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

[ctpatsfan77]

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.

It doesn't help them that they have the largest union of the four major sports (close to 2,000 players), and the median salary is less than $1M.

 

[n1997y]

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.

Thing is, none of the examples you cite resulted in players being injured and unable to perform for the team as per their contract.

It’s as much the players disrespect for their obligations to the owners as it is owner disrespect for players.

look at it this way: if the owners are liable for the consequences should they not have authority over the conditions?

What you are saying is that the teams should be financially obligated to cover player injuries that result from poor form or unsafe workout conditions that the team cannot control or even know about. That’s not realistic, and it’s precisely why injuries at team facilities are covered and injuries away from team facilities are not.

 

[Patsgofor4]

Does anyone have the CBA reference? It’s hard to tell these days what’s true in Florio’s reporting because he’s become part of the league’s propaganda division.

I tried to find the passage in the CBA and thought there would be a very unambiguous statement clarifying the new injury standards. Maybe I missed it, but all I found was a fairly vague clause. It doesn’t specify that injuries occurring outside of team facilities aren’t treated the same way as in the past but seems to just provide a guarantee that they’re covered, no matter what, if it occurs on-site. This alone (if this is all there is) would seem pretty weak to me to overturn all past precedent because of this wording...but again, I may be overlooking something else or misinterpreting it.

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf

There’s no reference to it here:

The 7 biggest changes in the NFL’s new CBA

Every NFL team will now play 17 games, as agreed upon in the new collective bargaining agreement.

www.sbnation.com

There’s no reference to it here:

 

[WaterfallJumper]

I totally get the sympathy toward James. I really feel bad for him and for the situation. That said, contractually, there's not much of a case here. The player's association dropped the ball if they wanted this type of injury covered. It's unfortunate for James, but I'm not sure why the team should take a 10 million dollar hit on top of losing a player, based on the language of the contract. If you want to argue that contracts need to be better, that the union is ineffectual, that treating people as humans instead of property is a noble goal, etc, then I can likely support that, but anyone who says the team should pay up regardless of the contractual obligations is being unrealistic.