The Browns’ acquisition of Deshaun Watson was the most controversial storyline of the 2022 offseason, in no small part due to the nature of the contract he signed upon being traded to Cleveland. That five-year, $230MM deal was fully guaranteed, leading many to wonder if a new precedent had been set for high-end quarterbacks in future deals.
League owners were reportedly upset over the fact that Watson – given the legal battle he was facing at the time over allegations of sexual misconduct which ultimately led to an 11-game suspension to begin his Browns tenure – received such as deal far eclipsing even the one Kirk Cousins signed in Minnesota in 2018 (three years, $84MM) which was also fully guaranteed. 
“It’s like, ‘Damn, I wish they hadn’t guaranteed the whole contract.’ I don’t know that he should’ve been the first guy to get a fully guaranteed contract,” Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti said in March. “To me, that’s something that is groundbreaking, and it’ll make negotiations harder with others.”
Remarks such as those have led the NFLPA to accuse the league of collusion on the matter of full guarantees, as detailed by The Athletic’s Kayln Kahler (subscription required). The union has filed a system arbitration proceeding which will be overseen by Christopher Droney (Twitter links via Mark Maske of the Washington Post). Such action will take place confidentially, which at this point obscures what direct evidence (if any) the NFLPA has to make its case.
In the months following the Watson deal, two mega-contracts were handed out: Kyler Murray‘s extension in Arizona (five years, $230.5MM), and Denver’s long-term investment in Russell Wilson (five years, $245MM). While each pact contains sizeable guarantees, neither come near the figure the Browns handed Watson. As a result, it appeared that the league was making a concerted effort to distance themselves from Cleveland and make the Watson deal an outlier.
Per a league memo distributed to team owners and executives in the wake of the allegations, the NFLPA is arguing that “[t]he expectation was that fully guaranteed contracts would now become the competition driven norm for the top players in the League, including quarterbacks, negotiating new contracts,” and that “NFL owners and/or League executives discussed not agreeing to any additional player contracts with fully guaranteed salaries” at the August owners meeting.
Most notably, the union is requesting that the arbitrator allow “certain quarterbacks who have been adversely affected by the collusive agreement” to exit their existing contracts. That could include passers like Murray and Wilson, but also Ravens QB Lamar Jackson. The latter is technically scheduled for free agency this coming offseason, but is universally expected to receive the franchise tag in the absence of a long-term deal. The sticking point in negotiations from the summer was the degree to which the Ravens would guarantee Jackson’s second contract.
If successful, the union would achieve an entirely unprecedented feat in having existing contracts voided and/or damages awarded. For that reason (in addition to the lack of known concrete evidence in their case), Kahler’s sources are highly skeptical that such action will take place. As one executive stressed, league owners remain adamant that the NFL does not follow other major North American sports leagues in guaranteeing player contracts in full across the board.
While this news is certainly noteworthy, it is not entirely surprising. While speaking to Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk last month, outgoing NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith spoke about the potential for legal action on the point of collusion.
“Sometimes your best evidence comes from people who make comments that look like they are careless but are actually rooted in something factual,” he said against the backdrop of the league’s fall meetings taking place. “I am being a little bit cagey, but anytime we see what has been occurring in the markets and we hear comments that validate those concerns, we have never shied away from exercising both our legal rights and our collective bargaining rights to protect our players and people shouldn’t be surprised if something happens in the near future.”
This represents the first formal collusion allegations since those made by Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid in 2017 and 2018, respectively. They ultimately resulted in a 2019 settlement. The outcome of this process – which neither the league nor the union has commented on – will be worth monitoring as another offseason (and, therefore, a new crop of QBs eligible for monster extensions) draws near.
‘Most notably, the union is requesting that the arbitrator allow “certain quarterbacks who have been adversely affected by the collusive agreement” to exit their existing contracts…’.
That would make the Cards and Broncos very happy! Be careful what you wish for.
So true!!!
I think this collusion case is crap any way. It could also set a dangerous precedent on how contracts are negotiated in the future. Every contract should be handled different based on the situation. This he got this deal so I should get this deal is a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Just the NFLPA talking to hear there own voices.
Yeah… go ahead and void it and see if AZ or DEN puts up a fight…
That would mean the players could ask to void the deal, which they won’t.
The NFLPA sued the league because the Browns were just being the Browns. Perhaps the other owners are not that desperate, business-inept and stupid?
The NFLPA is confusing collusion with common sense.
I believe every contract should be guaranteed. The current system is incredibly one-sided. That said, I think they’re twisting Biscotti’s comments up. He very clearly meant let’s not give one of the biggest pieces of scum in the league a fully guaranteed, precedent setting deal. I completely agree with him too. That’s not collusion, it’s common sense.
If they want fully guaranteed contracts, then they’ll only be 2-3 years in length. Long deals wouldn’t be worth the risks to teams, even QB’s. The players already hate the franchise tag which is fully guaranteed.
The players don’t like the franchise tag because it limits their earning power. It is only a one year guarantee so injury is a huge concern. Also, watson just got 5 years guaranteed and cousins at over 30 years old got 3 years fully guaranteed. So the idea that players will only get 2-3 year deals is not based in fact. Teams will adjust to what the market dictates. That’s why collusion is a major concern. If all league owners want the watson contract to be an anomaly, they can have those conversations. You can see the rest of the league was shook. The browns did what they had to do to get watson to be willing to sign. Lamar is betting the ravens will blink first. It only takes one owner to break from the pack. If the ravens won’t guarantee lamar and he ends up leaving after next season, you will see a drastic shift in how those top contracts are negotiated
If you were a GM would you sign a OL, DL, LB, RB etc to a fully guaranteed contract longer than 3 years? I wouldn’t.
The franchise tag guarantees top 5 in salary for their position and goes up 20-30% for the 2nd tag. That’s a lot of earning. And it raises the value of the position itself.
I personally think Cousins played the market the best ever and still does. From a 4th round pick to worth well over $100m. 2 franchise tags certainly helped with that.
I am not advocating for giving every player a guaranteed deal, however there are certain players I would absolutely go over 2-3 years to sign. Especially QBs but even other positions. It’s not a vacuum, each situation is different l. I simply disagree with your statement and basing it on your own risk tolerance of 2-3 years versus real life evidence that is to the contrary. You may be backtracking positionally to try and reshape your argument, but I would give most upper tier QBs guaranteed deals without hesitation, unless their is a long injury history. Same with elite WR, DL, OL, and Edge rushers in their mid 20s. If it’s the cost of doing business, teams will adjust. If Baltimore loses Lamar to a team like the panthers because they offered fully guaranteed deal, the landscape will change. The owners don’t want it and it’s obvious why the ravens owner said what he said.
It wasn’t that long ago that RBs were valued more than WRs. It was a ridiculous idea to pay a qb 20% of the salary cap. The best players in the trenches are now getting 10%+ the salary cap which used to be reserved for QBs only. Now you see WRs entering that space and some DBs as well.
You get contracts of QBs that are injured after 1 year and the team is stuck in limbo for 4 more years. They will have to draft a QB and we know how hard that is. Guys like Kam would have got a fully guaranteed then he has a fluke neck injury or Conner Seattles RB that quit because of neck too. Baseball has all fully guaranteed contracts but have no hard cap. They have fines for going over but some owners will pay that to win. Not sure the NFL should go that way. Going towards basketball would probably be better. They get bonuses for signing with same team keeps players where they were drafted. Not sure how it work’s totally but give them a percentage that does not count in the cap. If they are traded they can get the same bonus after 1 full year with the team. If they leave. Make it 3 full years. If they demand a trade 2 full years. If a player is injured the downtime does not count on the length of contract. They would have to figure out how many games that would be. There are minute things they would have to iron out. This would be fair for fans. You sign a guy he gets injured and never sees the field. Sucks as a fan and team. Those are my thoughts.
It wasn’t ridiculous to pay QB’s 20% of the cap. Ben, Peyton, Breese, Mahomes (loss to TB contract), and plenty more QB’s hogged cap space and their teams won & still do win.
It is ridiculous! as usual Arty is full of crap. none of those QB’s you listed have won a super bowl taking up 20% of the cap, Going back to the year 2000, the QB who reached the Super Bowl with the highest percentage of league salary cap is Peyton Manning, whose $23.2M cap hit in 2009 represented 18.8% of the league cap ( and he lost ) The Saints beat the Colts that year.
Top 10 Super Bowl QB Cap Percentages
2009: Peyton Manning (IND): 18.8%
2016: Matt Ryan (ATL): 15.3%
2013: Peyton Manning (DEN): 14.16%
2021: Tom Brady (TB): 12.61%
2018: Tom Brady (NE): 12.42%
2015: Peyton Manning (DEN): 12.21%
2011: Eli Manning (NYG): 11.71%
2014: Tom Brady (NE): 11.13%
2011: Tom Brady (NE): 10.76%
2007: Eli Manning (NYG): 10.75%
Thanks for the numbers.
It’s pretty clear that mega contracts hamstring a team. However good one player is, he can’t replace the other 21, not counting special teams, 3d receivers, slot cornerbacks and rotational DL.
I thought the Watson signing (guarantee) was stupid on multiple levels. Just because Cleveland went way above everyone else doesn’t mean everyone has to follow suit. NFLPA is pounding sand where it shouldn’t go.
In what other business does an employer remove the incentive to maintain or even better your ability by guaranteeing a salary with no check and balance
The Cleveland Browns have been horrible for decades and only could attract some type of talent by selling their souls and not using any football sense
Guarantee contracts run counterproductive to the desire to be a championship team
We are fortunate to not have many examples of guarantees killing a team’s finances and ability compete yet. However, Alex Smith was a pretty good one. He got railroaded because his guarantee crippled what the team was able to do when they were competitive. I fully support players earning what the market dictates, but I also think there is legitimate fan and organizational concerns about getting stuck if someone like Rodgers or Mahomes were to go down with significant injury. This is tricky.
I think owners would actually welcome fully guaranteed contracts for their franchise QBs. It would provide them with an excuse for denying other positional players lucrative extensions (there’s only so much pie to go around) as well as increasing the cost of game tickets, merchandise, concession goods etc.
I’m happy to side with unions any time they aren’t completely full of ****.
In this case, they are completely full of ****.
The other teams knowing not to do the dumb thing only the Browns were desperate enough to do is not collusion.
So exactly true. They are hoping to
1) Get an arbitrator sympathetic to their cause and against big companies. Christopher Droney .. CHECK
2) Get the public sentiment behind them. This will probably be split. One side will carry on about how they could get injured and have no other skills (BS by the way as they have injury settlements, pensions, and would just be back in the job market like the rest of the public). The other side would cry that guarantees are a problem because players tend to pack it in once they get their guaranteed money, and it will get worse after they don’t have to worry about that money being taken away (BS again – I am sure some players don’t give the same effort, but for most of them it’s wear and tear and diminishing ability with age).
There is no way they should win this case unless they have proof that a consensus of the owners actually are working towards this as a group. I will wait to hear the so-called proof, but I bet it is going to be something like ‘we overheard one owner tell another that they would never have given Jackson or any QB a fully guaranteed deal’ and the other owner said ‘yeah, that’s just silly’. Absolutely no collusion there, just stating opinions.
Don’t think Biscotti will give Lamar 250 guarantee even with a Super Bowl. Tagged in 23 for about 45 without an extension, otherwise I could see a sign and trade the following year if push comes to shove.
This could work out against the NFLPA big time. I don’t think they have thought it through. If they cannot convince the arbitrator of collusion it will possibly lessen the owners having ‘guaranteed’ bidding wars .. and I do believe it was going to start to happen for the top players and the NFLPA is really pulling a ‘stupid’ here.
Maybe not fully guaranteed, but in recent years the swing was definitely moving towards more and more guaranteed money, though some of that was due to cap space moves.
As a Broncos fan, I pray on my knees that Wilson’s contract is allowed to be voided. He couldn’t get 1/10th of that offer now.
Dude looks like he just sharted.
The expectation that every contract should reset the market is stupid. We’ve already seen this with the QBs – for example, the Mahomes deal didn’t reset anything like people figured. It was an outlier, as was reasonable given it was handed out to the best player in the sport. CLE making a stupid decision doesn’t give agents good reason to ask for contacts like his and thus they have been smart and did not. End of story.
A player agents job is to get his client the best deal possible. It’s irrelevant whether the amount sought is reasonable or logical. The concept is no different than a lawyer seeking a million dollars from Starbucks because their coffee was too hot and burned his clients hands.
Sure, but point being is every player extended since Mahomes wasn’t as good as Mahomes and thus their agents weren’t demanding a contract like his as an ultimatum.
Your career as a player agent probably won’t last a week if you attempt to issue ultimatums. GMs won’t want to deal with you and players won’t hire you because they know 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. You receive no contract commission on deals that fall thru.
NFL players at any position aren’t getting long term (4 years or more) guaranteed deals unless the bargain for it in the next deal. I don’t see the owners agreeing to that anytime soon. Just because the Haslem’s are Ass Clowns doesn’t mean the other 31 owners are that stupid. Mahomes and Burrow are probably the 2 best Qb’s and neither of them got or are getting fully guaranteed deals, so Lamar and other won’t either.
Every TV contract goes up. If I were bidding on the Sunday Ticket, I’d use the same tactics as the owners are using. Nothing is guaranteed
If nothing is guaranteed then there is no assurance that TV contracts go up. I think you may have contradicted yourself there.
Tell me when a TV contract didn’t go up? Owners can’t have it both ways….or shouldn’t. They won’t sign any TV contract tied to viewership or ad revenue. They want guaranteed money so it’s only fair that the players want it too
The people betting TV contracts will always go up are the same people who bet Blackberry would always hold a monopoly in the smart phone market.
So he’s threatening to try to get Wilson & Murray’s contracts voided? This just shows how clueless and out of touch with reality this guy is. If he accomplishes that he’ll be out of a job in about 2 seconds.
No it is bad for the league. Every song esport you end up with these contracts that guys don’t deserve playing like bums or sitting out. All of the sports should have non-guaranteed deals.
Does that include TV deals for the owners?
Is anybody that got guaranteed money playing good?
I think we should fully embrace the NFLPA position.
In fact, since there are so few good QBs available the league should do something entirely different with the contract rules regarding that position.
Perhaps give QBs fully guaranteed one year contracts and make them all free agents at the end of each year. That would incentivize teams to pay QBs more (limited only by their available salary cap space for that year) AND it would give teams that have inept front offices the ability to have a QB on their team capable of winning more than 3 games in a season.
It would also make a great TV show – i.e., some sort of lottery/draft/bidding thingy.
Guaranteed contracts would probably be a good idea in players’ minds. However, the NFLPA should realize that in this scenario the amounts of those contracts would undoubtedly be lower and for shorter amounts of time than the current contracts. Certainly I would have no objection to seeing three year deals that actually were for three years, and fifty million dollar deals that actually were for fifty million dollars. The thing is, this would likely remove teams’ abilities to kick the can down the road in cap crunch situations (thereby limiting their willingness to rework deals to sign free agents), and also limit the allure of announcing giant contracts publically to make a spectacle.
The latter part may be more important in the long run because those announcements help agents draw in clients and work as advertising when those agents attempt to lure in new clients by bragging about the landmark deal that they just signed. Agents would really lose out on their biggest goal. The only people who would truly benefit from this position are less than high-tier players, which the NFL, NFLPA, and agents don’t really care that much about.
Everybody that watch pro sports knows why certain people get certain things like top contracts. We can all agree to disagree.