronco's facility and then he listened to the NFLPA and left the "voluntary workouts" and tore his achilles while working out at an outside facility. The Broncos can pretty much void most of his previously guaranteed contract! His contract would have had to been honored if the same injury happened while working out at the Broco's facility.

Yikes! and stupid me, I thought the purpose of a union is to protect its members and make sure they get the most compensation for the least amount of work.

If the NFLPA did not include this possibilty when they told their members to not work out at the team's facilities, they should be disbanded as a union!

more on this...

Patrick Mahomes, other players confused by Broncos' ability to not pay Ja’Wuan James

The Ja’Wuan James injury, while bad for him, could be good for NFL players generally.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

he news that James, who has (or at least had) a $9.85 million fully-guaranteed salary for 2021, will most likely lose that money because he suffered a torn Achilles tendon while working out away from the team facility was met with confused by players like Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes.

“So they are going to take his contract for working out in the off-season???” Mahomes said on Twitter.

Yes, they will. They will because they can. They especially will because the NFL Players Association has tried to get players to boycott voluntary offseason workouts this year, prompting the league to directly remind teams (and to indirectly remind players) that any player who suffers a serious injury away from work risks losing his salary. In the case of Ja'Wuan James, the price could be even greater.

you should just say "I hate unions" and stop wasting your time as well as the time of others to quantify that opinion with other opinions.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The problem here isn't the union, it's the greedy owners. "Voluntary" is supposed to mean something, right? The NFL is a multi-billion $$ industry.
NFI injuries like this one should be paid and maybe don't have them count fully against the CAP.

The union, by the way, is pushing this because the veteran players are pissed off about the league's decision to add an extra game. The veterans didn't want that. And they didn't even increase the active roster.

THe owners are playing with fire. Ask the publishing industry what happens when you start pushing the talent too hard.

Ask the players what happened the last time they went on strike!

NFL players have a very short window to make money, for most of them it is around three years. None of them are giving up any of that for a strike!

All I'm saying is that the union is telling them to stay away from the facilities, so they should at the very least make sure to tell them the consequeneces if they do injury themsleves working out outside the facility! If you are fighting for a roster spot, I can't see why you would not be in the building as much as possible.

If your Rodgers, Mahomes, or Brady, yeah you can stay away. If you have a large contract that you know the club would like to get out of, you better be walking around in a giant bubble outside the facility.

This has nothing to do with the "greed" of the owners. Guys don't get to become billionaires because they give away $10 million when they don't have to. So the moral of the story here is listen to your agent, he/she has your best (financial) interests at heart and not the union.

 

[borg]

NFLPA has never really been a good union to me. They give up a whole lot of concessions, usually at the expense of the lower-paid players. 17 game season is something they agreed to when they had no business doing so.

What does that mean....."no business doing so" ?

NFLPA vote to pass new schedule........1019 to 959
------------------------------------------------------
With regards to this potential voidable contract situation, we know the NFLPA demands the league adhere to every major and minor clause within the mutually agreed upon contract, so why is it considered unconscionable for the NFL to also adhere to the mutually agreed upon contract?
Signatures = agreement

 

[Deus Irae]

We had a thread on this topic.

Tampa, Denver and Seattle boycott NFL offseason workouts

Like the Tompa Bay thread, it was wrongly moved to another forum.

 

[fnordcircle]

We had a thread on this topic.

Tampa, Denver and Seattle boycott NFL offseason workouts

Like the Tompa Bay thread, it was wrongly moved to another forum.

It's remarkable that you can somehow both try to play Forum Police about a repost and also complain about moderation in the same post.

 

[upstater1]

This isn't about voluntary workouts. You could not go to them and just sit on your butt. It's really about player lifestyle. If you can have your contract invalidated for getting injured anywhere other than the team facility or field, then you have to specifically negotiate that point. Players like to go home in the offseason, and this would make that dangerous.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This isn't about voluntary workouts. You could not go to them and just sit on your butt. It's really about player lifestyle. If you can have your contract invalidated for getting injured anywhere other than the team facility or field, then you have to specifically negotiate that point. Players like to go home in the offseason, and this would make that dangerous.

Exactly!

The agent who negotiated this contract should be tarred and feathered if he story is accurate (though I'm skeptical.). Players injure themselves all the time away from team facilities and are still covered by their injury guarantees. The contract disputes have come from some of the higher risk activities that players choose...for example if someone wants to go snowboarding and gets hurt, that's usually on them. Players negotiate contract clauses that designate these activities unless there's a team boilerplate, and I can't imagine there's a team boilerplate that states any injury sustained off-campus isn't covered. Otherwise, you would never see these offseason workout videos of players, you'd never see players organizing activities like throwing/catching sessions, and you wouldn't have players with home gyms, training programs, etc.

I suspect this story is half-baked.

I'd like to see the actual language in the new CBA versus the old CBA...this seems insane and probably not even enforceable when it inevitably goes to court. You could easily argue that an injury was initially sustained while playing football and then aggravated at home...one of the many problems with gray areas that this will open up.

 

[bresna]

Sounds like Ja'Wuan James should have had someone drive him to the Broncos training facility and then gotten out of the car and fallen down in the parking lot. As long as the injury "happens" at the facility, he's covered, right?

 

[IllegalContact]

Exactly!

The agent who negotiated this contract should be tarred and feathered if he story is accurate (though I'm skeptical.). Players injure themselves all the time away from team facilities and are still covered by their injury guarantees. The contract disputes have come from some of the higher risk activities that players choose...for example if someone wants to go snowboarding and gets hurt, that's usually on them. Players negotiate contract clauses that designate these activities unless there's a team boilerplate, and I can't imagine there's a team boilerplate that states any injury sustained off-campus isn't covered. Otherwise, you would never see these offseason workout videos of players, you'd never see players organizing activities like throwing/catching sessions, and you wouldn't have players with home gyms, training programs, etc.

I suspect this story is half-baked.

I'd like to see the actual language in the new CBA versus the old CBA...this seems insane and probably not even enforceable when it inevitably goes to court. You could easily argue that an injury was initially sustained while playing football and then aggravated at home...one of the many problems with gray areas that this will open up.

there is also the idea that if the Broncos decide to go draconian, that it will impede their ability to sign future free agents

 

[RIpats88]

It is kind of stupid though for the NFLPA yo use the covid excuse to have players boycott OTAs bit then these players go have informal workouts in places that aren't as strict in protocols.

I'm honestly not sure what they are hoping to accomplish

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

Sounds like Ja'Wuan James should have had someone drive him to the Broncos training facility and then gotten out of the car and fallen down in the parking lot. As long as the injury "happens" at the facility, he's covered, right?

The old company softball injury trick, guy slides into second base, breaks his leg, and his teammates start helping him into his work clothes!

 

[Deus Irae]

It is kind of stupid though for the NFLPA yo use the covid excuse to have players boycott OTAs bit then these players go have informal workouts in places that aren't as strict in protocols.

I'm honestly not sure what they are hoping to accomplish

The NFLPA is trying to get concessions that it couldn't get during the CBA negotiations. And, given that they completely caved on the 17th game, I'm not surprised.

The NFLPA continues to be the most ridiculous union around.

 

[50-yard-line]

Ask the players what happened the last time they went on strike!

NFL players have a very short window to make money, for most of them it is around three years. None of them are giving up any of that for a strike!

All I'm saying is that the union is telling them to stay away from the facilities, so they should at the very least make sure to tell them the consequeneces if they do injury themsleves working out outside the facility! If you are fighting for a roster spot, I can't see why you would not be in the building as much as possible.

If your Rodgers, Mahomes, or Brady, yeah you can stay away. If you have a large contract that you know the club would like to get out of, you better be walking around in a giant bubble outside the facility.

This has nothing to do with the "greed" of the owners. Guys don't get to become billionaires because they give away $10 million when they don't have to. So the moral of the story here is listen to your agent, he/she has your best (financial) interests at heart and not the union.

If the guy was actually working out, then it's a stupid clause. Weren't the two Patriots QBs and most of their receivers working out in California a few weeks ago? Wasn't Brady out (against regulations) with his receivers last year?

It has EVERYTHING to do with the greed of the owners and their disrespect for the talent that lines their pockets. It's one thing if the guy is bullfighting or motorcycle racing...quite another if he's doing the things necessary to continue to help your bottom line.

 

[RIpats88]

If the guy was actually working out, then it's a stupid clause. Weren't the two Patriots QBs and most of their receivers working out in California a few weeks ago? Wasn't Brady out (against regulations) with his receivers last year?

It has EVERYTHING to do with the greed of the owners and their disrespect for the talent that lines their pockets. It's one thing if the guy is bullfighting or motorcycle racing...quite another if he's doing the things necessary to continue to help your bottom line.

It's pretty sh##ty thing for the broncos to do to not pay him.

But in the same token, you can't use the excuse of covid to not attend OTAs then go have practices away from the facility and think that's not going to make the owners see right through your strategy.

It's like how tampa announced they were boycotting and then the next day brady announced he's holding informal workouts. I don't see how this gives any leverage

 

[50-yard-line]

It's pretty sh##ty thing for the broncos to do to not pay him.

But in the same token, you can't use the excuse of covid to not attend OTAs then go have practices away from the facility and think that's not going to make the owners see right through your strategy.

It's like how tampa announced they were boycotting and then the next day brady announced he's holding informal workouts. I don't see how this gives any leverage

What is it about the word "voluntary" that people don't seem to understand here?

 

[Deus Irae]

If the guy was actually working out, then it's a stupid clause.

It's pretty sh##ty thing for the broncos to do to not pay him.

Why? It makes perfect sense, and it's part of the CBA, so why are the teams in the wrong for it?

 

[Hawaiianpatsfan2]

The problem here isn't the union, it's the greedy owners. "Voluntary" is supposed to mean something, right? The NFL is a multi-billion $$ industry.
NFI injuries like this one should be paid and maybe don't have them count fully against the CAP.

The union, by the way, is pushing this because the veteran players are pissed off about the league's decision to add an extra game. The veterans didn't want that. And they didn't even increase the active roster.

THe owners are playing with fire. Ask the publishing industry what happens when you start pushing the talent too hard.

Yes but Football athletes are like machines that teams invest millions of dollars into. Their brain and themselves are only part of the investment. Lets me ask you this. Would you feel the same way if a Formula One driver wanted to take their race car home and try to train on his own, or wanted to drive another race division in the offseason? I assume the answer would be no. When you invest that kind of money, there's a part of you that wants to control, or athleast supervise how these players train and work out. A classic example is, in sports science, they know that around 80% of people don't warm up properly, or at all.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the team's angle on the topic as well.