Bill Polian underscores the influence of the NFL's Management Council on player contracts

NBC Sports

4 days ago

The truth often gets told when the topic has changed.
In the 61-page collusion ruling, arbitrator Christopher Droney accepted the obvious, self-serving denials from owners and other NFL-aligned witnesses who insisted that the NFL's Management Council does not compel teams to act against their interests. In so doing, Droney ignored strong circumstantial evidence that teams did indeed accept the Management Council's encouragement to restrict fully-guaranteed contracts.
In a new article from John Keim of ESPN.com regarding training-camp holdouts, Hall of Fame G.M. Bill Polian said something that undercuts one of the front-line arguments made by the league in defending against the claim that teams did indeed collude.
'You took so many slings and arrows publicly,' Polian told Keim regarding the holdout experience. 'Guys will call up and say, 'Hey, I really empathize with you. This is terrible.' Other people will offer advice: 'Hey, don't cave on this one. This is really important.' On occasion, [NFL] management council will step in.'
Wait, what? 'Management Council will step in.' How? When?
Most importantly, why? Why would Management Council have anything to say to a team that is holding the rope in a holdout situation? Why would Management Council care if the team blinks on one or more terms that could, in theory, become the start of a new trend? (Such as, you know, the player holding out wanting a fully-guaranteed contract?)
Consider this sworn testimony from Giants co-owner and longtime chair of the Management Council's Executive Committee, John Mara, regarding the claim that Management Council doesn't tell teams what to do: 'I'm not going to be told what to do in terms of an individual player contract by anybody from Management Council or by anybody from another club. . . . [T]he thought that I'm going to be influenced by what another owner is saying to me is just absurd.'
If that's absurd, it's equally absurd for Management Council to 'step in' during a holdout.
And let's apply common sense here. Why would Management Council step in? Would it be to talk sense into a given team in an effort to get them to cave to the player's demands? Or would it be to 'encourage' (there's that word again) the team to remain firm and stand tall and not let a player or his agent score a term that will then be used in other negotiations for other players with other teams?
Management Council exists in part to ensure coordination (i.e., collusion) when it comes to contractual trends. For instance, I've argued over the years that franchise quarterbacks should be paid not a set salary but a fixed percentage of the salary cap. The Collective Bargaining Agreement allows it. When asking around about it in the past, multiple sources from multiple teams said, essentially, 'Management Council would never allow it.'
Management Council's influence is far stronger than the evidence fed to Droney would suggest. When Management Council 'encourages,' the teams ignore the urging at their own risk.
Indeed, what happened after Management Council, sparked by the fully-guaranteed Deshaun Watson contract, encouraged teams to not fully guarantee deals? Kyler Murray didn't get one. Russell Wilson didn't get one. Lamar Jackson.
That neutralized the threat. It also helped that Watson's contract has been a disaster for the Browns.
The collusion case could still be a disaster for the NFL. The appeal is apparently happening, even though the NFLPA has suddenly decided to not respond to any questions from PFT, regarding the collusion case or any other topic.