Burress Ruling Could Help Stallworth

The day before Browns receiver Donte’ Stallworth’s Bentley collided with Mario Reyes in Miami Beach, Stallworth earned a $4.875 million roster bonus.
But we’re told that the check isn’t actually due to be paid until May 2009.
Some league observers assume that the Browns will stiff Stallworth. But the hot-off-the-presses Plaxico Burress grievance stands for the proposition that forfeiture language is enforceable only if the player holds out or retires.
Though there’s an open question as to whether the forfeiture language also applies to a guy who doesn’t show up because he’s in jail, it would seem to be fairly easy to delay the ultimate prosecution of Stallworth until after the 2009 football season ends.
And given that the signing bonus forfeiture language applies only to signing bonuses and not to roster bonuses and given that Stallworth was on the roster the day the payment came due, it suddenly got even harder for the Browns to justify stiffing Stallworth based on the same reasoning that supports a forfeiture of previously-paid signing bonus money.
That said, the Browns might very well decide to hold the money, since it will be much easier to get the money back if they’ve never given it to Stallworth, in the event that the Browns prevail in the eventual legal fight.
But we think that players need to have greater rights when it comes to the intentional withholding of wages. As far as we can tell, there’s currently no downside for the teams. If they lose the grievance, they simply pay the money that would have been paid out in the first place.
So we think the union should push for some meaningful penalties -- something more than interest and counsel fees -- where teams wrongfully keep in their pockets money that rightfully should be paid to the players.