Jonathan Taylor Contract Exposes RBs’ Franchise Tag, Labor Struggles
Indianapolis Colts running back Jonathan Taylor landed a three-year, $42.5 million extension, with $26.5 million guaranteed, on Saturday after a lengthy contract dispute.
The dispute highlights the challenging situation NFL running backs face under the collective bargaining agreement and sparks questions about the role of labor law.
More from Sportico.com
Jonathan Taylor Contract Saga Unresolved as Colts RB Activated
Union Push Leaves Dartmouth International Players Up in the Air
Taylor, 24, has been one of the league’s most dominant running backs since the Colts drafted him in the second round of the 2020 NFL draft. The former Wisconsin Badger led the NFL in rushing yards and rushing touchdowns in 2021. He is the youngest player in NFL history with at least 2,000 yards from scrimmage and 20 total touchdowns in a single season and has averaged 5.1 yards per carry.
Taylor was placed on the injured reserve in December 2021 with an ankle problem, which led to surgery a month later. Until last Thursday, he was on the physically unable to perform list.
Taylor is playing on a four-year rookie contract worth about $7.8 million. Despite his dominance, Taylor is scheduled to be the 18th-highest-paid NFL running back in 2023.
He sought a multiyear extension this past summer, but talks with the team failed to advance and Taylor demanded a trade. Meanwhile, Colts owner Jim Irsay publicly complained that a “specific player category” (i.e., running backs) “wants another [labor] negotiation,” after the league and NFLPA already negotiated a CBA “that took years of effort and hard work and compromise.”
The core problem for star running backs is that the NFLPA and NFL have accepted a franchise tag system, in which a team can effectively keep a player on a year-to-year basis after his rookie contract ends.
This designation requires the team to pay the higher of the average of the top-five salaries at the player’s position or a 120% pay bump on his prior year’s salary.
Although this system compensates a player well relative to others at his position, “relative to” is an unfavorable set-up for running backs. The average top-five salary for running backs is $10.1 million, a figure lower than other positions save for kicker/punter. By comparison, the average top-five salary for quarterbacks is $32.4 million and linebacker is $20.9 million.
Lower pay for running backs reflects several factors. They enter the league having already endured substantial wear-and-tear, and their time in the NFL is typically brief.
Most running backs played three years of D-I college football, in addition to high school and Pop Warner, as the CBA’s eligibility rule prevents amateur players from entering the NFL until they are at least three years out of high school. While some running backs may have played other positions along the way, there’s a good chance their legs sustained damage during games and practices.
According to Statista, running backs have the shortest average NFL career playing length at 2.57 years; the average for all players is 3.3 years, with kicker/punters (4.87 years) and quarterbacks (4.44 years) enjoying, on average, the longest-lasting careers.
Running backs are also seen as relatively replaceable, with teams choosing them later in the draft. NFL offenses have also become more focused on passing, with teams prioritizing quarterbacks, offensive linemen and wide receivers in the draft and in free agency.
While Taylor now becomes the first running back to negotiate a multiyear deal worth at least $10 million per season since 2021, other stars at the position haven’t fared as well. Saquon Barkley (New York Giants) and Josh Jacobs (Las Vegas Raiders) are both playing on one-year deals after being franchise-tagged by their teams.
The legal hurdle for running backs is that this system is lawful and is set to continue through 2030, when the current CBA will expire.
Labor law is key. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recognizes the NFLPA as the exclusive bargaining representative of all NFL players. The NFLPA and NFL negotiate rules governing wages, hours and other working conditions. After the give-and-take of negotiations, the two sides land on a CBA that requires membership approval. Rules contained in the CBA are exempt from antitrust scrutiny per the non-statutory labor exemption, a series of cases that reward management for negotiating rules with labor.
Running backs could explore several options to enhance their voice. The most straightforward would be to pursue more positions on NFLPA bargaining teams and have more seats at the table. Los Angeles Chargers running back Austin Ekeler is a current NFLPA vice president.
Although 2030 is a long time from now—especially in the life of running backs—perhaps the franchise tag system could be altered in the next CBA so that running backs are grouped with other offensive positions, like tight ends or wide receivers (the league would likely resist this, and tight ends and wide receivers might not like it, either). The NFLPA could also seek a modification to the current CBA along these lines, but the league could say no or demand a sizable concession from the NFLPA in return.
Running backs could also pursue more controversial, but arguably quixotic, strategies.
In recent years a couple of offensive tackles, Lane Johnson and Russell Okung, filed unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the NLRB, asserting the NFLPA inadequately represented them. Johnson objected to the performance-enhancing substances policy while Okung argued his right to dissent was suppressed in CBA talks. Those charges didn’t yield what the players sought, which isn’t surprising since the vast majority of ULP charges come up short. Still, if running backs believe the union hasn’t served them adequately, they could consider the ULP route.
Running backs might also believe that owners are colluding to pay them less. The CBA prohibits two or more teams, or the NFL and at least one team, from entering into express or implied agreements to deprive players of collectively bargained rights. But teams appear to be simply taking advantage of the CBA and not engaging in illicit conduct. Also, collusion requires actual proof that teams are conspiring; two teams that decide to not reward their star running backs with multiyear contracts are not conspiring merely by doing the same thing.
Running backs could also petition to change the bargaining unit so that players at the position form their own union and, in 2030, negotiate their own CBA. They might argue their interests aren’t well-aligned with other players, given salary discrepancies and shorter career lengths. If you’re wondering why something like that has never happened, the NLRB has long recognized all players in a pro league as one bargaining unit, since they share common work interests. Both the NFLPA and NFL would also object.
The NFL and NFLPA could also negotiate a more permissive eligibility rule so that players can enter the league with less wear and tear. Twenty years ago, Ohio State star running back Maurice Clarett sued the NFL hoping to enter after one year of college. As a disclosure, I was an attorney on the legal team representing Clarett and have advocated against age eligibility rules in pro sports. Clarett won at the district court level but lost on appeal, as the NFLPA—mindful that younger, more talented players would take jobs from veteran players—filed an amicus brief siding with the NFL.
The most likely outcome is the least exciting: Teams and star running backs keep trying to negotiate solutions that both sides can accept.
