Skip to content

D’Brickashaw Ferguson has 750,000 reasons to hope the lockout ends

Image (2) NFL_ferguson-thumb-250x185-15407.jpg for post 78649

If the lockout extends through the entire offseason, there will be no offseason workouts. And if there are no offseason workouts, there can be no offseason workout bonuses. That’s bad news for players whose contracts feature six-figure bonuses for participating in offseason workouts.

Adam Schefter of ESPN has a list of dozens of NFL players who can earn offseason workout bonuses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but whose bonuses are at risk because there may be no offseason workouts at all. The list is topped by Jets tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson, who would make $750,000 if he participates in 85 percent of the Jets’ offseason workouts.

Other notable names on the list include Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning and Jay Cutler, all of whom have $500,000 offseason workout bonuses in their contracts.

One player whose agent was looking out for him on the offseason bonus front is Tom Brady, who can get $250,000 for participating in 90 percent of the Patriots’ offseason workouts. Brady’s contract has a clause that increases his 2012 workout bonus to $500,000 if there are no 2011 workouts.

A lockout that canceled all offseason activities could cost players (and save owners) tens of millions of dollars — even if no regular-season games are lost.

Permalink 20 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New York Jets, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
20 Responses to “D’Brickashaw Ferguson has 750,000 reasons to hope the lockout ends”
  1. motorcitykitties says: Mar 17, 2011 2:36 PM

    I’m sure this was factored into the NFLPA’s actions at the negotiating table.. or am I giving the players too much credit?

  2. ohenry78 says: Mar 17, 2011 2:38 PM

    Gee, good think they decided to decertify instead of negotiate more.

  3. skoobyfl says: Mar 17, 2011 2:40 PM

    Boo Hoo.

  4. philriverslovespenis says: Mar 17, 2011 2:44 PM

    No big deal for Cutler. He would’ve just “injured” himself anyway.

  5. FinFan68 says: Mar 17, 2011 2:47 PM

    85% of 0 is 0. If the team does not hold any workouts then the player did not fail to comply and would likely get his money.

  6. mick730 says: Mar 17, 2011 2:57 PM

    So, let me get this straight; the NFL owners pay these einsteins six figure bonuses just to stay in shape so they can perform in their CHOSEN “profession”?

    Yes indeed Messers. Peterson and Mendenhall, slavery indeed.

  7. mark0226 says: Mar 17, 2011 3:01 PM

    “Brady’s contract has a clause that increases his 2012 workout bonus to $500,000 if there are no 2011 workouts.”

    So, let me get this straight. The Players (NFLPA) sued the NFL for including Lockout Insurance in their TV Contracts, but they included Lockout Insurance in their OWN contracts?

  8. beastofeden says: Mar 17, 2011 3:02 PM

    Im sure he made $750,000 last season by working out in the off season.

    Only an idiot would blow that in a year

  9. jtotharoc says: Mar 17, 2011 3:03 PM

    I know this is a business and all but the consumers (fans) haven’t been considered throughout these negotiations. To hear owners and players arguing over billions of dollars when most of the people who watch the sport make considerably less than even a practice squad player is just sickening. I feel like they should handle their retired players health care similar to how we handle VA except the cost of the healthcare comes from the owners/players pockets.

  10. bluvayner says: Mar 17, 2011 3:12 PM

    Brady’s workout clause is meaningless, because there is no way that he’s ever going to hit 90% again. He spends most of the offseason in California, Costa Rica, Brazil, and chasing Giselle around Europe. He only shows up in Foxboro for the OTAs.

  11. thefiesty1 says: Mar 17, 2011 3:23 PM

    These guys made their bed siding with the union. Now they get to lay in it. Too bad, I’m sorry for your loss. Not!

  12. silversun60 says: Mar 17, 2011 3:24 PM

    FinFan…..
    0 divided by 0 is 0. So by that logic they didn’t meet the 85%….. they participated in 0% of workouts.

    No chance any of them get paid workout money without any workouts happening.

  13. cdaws84 says: Mar 17, 2011 3:39 PM

    Looks like Brady pplanned on the lockout…why else did he add that workout clause….

  14. oldpftusernewname says: Mar 17, 2011 3:41 PM

    Oh, Silversun60, don’t you remember: You can’t divide by zero, you’ll break everything that way!

  15. thestrategyexpert says: Mar 17, 2011 3:51 PM

    Can you clarify what the contracts say? If DF gets the bonus for appearing in at least 85% of the workouts, but their are zero workouts, then he is compliant because he hasn’t missed any workouts right? Or if say there is only 1 workout scheduled right before the season, then all he has to do is make 1/1 when that 1 is scheduled later on even though it is much later than the normal time right? What does the specific language say, do we know?

  16. silversun60 says: Mar 17, 2011 4:43 PM

    oldpftusernewname: you just blew my mind!

  17. FinFan68 says: Mar 17, 2011 4:54 PM

    silversun60 says:
    Mar 17, 2011 3:24 PM
    FinFan…..
    0 divided by 0 is 0. So by that logic they didn’t meet the 85%….. they participated in 0% of workouts.

    No chance any of them get paid workout money without any workouts happening
    —————————–
    Ugh, the point is in order to deny the player the bonus money they have to be able to say that he didn’t show up to at least 85% of the scheduled workouts. If they don’t schedule any then he can’t fail to show up. That would be like denying a roster bonus to a player because the team decided to not have an official roster until after the specific date has passed.

  18. mike11119 says: Mar 17, 2011 5:53 PM

    fire all the players and start over.

  19. freethediesel says: Mar 17, 2011 9:10 PM

    Yeah, this is obviously a fight for lawyers but isn’t attendance at zero out of zero off season trainings 100% attendance? I think these guys are good.

    Not that I feel bad for them otherwise.

  20. robsterny says: Mar 18, 2011 4:06 PM

    @ FinFan68;
    Sooooo…your saying he should still get the 750,000? …Whats your point here?….I know he cant show up for something thats not going to be there.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!