Latest news with #DeShaunWatson
National Post
22-07-2025
- Sport
- National Post
Hockey Canada's reckoning was heralded three years ago. Instead, its crisis mushroomed
Article content But the pattern of a team learning about sexual allegations involving players and looking the other way is a familiar one to anyone who follows sports. Article content Kobe Bryant, the late basketball legend, was accused in 2003 of raping a teenage hotel employee in Colorado. Criminal charges were filed, but later dropped when the alleged victim, whose identity had been leaked, refused to participate in a trial. A civil suit against Bryant was settled, but the 18-time All-Star was never disciplined by the NBA or the Los Angeles Lakers. Former NBA commissioner David Stern said at the time that the league would withhold punishment pending the resolution of the criminal case, and Bryant, then 26 years old, travelled from Lakers games to Colorado to attend court during the 2003 NBA season. Article content Article content DeShaun Watson, the former All-Pro quarterback with the Houston Texans, was suspended for 11 games in 2022 and fined US$5 million (after the NFL and NFLPA reached an agreement) after more than two dozen women accused him of sexual misconduct during massage sessions. The Texans decided to trade him, and after interest from multiple teams, sent him to the Cleveland Browns for a haul of draft picks. The Browns quickly gave him a contract for five years and US$230 million, the largest guaranteed contract in NFL history at the time. Article content Article content Last month, the NFL suspended former Baltimore Ravens kicker Justin Tucker for 10 games after 16 massage therapists accused him of improper behaviour during sessions that took place between 2012 and 2016. He denies wrongdoing, and when the Ravens released him in May, with an NFL investigation ongoing, general manager Eric DeCosta said it was a 'tough decision' and thanked him for his contributions to the team. He did not mention the allegations. Article content And earlier this month, police in London, England, announced sexual assault charges against Thomas Partey, formerly a midfielder for Arsenal in the Premier League, involving three alleged victims. Partey was first arrested in 2022, but his name was not made public because U.K. laws prohibit the identification of someone who has not been criminally charged. Arsenal, however, knew of the allegations, through multiple arrests, and he played more than 100 matches for the club until his contract expired at the end of June. Partey denies the allegations. Arsenal has said it will not comment on the case because it is before the courts. Article content The tendency towards a hands-off approach can even be the case when the athlete is an alleged victim. In the spring of 2021, a former member of the Chicago Blackhawks sued the team over allegations that it had failed to properly respond when alerted to an alleged sexual assault perpetrated by a former assistant coach in 2010. A team-ordered investigation found that the Blackhawks let the coach resign after the season concluded, though he took part in Stanley Cup celebrations, otherwise the complaint was ignored. (The former coach was later convicted of sexual assault related to a high-school coaching job.) General manager Stan Bowman resigned, and Joel Quenneville, who was Chicago's head coach in 2010 but was coaching the Florida Panthers in 2021, also resigned after a meeting with NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. The NHL declared Bowman and Quenneville eligible to be reinstated last year. Weeks later, Bowman was hired to be the general manager of the Edmonton Oilers. He said at the time that his 'response was inadequate in 2010,' and that he had spent time reflecting on his mistakes and learning from them. Quenneville was hired to coach the Anaheim Ducks last month. He said he 'owned (his) mistakes' and that he had educated himself on 'the realities of abuse.'
Forbes
26-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
NFL Narrowly Defeats Collusion Claims Over Guaranteed Compensation
(Photo byIt is the general understanding among serious sports fans that NFL player contracts are less guaranteed, i.e., more permissive of unilateral termination by the player's club, than player contracts in MLB, the NBA, or the NHL. While the details and accuracy of that understanding are complex (see here at ch. 5), it is certainly true that the principal goal in contract negotiations for NFL players is often to maximize the amount of guaranteed compensation. No player achieved that goal more than quarterback DeShaun Watson, when he signed a five-year fully-guaranteed $230 million contract with the Cleveland Browns in March 2022. That contract, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, were the focus of a recent 'system arbitration' in which the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) alleged that the NFL and its 32 clubs had illegally colluded to suppress guaranteed compensation to NFL players. In a January 2025 arbitration decision recently released by reporter Pablo Torre, the NFL prevailed, but not without some concerning findings. A History of Collusion Allegations To understand the case and its adjudication requires historical context. The NFLPA and its players engaged in extensive litigation between 1987 and 1993 after the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NFL and NFLPA in 1987 (see summaries and analysis here and here). The players' litigation strategy evolved as a result of various court decisions, including the eventual decertification of the NFLPA as the players' bargaining representative under labor law and a class action antitrust lawsuit against the NFL and its clubs alleging that their salary cap, free agency, and Draft rules amounted to illegal agreements among competitors to suppress pay and other benefits in the labor market for NFL player services. Significantly, because the NFLPA had been decertified, the NFL's rules were no longer protected by a crucial concept in sports and the law, known as the non-statutory labor exemption. The litigation was finally settled in a lawsuit led by future Hall of Famer Reggie White. The settlement resolved those core areas of dispute and became the backbone of a new CBA and economic system for the NFL that continues to this day. As is common in class action settlements, the judge presiding over the litigation, retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the agreement's implementation. In the White case, that judge was David Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. System Arbitration Next, to facilitate the process of resolving disputes under the settlement, according to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties agreed on a well-qualified lawyer, known as a 'Special Master,' to adjudicate disputes for potential appeal to Judge Doty. From 2002 until 2021, that role was held by Stephen Burbank, a now emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Burbank's 20-year run as the arbitrator for the most contentious disputes between the NFL and NFLPA was remarkable, particularly given that sports leagues and unions have regularly dismissed arbitrators after just one disagreeable ruling and some early decisions by Burbank against the NFL concerning signing bonus forfeitures. Indeed, after more than a decade of decisions by Judge Doty that the NFL believed favored the NFLPA, it resolved to end his oversight in the 2011 CBA negotiations. The 1993 CBA (and White settlement) was extended multiple times but, as a result of the 2006 CBA's expiration in March 2011, Judge Doty's jurisdiction ended. Nevertheless, when the parties finally reached a new CBA in July 2011, they retained essentially the same role for Professor Burbank. However, his title changed from Special Master to System Arbitrator, given that his role was now outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The System Arbitrator nevertheless retained jurisdiction to hear disputes – called 'System Arbitrations' – concerning the same items at issue in the litigation of 1987-93. Today, System Arbitrations cover select Articles of the CBA covering the NFL Player Contract, NFL Draft, rookie compensation, free agency, salary caps, and related concepts among a few others. These items go to the core 'system' of NFL operations, hence the title. The NFLPA's Collusion Case Of relevance to the instant case, the System Arbitrator has jurisdiction over Article 17, Anti-Collusion. This makes perfect sense. The players' principal legal argument in the past litigation was that NFL clubs were in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits multiple parties from entering into agreements that unreasonably restrain a market. Article 17 is akin to Section 1, as it prohibits clubs from entering into express or implied agreements which restrain the player labor market, including agreements not to offer particular types of contracts. In October 2022, the NFLPA commenced a System Arbitration alleging exactly that. In the wake of the Watson contract, the NFLPA alleged that NFL teams had impermissibly colluded to prevent three comparable quarterbacks – Russell Wilson, Lamar Jackson, and Kyler Murray – from obtaining fully guaranteed contracts like Watson. After discovery was conducted, the NFLPA broadened the case to seek relief on behalf of 594 veteran players who it claimed had received less guaranteed money in their 2023 contracts because of an agreement among NFL clubs to suppress guaranteed compensation. Following Burbank's retirement in 2021, Christopher F. Droney, a former judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was selected as the new System Arbitrator. In evaluating the NFLPA's claims, Droney evaluated three factors: (1) was concerted action contemplated and invited? (2) were clubs aware that they were being invited to participate in a collusive agreement to restrict guaranteed compensation? and (3) did clubs give adherence to and participate in a scheme? Was Concerted Action Contemplated And Invited? On the first question, the arbitrator found in the NFLPA's favor. At a March 2022 owners' meeting, the NFL's Management Council, led by then-General Counsel Jeff Pash, led a presentation in which the league highlighted and expressed concern with growth in the amount of guaranteed compensation. Complicating the analysis was the fact that the salary cap in 2021 declined to $182.5 million from $198.2 million in 2020 due to COVID-19 related adjustments. Teams had responded to this reduced salary cap space by converting non-guaranteed player salaries into guaranteed signing bonuses which were prorated over the life of the contract for salary cap purposes, thereby reducing the annual salary cap charge. In so doing, clubs had distorted the system and were paying large amounts of 'cash over cap.' Notably, prior to the meeting, Pash expressed his concerns about the growth in guaranteed compensation to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Goodell responded: 'Agreed but the tip of the market is most of the dollars and if we wait to see how it falls, it will be too late to counter. Agreed with raising [at the owners' meeting] with a big concern that this will erode a key aspect of our CBA that resisted guaranteed money except as clubs determined on their own.' Pash, a veteran of the NFL's historical antitrust battles, included multiple reminders in his presentation that clubs must make their own decisions. Nevertheless, the arbitrator found that 'Management Council, with the support of the Commissioner, sought to encourage Clubs to reverse the recent trend in guaranteed compensation, especially that growth that was not attributable to Covid.' Were Clubs Aware? On the second factor, the Arbitrator found that the clubs were not aware that they were being invited to participate in collusion. Not all of the owners attended the March 2022 meeting and many of them had little to no memory of the content of Management Council's presentation, among numerous other topics discussed at the meeting. At issue on this point was a series of communications between then-NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith and New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft. Smith testified that Kraft told him that Goodell had asked Kraft to speak to other owners about a problematic rise in guaranteed compensation. Goodell and Kraft denied any such conversation. The arbitrator ultimately found that no such conversation occurred. Notably, the arbitration process included testimony from numerous players, agents, NFL executives, club owners and executives, and others. Smith's allegations against Kraft was the only instance in which the arbitrator explicitly did not find the testimony credible. Did Clubs Adhere? The results of the clubs' alleged agreement was the most complicated part of the analysis. The sides offered competing analyses from economists. The NFLPA first relied on the expertise of Dr. Roger Noll, an emeritus professor at Stanford with extensive experience in the sports industry. Noll highlighted that teams' cash over cap and total cash expenditures decreased from 2022 to 2023. Next, Dr. John F. Johnson of Edgeworth Economics, on behalf of the NFLPA, introduced evidence showing a statistically significant decrease in signing bonuses and second-year guarantees after the March 2022 meeting. He estimated the players lost out on $612.21 million in compensation due to the clubs' collusive scheme. In response, the NFL's expert, Jonathan L. Walker of Secretariat, introduced evidence showing a 'massive increase' in spending in 2024 as compared to 2023. Ultimately, the arbitrator found that the evidence was not sufficiently consistent to find that the clubs had participated in a scheme to reduce guaranteed compensation. Notably, 14 of the 32 NFL clubs did not have the salary cap room to accommodate the damages Dr. Johnson claimed. Multiple NFL owners also testified that any such admonitions by the NFL would not have changed their spending plans, given the fierce competition within the league. Finally, the arbitrator found it telling that the NFLPA did not have any NFL player testify 'that they sought more extensive guarantees and were categorically denied them by team management.' Stopped At The Goal Line The NFLPA obtained and produced powerful evidence that the NFL provided information to clubs about guaranteed compensation for purposes of encouraging them to collectively change their spending habits. This is the exact type of information sharing and implicit agreement that the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice have previously warned human resources professionals is illegal. Nevertheless, to the NFL's benefit, the teams did not seem to fully heed the league's lessons. Under the terms of the CBA, the NFLPA had the right to appeal to a three-person panel within ten days of the arbitrator's order. The NFLPA declined to comment on the decision and whether it had appealed. The NFL did not respond to a request for comment. If the NFLPA did appeal, any award in its favor would be difficult to keep quiet. Either way, the NFL likely learned a lesson in what type of information to convey to clubs moving forward, or at least the manner in which it does so.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NFL collusion ruling: Arbitrator reportedly finds NFL, Roger Goodell encouraged teams to reduce guarantees for veterans
The NFL — with commissioner Roger Goodell's blessing — reportedly encouraged all 32 teams to reduce contract guarantees for veteran players at the March 2022 owners meeting, according to Pablo Torre and Mike Florio. That explosive claim was made by an arbitrator who oversaw a collusion grievance between the NFL and NFLPA. The ruling, which was not released by the NFL or NFLPA, was unearthed by Torre, who spoke about the grievance on his podcast Tuesday. Advertisement In that ruling, the arbitrator, Christopher Droney, wrote the following: 'There is little question that the NFL Management Council, with the blessing of the Commissioner, encouraged the 32 NFL Clubs to reduce guarantees in veterans' contracts at the March 2022 annual owners' meeting.' That suggests both the NFL and Goodell wanted teams to collude to reduce guaranteed money when handing out contracts to veteran players. Despite that evidence, the NFL actually won the grievance. Droney ruled that, despite the NFL encouraging collusion, he could not prove by a "clear preponderance" that NFL teams acted on that advice. The meeting in which the NFL Management Council reportedly encouraged teams to collude to reduce veteran guarantees occurred right around the time the Cleveland Browns signed quarterback DeShaun Watson to a fully-guaranteed $230 million contract. Advertisement The NFLPA believed the league encouraged teams to reduce veteran guarantees to "thwart market competition from running its course" and "to prevent them from following the precedent" set by the Watson contract, per the ruling. The NFLPA argued multiple players, including quarterbacks Russell Wilson, Lamar Jackson, and Kyler Murray, were affected by that alleged directive. All three of those players signed massive extensions after Watson, but none of them received fully-guaranteed deals. At the time, Jackson's situation raised eyebrows among some analysts. The Ravens gave Jackson a non-exclusive tag, which allowed him to negotiate with other teams on a new contract. If Jackson received another deal, the Ravens had the opportunity to match it and keep the star quarterback. Despite Jackson's success — he was an MVP winner and two-time Pro Bowler at the time — no team signed Jackson to an offer sheet, even those desperately in need of help at quarterback. While it was assumed the Ravens would match any deal given to Jackson, the team was never put in that position. Without any other deal, Jackson lost the ability to leverage other contracts — potentially some that were fully-guaranteed — in negotiations with the Ravens. The team eventually signed Jackson to a five-year, $260 million deal, $185 million of which was fully-guaranteed. The deal made the Watson contract look like an outlier, which, after Tuesday's arbitration ruling leaked, may have been the desired result by the NFL. Advertisement Jackson testified at the arbitration hearing heard by Droney, per the ruling. Murray, his agent and Wilson's agent did not appear live at the hearings, but did submit testimonies. This story will be updated.
