Burress Grievance Limits Signing Bonus Forfeitures

Though we’ve yet to eyeball the written decision, we’ve picked up some key details regarding the Plaxico Burress grievance. The Giants argued that the four-game suspension and placement of Burress on the non-football injury/illness list arising from Plaxico’s unfortunate placement of an entry wound and exit wound into his thigh constitued a second default under the bonus-forfeiture provisions of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which entitled the Giants to recover 75 percent of his signing-bonus proration for 2008. Because Burress received a signing bonus of $4.25 million (not $4.5 million, as reported elsewhere last week) on a five-year deal, his full proration for 2008 was $850,000. Thus, 75 percent of that amount was $637,500. (We’ll address the balance of the $1 million the team withheld from Burress in a separate post.) Special Master Richard Burbank found that Burress is permitted to retain the $637,500 because Article XIV, Section 9 of the CBA applies only where the player holds out or retires. In other words, Burbank concluded that a suspension resulting from intentional misconduct (such as tucking a loaded and unlicensed gun into the waistband of a player’s sweatpants and taking a trip to Manhattan) does not amount to the kind of willful action encompassed by Article XIV, Section 9(a). Previously, it widely was believed that the operative language -- “if a player willfully takes action that has the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason training camp or the regular season” -- applied not only to the intentional avoidance of such activities but also to intentional action that causes the player to miss training camp or the regular season. In other words, getting suspended for conduct detrimental to the team or for violating league policies doesn’t trigger a signing bonus forfeiture. Likewise, any injury suffered by a player engaged intentionally in unsafe off-field activities won’t trigger a forfeiture, either. The ruling is subject to appeal by U.S. district judge David Doty, and then subject to review by the federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. So it’s not final. But, for now, the Giants and the league are on the losing end of a decision that, if it stands, will give the players even more leverage at the bargaining table when the next CBA is being negotiated.