The NFL’s funding rule, as applied to the Deshaun Watson contract, required the Browns to pay $169 million into escrow by Friday, March 31. Over the weekend, both the Browns and the NFL were asked whether that actually happened.
The NFL did not to respond to two emails on the matter. The Browns, on Sunday, declined to comment regarding question the escrow payment was made. However, a Browns spokesperson did say this, on the record: “When we signed Deshaun to a new contract we understood the obligation that comes with guaranteed dollars and planned accordingly.”
Confirmation was sought because the funding rule, as written, suggests it’s not mandatory. The use of the word “may” gives the NFL, on the surface, the ability to pick and choose whether and when the escrow payments will be required. And it undercuts that common argument made by teams asked to give full guarantees that the escrow payments are mandatory.
As the league apparently tries to stave off the potential trend of full guarantees for franchise quarterbacks, discretion (if there is any) likely will be exercised in a way that compels the teams that give big guarantees to make the payments. It could be very interesting to see whether the league treats the funding rule as a mandate, or whether under certain circumstances the league looks the other way on the escrow obligation.
Here’s the point. If there’s any discretion at all, the funding rule becomes a tool for collusion when it comes to resisting full guarantees for veteran players. And maybe, just maybe, the pending collusion grievance filed by the NFL Players Association will explore whether and to what extent the funding rule is being sold as mandatory for all guaranteed contracts when, in reality, it isn’t.