Skip to content

NFLPA believes language in some rookie deals violates CBA

Getty Images

Before the Vikings started signing their draft picks to contracts this year, there was word that the delay in getting that ball rolling was due to concerns from the NFL Players Association about language the Vikings wanted in the deals.

Those concerns exist outside of Minnesota as well. NFLPA spokesman George Atallah said that the league has found language they believe violates the Collective Bargaining Agreement in about 160 rookie contracts from 25 or 26 of the league’s teams.

“The union has undergone a comprehensive review of rookie contracts and language in those contracts for this year,” Atallah told Dan Graziano of “The CBA explicitly prohibits players from some of the language that we have seen the clubs attempt to impose in these deals. We are considering all of our options to protect the players and enforce the CBA.”

Some of the language that the union objects to involves clauses requiring players to take more than the two prescribed offseason physicals, clauses that allow teams to directly withdraw money owed for fines or other reasons and language requiring impending free agents to “secure permission from their current clubs” before speaking to other teams in the “legal tampering” period before the start of a new league year.

The NFLPA has informed the league of their concerns, which could lead them to file a grievance that would void the deals and force the sides to start over again.

Permalink 3 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill
3 Responses to “NFLPA believes language in some rookie deals violates CBA”
  1. dartmouthstevens says: Jun 7, 2017 1:00 PM

    So the NFLPA should write the contracts as part of the CBA. No offset for first 16. Offset for the rest. Spreading out the signing bonus, etc.

    If they are whining, make it a stock contract. Then the rookies will not need agents (and get that 2% bump!)

  2. misterfuji1982 says: Jun 7, 2017 1:53 PM

    I just think the teams should play by the rules of the current CBA- the one that they got by way of locking out the players and screwing the fans.

  3. jag1959 says: Jun 7, 2017 4:43 PM

    No doubt it was simply a wordsmithing error in the contract boilerplate not unlike the (ahem) ‘accounting (cough) error’ that ‘mistakenly’ slid $110M from the pool of funds shared with players into the owners pockets.

Leave a Reply

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