Last summer, the NFL world was aflame with discussions of collusion.
The NFLPA had filed a grievance years earlier alleging that teams worked together to stop a push for fully guaranteed contracts after the Deshaun Watson deal. The grievance went through the league’s arbitration process, which eventually resulted in a ruling against the union that was initially kept under wraps. It became public in June 2025, contributing to the storm of scandal surrounding the NFLPA at the time.
The union filed an appeal, but a three-person panel upheld the arbitrator’s original ruling in favor of the NFL, per Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio. This includes the finding that the league encouraged clubs to collude to suppress fully guaranteed contracts, which supports the NFLPA’s case. However, the appeals panel also agreed with the arbitrator that there was not sufficient evidence to show that teams actually participated in the alleged collusion.
In short, while the NFL attempted to collude as alleged, the union could not demonstrate a strong enough impact to trigger damages and a ruling in their favor. The appeals panel concurred with that result.
One key difference, Florio notes, is that the appeals panel believes that teams were aware of the league’s collusive intentions.
“We cannot fathom these sophisticated businesspeople did not comprehend they were being encouraged to limit or reduce guaranteed contracts,” the ruling states.
Former NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell did not immediately communicate the initial arbitration ruling to the union’s membership. His successor, former Browns center and NFLPA president J.C. Tretter, approached the appeal differently, promptly informing the NFLPA player representatives of the result. He included the above quote in his message (via Florio) to show that the union had, in part, proven their case.
Now, the grievance is technically done with, but the outcome still offers the union some leverage heading into CBA talks. They now have an arbitrator’s ruling, confirmed by an appeals panel, affirming that the league intended to engage in collusion to limit player contracts. That can help inspire firmer support among players as they negotiate several key issues, including a proposed 18-game regular season. It may also draw the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice for potential antitrust violations, Florio adds, which could also force the league to include certain labor protections in the next CBA.
One problem with the Watson contract (of many) is that it was so off the deep end more guaranteed money than any team had ever given any player that even if there was collusion (and that might be the case), it still wouldn’t take collusion to keep teams from approaching those levels of guarantees again for several years. If someone buys the three bedroom home next to mine for $25 million, my home is going to keep going up in price at a normal rate and that other purchase is not going to be seen as a driver of the market.
Watson, Cousins, and others who clubs want to move on from are reason enough to avoid guaranteed money from the team side. As long as teams want players to sign badly enough, the guarantees will be there. As long as void years can stretch out the cap impact, the guarantees will be there.
As of now there is $1.3B worth of dead cap space, much from void years but also from players that no longer fit into the team’s future plans.
Nobody has to collude to keep from giving out that kind of guaranteed money. More like somebody would have to collude to get teams to give it out because yeah.
These collusion cases have always been stupid. Nobody needs to collude in order for teams to all decide not to make bad decisions.
Do you not read your own posts before hitting the submit button? What are you even talking about with “Nobody has to collude to keep from giving out that kind of guaranteed money”? The Cleveland Browns literally did exactly that. And because the owners don’t trust each other, and because the owners don’t want massive guarantees to become a normal thing, the owners- brought together by the league office- got together to be sure that nobody else did the same thing. They colluded. And it’s not like NFL owners haven’t done that before. Massive guarantees is hardly the only topic that owners would collude over if they could get away with it.
Lol sure.
It’s totally not that teams realized how dumb Cleveland was or anything.
There is a difference when Team Browns (I will use code not to hurt any fans feelings) signs a contract so far out in space that Team rest of NFL doesn’t want to look so foolish and decides not to do its . Or Team Browns signs a contract so far out in space the NFL asks teams not to do it or Robert Kraft calls from his massage parlor masseuse’s bed and says let’s not be the Browns.
In A no collusion in Browns collusion. I tried to be precise without hurting any feelings. I hope that fixes it for you Chi Expat.
Before Watson got his 230 guarantee Rodgers got 150 mill guaranteed over 3 years but included void years that reduced that number for cap purposes.
“Nobody has to collude to keep from giving out that kind of guaranteed money”? The Cleveland Browns literally did exactly that.”
K so why haven’t QBs since Watson
Herbert Lawrence Prescott Burrow Hurts Love Tua Goff Purdy Allen get guaranteed contracts? Or guys before Watson? Cause it’s not collusion. The Browns being an outlier doesn’t make subsequent contracts collusion when they match pre Watson deals. Watson is an outlier.
“ and because the owners don’t want massive guarantees to become a normal thing, the owners- brought together by the league office- got together to be sure that nobody else did the same thing. They colluded.”
Nobody colluded dude.
Josh Allen actually beat Watson guaranteed money. 250 mill guaranteed out of 350 mill
Trevor Lawrence got 200 mill
Freaking Kirk cousins got 341 mill over 11 years
23 Mahomes got 208 mill
23 burrow got 218 mill
24 Prescott got 229 mill
You’re way off base in this one
@DroppedBall Great, now there’s two of you that don’t bother reading what you’ve typed before hitting the submit button.
First of all, there have been findings that there *was* collusion, but it was difficult to sustain the actual charge. The fact that you’re dismissing a statement of fact is embarrassing.
Second, your logic is flawed. Here’s the sequence of events:
1. Deshaun Watson got that ridiculous guaranteed contract.
2. The owners met, and the league office advised them that more contract like Watson’s would be a bad idea.
3. There have been no contracts like Watson’s since then.
But you, you’re using the absence of guaranteed contracts are evidence they *didn’t* collude? Think about what you’re saying.
The owners don’t trust each other. Could any of us have ever imagined a team would do something so ill advised as that Deshaun Watson contract? No, not me, not you, not anyone. It was shockingly dumb. But sports teams owners have a proven track record of doing shockingly dumb things. So the commissioner’s office got all the owners together just to make sure that nobody else did something so Browns-ian stupid. And guess what, there have been no fully guaranteed contracts since then.
I urge you to read up on the various articles on this topic- the actual reporting of facts as reported in the media and in the various submitted cases, because for you to be typing the words “nobody colluded dude” makes you come off as very uninformed.
You typed all that just to be wrong lmao amazing. Doubling down on your ignorance isn’t the answer.
THERES collusion.
No, there’s not. Teams unwilling to give FULLY guaranteed contracts to players who sustain injuries in a violent contact sport isn’t collusion. That was the standard before Watsons contract and the standard after.
You’d have a case for collusion if a policy changed or teams began acting out of character…..that never happened lmao. Before and after the contract players receiving a second contract never got one fully guaranteed.
You claimed INCORRECTLY owners don’t want massive guarantees only to be DISPROVEN by the fact that
Allen, Lawrence, Mahomes Burrow Prescott received similar amounts to Watsons 230 mark AFTER Watsons contract.
You’d have a case for collusion if teams stifled the market AFTER Watsons contract but 5 QBs received guarantees 200 mill or more so there goes that bogus claim of yours owners down want massive guarantees.
Prescott himself got 96% guaranteed after Watsons contract
Second round picks have seen an uptick in guarantees themselves approaching anywhere between 70-75% guaranteed money on average
You have nothing to back up anything you say except assumptions and pointing fingers.
If you’re gonna respond don’t make it so easy to disprove everything you say
Theres 6 QBs making 200 or more in guaranteed money
Josh Allen (BUF): $250 Million
Dak Prescott (DAL): $231 Million
Deshaun Watson (CLE): $230 Million
Joe Burrow (CIN): $219 Million
Justin Herbert (LAC): $218.7 Million
Trevor Lawrence (JAX): $200 Million
So much for the whole “ and because the owners don’t want massive guarantees to become a normal thing”
Too late already got 6 QBs making 200 million plus in guarantees
Watsons contract doesn’t even promise him the most money anymore 9 QBs have contracts that can yield higher amounts than Watsons does
No matter how you slice it there’s no collusion lmao if there was they’ve done a crappy job colluding since it didn’t stop massive guarantees and didn’t stop huge pay outs
As a former union director, and not a fan of NFL corporate, I don’t see why this is a hill the union wants to die on? If anything, the Watson contract showed why contracts shouldn’t be fully guaranteed. It reduces a team’s competitive ability by giving one player too much of the cap. Also salary and benefits aren’t being limited. Contracts already have guaranteed money. The only thing that would change is instead of a player getting a 4 year deal with 2 years of guaranteed money, the player would get a 2 year guaranteed deal with options. Doesn’t make much of a difference.
“affirming that the league intended to engage in collusion to limit player contracts”
Limit what? Salary isn’t being limited. There’s a cap. The money in the cap is spent on players based on market rates. Haslem really screwed up with Watson, and the NFL is right to collude to not have that happen again. I don’t see what leverage the union has to gain by this.
Two guys see a sexy girl walk by and simultaneously stare at her butt. Should there be an investigation to determine if there was “intent to collude” on their part? 🙂
Yeah because if they weren’t crosseyeyed at least one would know the eyes are always the first place to look.
Reminds me when a gal that worked for same Co but in a different city used to call and want to chat. I didn’t see any problem we all would call around at slow times until it started getting a bit personal.
I was a manager she was not so no bueno there. I only met her once and didn’t really remember her. She would call and I tried to get off the phone. She would call back right away at times and if I answered would call me a liar and get mad.
I didn’t care was happily married and just wanted her to leave me alone. Talked to the DM and she had a talk with her. Did no good she said I had to have the DM fight my battles.
We went to a BBQ I thought was managers only. She somehow showed up. After being there for a bit she caught my wife alone. She told her I have been checking out her breasts and butt. My wife walks away and came to stand next to me. I had no idea this happened but she went back in awhile later for a second bite.
My wife got this look in her eyes not the one I was going to get lucky look but someone was going to die look. I knew them both well. She ripped into this girl the gist was you are lying. He is an eyes guy and yours have nothing he would be attracted to. In fact the floppy boobs you have would not attract him if you passed the eye test.
Never got another call but the place blew up after she left which was right away. Yeah the wife knew me well. Eyes are where it all starts. Eyes don’t get floppy or lose much appeal. Other parts do.
Hard to make eye contact once the girl walks by so the focus goes elsewhere…lol.
Fine story. I’m hoping you filed another complaint. I have no problems with innocent office flirting, but people have to know when to back off. But talking to someone’s spouse is crazy over the line.
But give your wife my kudos. I love tough chicks.
The Watson contract should be a prime example WHY a fully guaranteed contract should have never happened. Let’s hope the NFL owners have learned from Jimmy Haslam’s moment of stupidity
No, but that might be an extreme case. To me, if you trust your player to not quit in the middle of the contract, then you can take more chances. As a Raiders fan, you can give Crosby all the guarantees you want. He might get hurt, but I doubt he’ll ever take it easy.