NFL Arbitrator finds Goodell encouraged collusion between teams to reduce Veteran Guarantees

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

In the good ‘ol days the league had this same collusion meeting every year. It’s just that back then it was more accurately labeled as the “Can somebody please tell Al Davis to knock it off?” Meeting. 😉

 

Now they are all of the same mind---don't rock the boat, maximize revenue.

[Big Turk]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

hard salary cap is a strict limit on salaries by design. owners would hardly need to be convinced not to offer completely guaranteed contracts of that scale (there has only been ...ever).  Josh Allen's guaranteed money dwarfs Watsons.  

 

 

 

he didn't come up up with the idea to collude......he's just serving his masters.

 

Allen got his guaranteed money after the salary cap went up by a huge amount compared to when Watson got his. 

 

The salary cap is 279 million versus 208 in 2022.

 

Effectively Watson got 1.1 times the amount of the Salary Cap at the time in guaranteed money while Allen got 0.89 times the salary cap.

 

So while yes, Allen got $20 million more than Watson in guaranteed money, it is based on a much larger pool of money available

Edited June 24 by Big Turk

[Thurman#1]

8 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Wow....that could be a bombshell and open the NFL up to serious litigation and monetary damages...

 

However an even stranger narrative is that both the NFL and NFLPA fought to keep the information secret.

 

Why would the NFLPA not want this to get out?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl/breaking-news/article/nfl-collusion-ruling-arbitrator-reportedly-finds-nfl-roger-goodell-encouraged-teams-to-reduce-guarantees-for-veterans-144903905.html

 

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.

 

 

The words "collude" and "collusion" are not in the witness statements, not that we've heard.

 

Only the article's writer introduced them, in speculation.

 

I don't think this is the bombshell it at first looked like.

 

[Big Turk]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The words "collude" and "collusion" are not in the witness statements, not that we've heard.

 

Only the article's writer introduced them, in speculation.

 

I don't think this is the bombshell it at first looked like.

 

 

They don't need to be in the witness statements. There are a lot of people who have no idea what those words even mean.  But just for the purpose of this discussion, I will post the definition of Collusion:

 

col·lu·sion

/kəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n/

noun: collusion

• secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

"the NFL Owners were working in collusion with one another to prevent higher contracts among players"

 

So whether the witnesses knew when they told the reporters that NFL owners working together to prevent players from having higher contracts, especially QBs, after the Watson deal is collusion, that's the literal definition of the word.  

 

If someone says they witnessed someone in a courtroom speak under oath, then told them what they said on the stand was a lie, it doesn't make it not be perjury just because the person didn't use that word when they told the reporter what happened or didn't know what the word meant.

 

The actions define what happened and whether it was collusion, NOT the words being told to reporters by witnesses.

Edited June 25 by Big Turk

[Mr. WEO]

15 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

Allen got his guaranteed money after the salary cap went up by a huge amount compared to when Watson got his. 

 

The salary cap is 279 million versus 208 in 2022.

 

Effectively Watson got 1.1 times the amount of the Salary Cap at the time in guaranteed money while Allen got 0.89 times the salary cap.

 

So while yes, Allen got $20 million more than Watson in guaranteed money, it is based on a much larger pool of money available

 

It doesn't matter.  Any owner is free to give any play 0.89, 1.1 or 3X the amount of the cap if they want--it's their money.

 

all the pearl clutching over Watsons career seems kinda cute in retrospect.  And clearly the owners did not have to get together and convince each other to not give fully guaranteed contracts.  None of them except the monumentally dumb truck stop swindler did...

[TheWei44]

There are a whole bunch of terms and jargon in the antitrust law and economics space (I am an economist who consults on antitrust issues in mergers and antitrust litigation, among other things).  Generally, people don't say amongst themselves "let's collude!" and it's even rare for people to explicitly collude (think of a smoke filled room where business leaders in an industry agree to set prices or divide territories/customers).  And as someone noted, a league is a different sort of animal than Coke vs. Pepsi.  The league I am sure has argued over the years that they have rules in place to make sure there is in theory a level playing field among teams and that the real competition they face is other forms of entertainment, such as college football, etc.  Here, the issue is monopsony (basically, monopoly from the standpoint of a buyer rather than a seller) which is the power to decrease wages or other terms as a buyer of labor . . . Sorry for the digression . . .

Edited June 25 by TheWei44

[frostbitmic]

Goodell is just doing his job of trying to make his 32 multi billionaire bosses  more money. Reducing the bottom line exists in every major corporation in America and around the world, workers are a big part of the bottom line. Goodell has to do more than hug draftees to earn his $$$.

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

It doesn't matter.  Any owner is free to give any play 0.89, 1.1 or 3X the amount of the cap if they want--it's their money.

 

all the pearl clutching over Watsons career seems kinda cute in retrospect.  And clearly the owners did not have to get together and convince each other to not give fully guaranteed contracts.  None of them except the monumentally dumb truck stop swindler did...

 

But yet they did anyway, regardless of your opinion on whether they needed to or not.

[Dafan]

Sorry,but for me this is nothing.  I don't like Goodell, but "encouraging" means nothing to me.  It still comes downtown Agents negotiating.  And yeah, after fully guaranteeing Watsons contract....I understand why this came up.  

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, frostbitmic said:

Goodell is just doing his job of trying to make his 32 multi billionaire bosses  more money. Reducing the bottom line exists in every major corporation in America and around the world, workers are a big part of the bottom line. Goodell has to do more than hug draftees to earn his $$$.

Running a corporation is far more complicated and nuanced than the old ‘workers vs management’ that you imply. 

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

But yet they did anyway, regardless of your opinion on whether they needed to or not.

 

so what?

[Chandler#81]

Owners: it’s my FOOTBALL. Deal with it or I’m taking it home!

Age old metaphor.

[machine gun kelly]

Those accusations were unfounded, so this is a nothing burger.  

[stuvian]

Supply and demand being what it is, an owner will break ranks again and offer a QB a guaranteed contract. I just wonder about team unity when the QB gets the guarantee and no one else. I hope DeShaun Watson sends his agent a thank you card. That's up there with the Herschel Walker trade and Ditka's mortgage on Ricky Williams.

[co_springs_billsfan]

Meh, who cares?  The owners run a business together and some call it colluding.  The players band together but they call it unionizing.  

 

Edit: I would care if there were some sort of advantage or disadvantage for the Bills, but I don't see one here.

Edited June 27 by co_springs_billsfan

[SoCal Deek]

42 minutes ago, stuvian said:

Supply and demand being what it is, an owner will break ranks again and offer a QB a guaranteed contract. I just wonder about team unity when the QB gets the guarantee and no one else. I hope DeShaun Watson sends his agent a thank you card. That's up there with the Herschel Walker trade and Ditka's mortgage on Ricky Williams.

I’ve often wondered about that. I’ve never played a professional sport and certainly not at the NFL level. What’s it feel like for the 3rd string QB to sit right next to Josh in the locker room knowing that he makes more for throwing a single pass than you’ll make all season? 

[Mr. WEO]

On 6/25/2025 at 11:12 AM, Big Turk said:

 

But yet they did anyway, regardless of your opinion on whether they needed to or not.

 

suggesting that Goodell had to "encourage" to do so is not accurate

[Thurman#1]

On 6/25/2025 at 12:00 PM, Big Turk said:

 

They don't need to be in the witness statements. There are a lot of people who have no idea what those words even mean.  But just for the purpose of this discussion, I will post the definition of Collusion:

 

col·lu·sion

/kəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n/

noun: collusion

• secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

"the NFL Owners were working in collusion with one another to prevent higher contracts among players"

 

So whether the witnesses knew when they told the reporters that NFL owners working together to prevent players from having higher contracts, especially QBs, after the Watson deal is collusion, that's the literal definition of the word.  

 

If someone says they witnessed someone in a courtroom speak under oath, then told them what they said on the stand was a lie, it doesn't make it not be perjury just because the person didn't use that word when they told the reporter what happened or didn't know what the word meant.

 

The actions define what happened and whether it was collusion, NOT the words being told to reporters by witnesses.

 

 

Yeah, that's what collusion means. And again, the word has NOT been used in the witness statements.

 

In other words, only the reporter is using it.

 

The witnesses are not. Meaning the people who actually saw what happened are NOT accusing the owners of secret or illegal conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. (Thanks for the definition of the thing they are NOT being accused of by the people who were there.)

 

What is actually described by the witnesses is only a guy with some authority urging business owners to keep prices down. NOT secret agreement or cooperation to do so. 

 

Pointing out what's in everyone's best interest is not collusion. To further use your definition there, the witnesses are NOT accusing the NFL of having a "secret agreement to fix prices." Where's the agreement there?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5 by Thurman#1

[Big Turk]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

Yeah, that's what collusion means. And again, the word has NOT been used in the witness statements.

 

In other words, only the reporter is using it.

 

The witnesses are not. Meaning the people who actually saw what happened are NOT accusing the owners of secret or illegal conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. (Thanks for the definition of the thing they are NOT being accused of by the people who were there.)

 

What is actually described by the witnesses is only a guy with some authority urging business owners to keep prices down. NOT secret agreement or cooperation to do so. 

 

Pointing out what's in everyone's best interest is not collusion. To further use your definition there, the witnesses are NOT accusing the NFL of having a "secret agreement to fix prices." Where's the agreement there?

 

And again, what is said in the witness statement and whether that word is used has no relevance as to if it is collusion. Collusion is based on an action, not a word being used or not being used by witnesses.

 

Oh, so you are claiming the owners went to the NFLPA and told them they were working together to ensure we are going to keep prices down?

 

Of course they didn't. So yeah, it was in secret between the parties involved.

 

And that perfectly fits the description of what collusion in.

 

[uticaclub]

DeMaurice Smith was still running the NFLPA at that time. That guy was awful and did very little for the players. That’s what they get for leaving him in power.

Edited July 5 by uticaclub