Sherman: Legal action could be considered if Eric Reid isn't signed.

[XLIX]

Wasn’t that situation they all agreed to not spend over a certain amount. Isn’t that the type of illegal collusion the owners should be punished for? Shame the NFLPA sucks.

What happened is this:

1) The league was heading into a single uncapped year, but their longterm strategy was to return to salary caps. This was no secret.

2) They informed teams that any signing bonuses given during the uncapped year would count in prorated fashion against the future salary cap as normal

3) They informed teams that giving a huge year 1 salary in lieu of a signing bonus would not be allowed. If any team did such a thing, that huge year 1 salary would be treated like a signing bonus and hit the future salary cap as normal

The Cowboys gave Miles Austin a contract which included no signing bonus, but a fully guaranteed $17 million year 1 salary (Austin would earn something like $2.5 million total over the next 3 years). That is a textbook example of trying to dodge a future cap hit by giving an obscenely high year 1 salary in lieu of a signing bonus. Dallas' "punishment" was merely being told that the year 1 salary will be treated like a signing bonus against their 2011/2012/2013 cap number.

Yes, the above could be considered collusion except for one detail: It's not collusion if the NFLPA agrees to it. And in the eventually-signed CBA, the union agreed to allow the above in exchange for certain concessions.

TLDR version: 30 NFL teams colluded during the uncapped year, then bribed the union to retroactively agree to look the other way and once the NFLPA agreed to it, it was no longer collusion.

 

[Ring 6]

That's a good question.

It doesn't matter if he is employed at the time of filing.

He wouldn't be arguing for reinstatement to the 49ers or any other team but instead would be seeking damages. And while it's subjective, which is often true, it's not speculative.

His argument would be we started this off as a protest against African-American men being killed by police. Soon it became a workplace issue of whether we could, acting together, kneel during the national anthem. Now I'm being punished because no one will sign me at the market rate for safeties.

It's still his burden to show what he would have been hired and under what terms.

Doesn’t this peel back a ton of layers too?

Who would owe him damages? The nfl isn’t an employer. Does he claim all 32 teams only didn’t want him because of politics?
How could he ever prove that is the reason?
Are employers allowed to limit speech that they determine to be detrimental to the company?
Aren’t employers allowed to fire you for expressing controversial or political views?

I think the biggest part is this. I am a banking executive. If I reach the end of my contract and either me, my employer or both agree to not renew it, I wouldn’t have any case against them because I was no longer employed and I could never prove that if I wanted a new contract I “deserved it” and was shunned for another reason. If I never got a job I couldn’t sue all the other banks for not hiring me.

I think the other issue is that many kneelers have signed contracts.

Very interesting topic.

 

[Froob]

What happened is this:

1) The league was heading into a single uncapped year, but their longterm strategy was to return to salary caps. This was no secret.

2) They informed teams that any signing bonuses given during the uncapped year would count in prorated fashion against the future salary cap as normal

3) They informed teams that giving a huge year 1 salary in lieu of a signing bonus would not be allowed. If any team did such a thing, that huge year 1 salary would be treated like a signing bonus and hit the future salary cap as normal

The Cowboys gave Miles Austin a contract which included no signing bonus, but a fully guaranteed $17 million year 1 salary (Austin would earn something like $2.5 million total over the next 3 years). That is a textbook example of trying to dodge a future cap hit by giving an obscenely high year 1 salary in lieu of a signing bonus. Dallas' "punishment" was merely being told that the year 1 salary will be treated like a signing bonus against their 2011/2012/2013 cap number.

Yes, the above could be considered collusion except for one detail: It's not collusion if the NFLPA agrees to it. And in the eventually-signed CBA, the union agreed to allow the above in exchange for certain concessions.

TLDR version: 30 NFL teams colluded during the uncapped year, then bribed the union to retroactively agree to look the other way and once the NFLPA agreed to it, it was no longer collusion.

Wow NFLPA leadership is incredibly stupid lol.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the addition of JMac mean that Chung can go back to covering TEs (and leave Richards the odd man out)? And with Dmac and Chung patrolling the backfield, wer’re in pretty good shape there. Reid or Vaccaro would serve for depth purposes.

Richards was only a real part of the defense in rare gameplans. He was essentially part of the defense against the Andy Reid system which was a horrible scheme that failed miserably.
Chung covered TEs consistently all season.

 

[TomPatriot]

Doesn’t this peel back a ton of layers too?

Who would owe him damages? The nfl isn’t an employer. Does he claim all 32 teams only didn’t want him because of politics?
How could he ever prove that is the reason?
Are employers allowed to limit speech that they determine to be detrimental to the company?
Aren’t employers allowed to fire you for expressing controversial or political views?

I think the biggest part is this. I am a banking executive. If I reach the end of my contract and either me, my employer or both agree to not renew it, I wouldn’t have any case against them because I was no longer employed and I could never prove that if I wanted a new contract I “deserved it” and was shunned for another reason. If I never got a job I couldn’t sue all the other banks for not hiring me.

I think the other issue is that many kneelers have signed contracts.

Very interesting topic.

Reid would argue that the NFL is an agent of an employer under Section 7, so they liable or the teams who did not sign him because he knelt would be liable. He suffered an adverse employment action involving one or more teams so either the teams or the League would pay, assuming he could prove it.

The difference between your scenario and Reid's is that there is no banking league. It would be a little different if there the ABA or SIFMA controlled your bank, Goldman, JPM, BofA and Wells.

The point would be that one or more teams and/or the NFL retaliated against Reid by not hiring him due to his kneeling during the national anthem with other players, which is protected concerted activity. Your certainly right, though. It isn't an easy case to prove.

 

[Deus Irae]

Reid would argue that the NFL is an agent of an employer under Section 7, so they liable or the teams who did not sign him because he knelt would be liable. He suffered an adverse employment action involving one or more teams so either the teams or the League would pay, assuming he could prove it.

The difference between your scenario and Reid's is that there is no banking league. It would be a little different if there the ABA or SIFMA controlled your bank, Goldman, JPM, BofA and Wells.

The point would be that one or more teams and/or the NFL retaliated against Reid by not hiring him due to his kneeling during the national anthem with other players, which is protected concerted activity. Your certainly right, though. It isn't an easy case to prove.

Just a note, here. Your last paragraph seems to be a bit misleading. It's perfectly legal for teams to not hire Reid because of his kneeling.

 

[Ring 6]

Reid would argue that the NFL is an agent of an employer under Section 7, so they liable or the teams who did not sign him because he knelt would be liable. He suffered an adverse employment action involving one or more teams so either the teams or the League would pay, assuming he could prove it.

The difference between your scenario and Reid's is that there is no banking league. It would be a little different if there the ABA or SIFMA controlled your bank, Goldman, JPM, BofA and Wells.

The point would be that one or more teams and/or the NFL retaliated against Reid by not hiring him due to his kneeling during the national anthem with other players, which is protected concerted activity. Your certainly right, though. It isn't an easy case to prove.

Is it a crime to not hire someone because they espouse their own political beliefs in your workplace?

I also don’t understand how you can sue the league because they do not hire players. You would still have the same issue of prove as if you sue one team and it’s seems impossible to conclude the reason any one team or group of teams chose not to sign one player.

Finally if he could prove he wasn’t hired because of his political activism that isn’t even a protected class or action covered under any discrimination laws to my knowledge as you do not gave the right of free speech in your employers property.

 

[TomPatriot]

Just a note, here. Your last paragraph seems to be a bit misleading. It's perfectly legal for teams to not hire Reid because of his kneeling.

It depends. I think if they collude to deny him a job at a market rate it violates the CBA. There may also be a Section 7 violation. If each team makes a completely individual decision not to hire him, you may be correct.

 

[patman52]

Same issues as Krapernick.

And you can always take "legal action," because some publicity hack will file a complaint. A successful action? Not likely.

The unfairness of NFL contracts is a case study in basic contract law in many law schools (the nature of "we can keep you for x years and you cannot leave, but we can axe you next year if we want to do so for no reason at all").

Reid is a free agent. Barring direct evidence of collusion or actionable discrimination, teams are legally free to sign or not sign anyone. Hate to say it, but I am surprised Reid is surprised (based on his concession he won't protest - I know this is Sherman speaking out) by the billionaire response to him after last year. Any player viewed as toxic to the bottom line of that group, whatever the reason may be for that, has to be a world beater and not just good to overcome that hurdle and strike a deal with a team.

And I don's see this as unfair, or why it should be studied if it is being so. The player signs a contract that is a series of one year contracts in return for a SB for all the years of the contract. This is an upside deal for the player. If all the years was fully guaranteed the total payout would have to be much less. I am sure the owners would fully guarantee the deal if the total contract amount was adjusted downward to limit their potential loss.

Say the player in the existing environment would be a 5 year 60 mill with a 20 mill bonus.
The owner may well be inclined to give him 5 years 44 mill and fully guarantee it.

 

[mgteich]

Richards was only a real part of the defense in rare gameplans. He was essentially part of the defense against the Andy Reid system which was a horrible scheme that failed miserably.
Chung covered TEs consistently all season.

How many defensive reps did Richards have per game?

 

[Love The Drake]

I wouldn't mind Eric Reid then drafting the other Reid.

 

[mgteich]

I don't think so.
If this were true, lots of such contract would have been signed.

Say the player in the existing environment would be a 5 year 60 mill with a 20 mill bonus.
The owner may well be inclined to give him 5 years 44 mill and fully guarantee it.

 

[primetime]

It depends. I think if they collude to deny him a job at a market rate it violates the CBA. There may also be a Section 7 violation. If each team makes a completely individual decision not to hire him, you may be correct.

If the owners left a (digital) paper trail, then you can find it through 7114b. But, from personal experience, it's like digging for a needle in a haystack.

Nor is Reid good enough or on the market long enough for this to matter.

 

[Ring 6]

How many defensive reps did Richards have per game?

Average of 17 but reps were higher is selected games where the infamous 4 safety defense was used. Against most teams only a handful.

 

[Froob]

How many defensive reps did Richards have per game?

Too many.

 

[zipster9]

I wouldn't mind Eric Reid then drafting the other Reid.

That would be his brother.

 

[50-yard-line]

I've got no problem with owners not paying these guys, as long as it's not because of collusion. There's not a chance in hell I'd sign either Reid or Kaepernick, if I were an owner, and I certainly have not been colluding with the league, or the owners, to come to that position.

Is that because of personal feelings or because of the suspected problems it could cause on the team and with the fans?

Does that distinction even matter from a legal standpoint?

I'm honestly curious here about that second question. That Sherman and other players want to use their platforms to speak out on issues that concern them/their communities...owners do it all the time (where's the Patriot private jet today, for example?).

Also, you just never know how things will go with labor law/business practices. Witness Brady. in my own industry, Amazon sued publishers for "collusion" in pricing books, and to my absolute astonishment, they won big. It was a travesty, imo.

 

[MassPats38]

Seems to me that there was ultimately some SCOTUS ruling reaffirming freedom of association (and freedom of speech) in reaction to the "red scare black-balling" of the 1950s. Don't know for certain, though.

Freedom of association and freedom of speech are protected rights when impaired by government action. The NFL is not a government actor. The Supreme Court reviewed those issues you mention through Congressional hearings that resulted in contempt of Congress charges in investigating Communist activity. The Hollywood Blacklist was the product of a House Committee.

If the protesting players were charged with a criminal offense, arrested or denied permits to protest on State grounds, then that would come into play. Generally, outside of discrimination laws and labor law prohibitions through CBAs, individuals abide by contractual limitations or enjoy "at will" employee status. If they choose to push the envelope, then they enjoy few employment guarantees.

 

[MassPats38]

And I don's see this as unfair, or why it should be studied if it is being so. The player signs a contract that is a series of one year contracts in return for a SB for all the years of the contract. This is an upside deal for the player. If all the years was fully guaranteed the total payout would have to be much less. I am sure the owners would fully guarantee the deal if the total contract amount was adjusted downward to limit their potential loss.

Say the player in the existing environment would be a 5 year 60 mill with a 20 mill bonus.
The owner may well be inclined to give him 5 years 44 mill and fully guarantee it.

That was more a discussion point for law students. A contract for a term of years, when promised, would seem to be equally binding on both parties. In the case of NFL contracts, only one party appears bound to the deal.

The social debate on that issue - who wins in these deals - would derail the thread. I was just offering that 'unfairness' reference for context.

 

[Deus Irae]

Is that because of personal feelings or because of the suspected problems it could cause on the team and with the fans?

Both

Does that distinction even matter from a legal standpoint?

Not in this case, unless I'm missing something.

I'm honestly curious here about that second question. That Sherman and other players want to use their platforms to speak out on issues that concern them/their communities...owners do it all the time (where's the Patriot private jet today, for example?).

1. Owners of something are different from non-owners.
2. Even a business owner, if he's smart, avoids using his business for highly charged political messaging, unless he's owner of a niche business for which such a move is likely to help business. A football team is not one of those businesses.
   
3. Don't get me started about the Kraft plane. I made a couple of simple, non-partisan posts about it yesterday, and the snowflakes lost their minds.

Also, you just never know how things will go with labor law/business practices. Witness Brady. in my own industry, Amazon sued publishers for "collusion" in pricing books, and to my absolute astonishment, they won big. It was a travesty, imo.

I'm not going to comment on that particular case, but I will say that you're right in the sense that the courts can turn current law (or just thought about current law) on its head. That's not supposed to be the job of the courts, but we've ceded that power to them.