The Ja’Wuan James/Broncos battle could get messy. A source tells ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler that the former Broncos offensive lineman is “strongly considering filing a grievance through the NFLPA over potential lost wages of up to $10M” (Twitter link).
To review: James suffered a torn Achilles’ tendon while working out away from the Broncos’ team facility, leading to the player’s release yesterday. The front office will likely move to void James’ $10.58MM salary, something that wouldn’t have been feasible had James suffered the injury at the Broncos’ facility. The NFL recently reiterated these risks in a memo, mentioning James by name and noting that teams “would have “no contractual obligation” to pay players like James who were injured away from the team facilities” (via ESPN).
Following fellow Bronco DaeSean Hamilton‘s offsite ACL tear on Friday, James tweeted the NFLPA needs to have players’ backs after advising them to boycott voluntary offseason workouts. The NFLPA had previously sent out a memo noting that it was “gutless” of the league to use these injuries as scare tactics in an attempt to lure players back to team facilities.
Denver had previously placed James on its reserve/NFI list, laying the groundwork for yesterday’s move. The remaining $9MM in prorated signing bonus money will be due. Fowler notes that the organization does have the option of throwing him some extra cash on the way out, so the two sides could still theoretically come to an agreement before James officially files a grievance.
After spending the first five years of his career in Miami, James inked a four-year, $51MM deal with Denver in 2019. James was ticketed to be the Broncos’ long-term starter, but knee injuries in 2019 limited the former first-round pick to only three games. Because of his 2020 opt-out and this Achilles development, the 29-year-old lineman’s Denver career will be capped at 63 snaps. James underwent surgery yesterday and is now officially a free agent.
i honestly think this is lawsuit worthy. i think he has no grounds under the contractual language but there is questionable legality in the clause in general.
Im not pro/against the player or team, but what did the team do that was wrongful? They followed the CBA and were allowed to waive a person injured away from the team’s facilities.
Sucks for James, but his fellow union members gladly signed the CBA. I remember a few ‘uber rich’ players not liking the CBA, but like in life, they made up 10% of the base. The other 90% need to get paid.
Good question. I’ve been negotiating union contracts for years so I’ll take a stab at it. In short, grievances are typically a no lose proposition for unions. Just because they file a grievance doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. On the flip side, a lot of unions will file grievances even if they know they’re going to lose. Why you ask? Because they are worried that if they don’t then they will get sued by members for not fighting for them. Hence a lot of meaningless grievances get filed. Also, just because a grievance get filed doesn’t necessarily mean that the union will ultimately pursue it all the way to arbitration.
It will definitely be interesting to see how this all turns out
There is zero legal grounds for an argument. All the league has to do is show the writing that the CBA has that clearly states players must train at team facilities. The NFLPA and players agreed to it. It is a reasonable clause to ensure that players are starting safe under the best conditions. The players and NFLPA decided to protest by not going to OTAs. This is the consequence of making the choice to break the rules.
I don’t see a pathway for him to win this one.
He knew or should have known the terms of his contract and elected to take a risk. You reap what you sow.
James: “Sorry, I didn’t read the rules or the agreement, so it shouldn’t count and you guys still owe me this money”.
Ignorance is not an excuse. Try that one with a cop or in a court of law.
Every agent should have and should be advising their clients to work out at team facilities for this reason alone. There’s zero grounds as it stands for any team to pay players like James and Hamilton. Sorry. That’s the agreement. James and Hamilton should complain to their agent/advisors. Or better yet, take the responsibility themselves. The language will undoubtedly be changed during the next CBA.
I think the Broncos are the one with the grievance. Dude never played for them.
This doofus needs the wise words of Judge Smales to his nephew, “You will get nothing and like it.”
The union fumbled here.
James knows he can’t win his money back. He also knows now that the union is at fault for asking its members to go out on a limb for nothing with no reciprocal backing from the union itself. I suppose James just thought that nothing could happen.
The union has no choice but to file a grievance-after telling its players to take all the risk, then hanging them out to dry, it would really make them lose what little face they have left. The NFLPA was colossally stupid and incredibly irresponsible in taking this idiotic stand for the minuscule and mostly symbolic benefit of cutting offseason workouts. Many players, fans, and pundits saw situations like James’ coming, and it was inevitable that one would occur. The union could not have missed such an obvious possibility. Tretter looks like a colossal idiot as well for all that B.S. he put out to support this initiative on his end as the head of the players’ body here.
James isn’t even in the biggest concern here, as he’s made enough to support himself for the rest of his life even if he’s not granted the rest of the money from this contract. Players like Hamilton, who don’t have millions to fall back on, are the ones who will get really screwed and the ones who will likely not even be noticed by the media. There is the possibility as well that a few may not train as hard in the fear of hurting themselves offsite, which will indirectly lower their chances of getting playing time and/or a roster spot. This was just a terrible idea-major consequences for a relatively minor payout.