NFLPA threatened legal action over benching of Russell Wilson
If fences are going to be mended between the Broncos and quarterback Russell Wilson, it's gonna take a lot of wood and nails.
Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports that the NFL Players Association threatened legal action in early November, based on the perceived threat that the Broncos would bench Wilson if he refused to move the deadline for the vesting of his $37 million injury guarantee for 2025.
“It has come to our attention that the Denver Broncos recently informed Mr. Wilson and his Certified Contract Advisor that if Mr. Wilson would not renegotiate his Player Contract to relinquish certain salary guarantees, the Broncos would remove him from the starting lineup,” the NFLPA wrote in a November 4 letter to the NFL and the Broncos. “If the Broncos follow-through on the Club’s threat, the Club will violate, among other things, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Wilson’s Player Contract and New York law. And, we are particularly concerned that the Broncos still intend to commit these violations under the guise of ‘coaching decisions.'"
No action was ever taken. Some in Wilson's camp would say that the mere threat of a grievance or a lawsuit caused the Broncos to not bench Wilson. Others would ask why wasn't a grievance or a lawsuit filed this week, when the Broncos finally made good on the perceived threat to bench him?
The failure to take legal action after the benching could be regarded as acceptance by Wilson that his current level of play isn't where it needs to be, and that the team's position that it's based on performance is true and accurate. Alternatively, the lack of legal action could mean the threat was a bluff — perhaps aimed at calling the team's bluff regarding a perceived threat of benching Wilson.
Really, what would have happened if a grievance or lawsuit had been filed? Would the NFLPA have been trying to force the Broncos to play Wilson?
The player contract does not guarantee the right to actually play. Every week, multiple players under contract are made inactive. Every week, only 11 players are on the field at a time.
Also, why wouldn't the Broncos be able to bench Wilson in order to preserve their contractual options? It's not the first time that has happened. The Raiders did it last year with Derek Carr. (More on that is coming later today.) Way back in 2015, Washington put Robert Griffin III in bubble wrap because his fifth-year option was guaranteed for injury. They didn't want him to get injured, because they didn't want to owe him the money. If they had offered to play him if he waived the injury guarantee, would that have been a CBA violation?
Ultimately, the Broncos wanted flexibility for 2024 and 2025. They didn't want a 2023 injury to tie their hands for Wilson's 2025 salary of $37 million. They made a request. Wilson declined. The fact that he got the union involved — and the fact that all of this is coming to light today — will make it even harder for the Broncos and Wilson to find a way to stay together after 2023.
The relationship is currently broken. It's hard to imagine the relationship being sufficiently fixed between now and March to get the Broncos to commit to paying Wilson another $37 million.
