Kaepernick

[Hungry Jack]

I have not followed the story that closely, but I do know that the League and CK settled their collusion suit quietly early in the year. No terms were disclosed.

This whole workout fiasco left me scratching my head. Apparently the hang-up was about some indemnity clause in the contract--perhaps something involving a potential claim if CK hurt himself during the workout. That sounds really flimsy to me, but that's been the story.

I was discussing the situation with the 20 year old daughter of a friend. She is convinced that the NFL colluded against CK, and the League "owes" him a tryout. While I think it is almost certain that the League blackballed CK after his actions, it would be very hard to prove collusion in a court of law. Employment remains "at will" the last time I checked. And the League is really, really gun shy about bad publicity nowadays, and it is very clear that they have hung their branding around an affiliation with the military and shows of patriotism.

Right or wrong, it is the League's prerogative to pursue these things. They really don't "owe" Kaepernick anything. I think there are teams that might benefit from his services (the Bears sure might), but I just don't see the League going there.

The thing I don't understand is why CK just can't do his own workout, invite the teams, film it, and post it on YouTube or HUDL (only half joking). Hell, CK could probably sell his own workout to a network and do a one-hour live special on it. That would get some eyeballs.

 

[NUCat320]

I think this is healthy rant board material.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I think this is healthy rant board material.

It is football-related, though.

 

[thewildcat2011]

I have not followed the story that closely, but I do know that the League and CK settled their collusion suit quietly early in the year. No terms were disclosed.

This whole workout fiasco left me scratching my head. Apparently the hang-up was about some indemnity clause in the contract--perhaps something involving a potential claim if CK hurt himself during the workout. That sounds really flimsy to me, but that's been the story.

I was discussing the situation with the 20 year old daughter of a friend. She is convinced that the NFL colluded against CK, and the League "owes" him a tryout. While I think it is almost certain that the League blackballed CK after his actions, it would be very hard to prove collusion in a court of law. Employment remains "at will" the last time I checked. And the League is really, really gun shy about bad publicity nowadays, and it is very clear that they have hung their branding around an affiliation with the military and shows of patriotism.

Right or wrong, it is the League's prerogative to pursue these things. They really don't "owe" Kaepernick anything. I think there are teams that might benefit from his services (the Bears sure might), but I just don't see the League going there.

The thing I don't understand is why CK just can't do his own workout, invite the teams, film it, and post it on YouTube or HUDL (only half joking). Hell, CK could probably sell his own workout to a network and do a one-hour live special on it. That would get some eyeballs.

The hang up was not on an indemnity, but a release of claims. In the eyes of CK's reps, the waiver that the NFL presented was too broad and captured future employment based claims (this is important because CK can go after the NFL if he can prove further collusion even after the settlement). Apparently, the parties couldn't get there on that negotiation.

The NFL owes CK whatever the settlement agreement says they do and to stop breaking the law (if they ever were in the first place). I don't know what the settlement agreement says and it's very possible that the NFL was/is still colluding against CK. That's for his representatives to argue.

Employment is a default at will rule, which can be modified by a written agreement (including a collective bargaining agreement, which the league has with the players' union). It is inaccurate to say that NFL players or really any player in a North American sports league is an "at will employee" as they all have extensive written agreements governing the terms of their employment and are represented by unions who have CBAs with the league. All the teams (and league in general) cannot make employment decisions that violate the CBA or, obviously, the law.

I will say that, from my experiences, leagues absolutely hate to lose, set precedents, or otherwise bend in any direction. I think the fact that the NFL settled (largely viewed as a "loss" for the entity holding the power) for what is reportedly around $10M could be evidence that some claims had some level of merit and could have been proven.

All in all, this is largely a legal dispute, so you'd do yourself a favor in reading some legal sources on it. I've linked some Michael McCann, who is generally a good resource on legal disputes in sports.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/11/17/colin-kaepernick-workout-legal-implications
https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/11/18/colin-kaepernick-copy-of-workout-waiver

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I have not followed the story that closely, but I do know that the League and CK settled their collusion suit quietly early in the year. No terms were disclosed.

This whole workout fiasco left me scratching my head. Apparently the hang-up was about some indemnity clause in the contract--perhaps something involving a potential claim if CK hurt himself during the workout. That sounds really flimsy to me, but that's been the story.

I was discussing the situation with the 20 year old daughter of a friend. She is convinced that the NFL colluded against CK, and the League "owes" him a tryout. While I think it is almost certain that the League blackballed CK after his actions, it would be very hard to prove collusion in a court of law. Employment remains "at will" the last time I checked. And the League is really, really gun shy about bad publicity nowadays, and it is very clear that they have hung their branding around an affiliation with the military and shows of patriotism.

Right or wrong, it is the League's prerogative to pursue these things. They really don't "owe" Kaepernick anything. I think there are teams that might benefit from his services (the Bears sure might), but I just don't see the League going there.

The thing I don't understand is why CK just can't do his own workout, invite the teams, film it, and post it on YouTube or HUDL (only half joking). Hell, CK could probably sell his own workout to a network and do a one-hour live special on it. That would get some eyeballs.

Has nothing to do with whether he can help a team or not. Everything to do with the Benjamins and CK did himself no favors with how he handled his workout.

 

[Hungry Jack]

The hang up was not on an indemnity, but a release of claims. In the eyes of CK's reps, the waiver that the NFL presented was too broad and captured future employment based claims (this is important because CK can go after the NFL if he can prove further collusion even after the settlement). Apparently, the parties couldn't get there on that negotiation.

The NFL owes CK whatever the settlement agreement says they do and to stop breaking the law (if they ever were in the first place). I don't know what the settlement agreement says and it's very possible that the NFL was/is still colluding against CK. That's for his representatives to argue.

Employment is a default at will rule, which can be modified by a written agreement (including a collective bargaining agreement, which the league has with the players' union). It is inaccurate to say that NFL players or really any player in a North American sports league is an "at will employee" as they all have extensive written agreements governing the terms of their employment and are represented by unions who have CBAs with the league. All the teams (and league in general) cannot make employment decisions that violate the CBA or, obviously, the law.

I will say that, from my experiences, leagues absolutely hate to lose, set precedents, or otherwise bend in any direction. I think the fact that the NFL settled (largely viewed as a "loss" for the entity holding the power) for what is reportedly around $10M could be evidence that some claims had some level of merit and could have been proven.

All in all, this is largely a legal dispute, so you'd do yourself a favor in reading some legal sources on it. I've linked some Michael McCann, who is generally a good resource on legal disputes in sports.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/11/17/colin-kaepernick-workout-legal-implications
https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/11/18/colin-kaepernick-copy-of-workout-waiver

Well, once you get all lawyered up, you’ve already lost. That applies to both sides.

Still, it seems pretty simple to reason that if CK’s sole goal was to play again, he would have agreed to the conditions and worked out. What football player turns down a job audition? Or maybe he would go to Canada or the X.

It seems CK has motives beyond playing again. He certainly has a fresh dose of publicity. Maybe he will convey it somehow to his cause (to which I am sympathetic).

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Well, once you get all lawyered up, you’ve already lost. That applies to both sides.

Still, it seems pretty simple to reason that if CK’s sole goal was to play again, he would have agreed to the conditions are worked out. What football player turns down a job audition? Or maybe he would go to Canada or the X.

It seems CK has motives beyond playing again. He certainly has a fresh dose of publicity. Maybe he will convey it somehow to his cause (to which I am sympathetic).

I am not convinced he wants to play.

 

[thewildcat2011]

Well, once you get all lawyered up, you’ve already lost. That applies to both sides.

Still, it seems pretty simple to reason that if CK’s sole goal was to play again, he would have agreed to the conditions are worked out. What football player turns down a job audition? Or maybe he would go to Canada or the X.

It seems CK has motives beyond playing again. He certainly has a fresh dose of publicity. Maybe he will convey it somehow to his cause (to which I am sympathetic).

Hah, well it seems you’d made up your mind before you made the post anyway.

I can’t pretend to know what CK’s motivation is, but it’s very easy for us to say “well if you want X thing, just give away Y rights” and use it as some sort of proof that he doesn’t want to play again. Signing waivers and releases in an already strained situation between parties is a tricky business and should be done thoughtfully. It’s very poor form to present a document like that within a day or two of when a supposed event will occur.

CK did host his own workout, as you suggested. Reports seemed to indicate he looked fine and a few teams attended. Likely nothing will come of it regardless.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Hah, well it seems you’d made up your mind before you made the post anyway.

I can’t pretend to know what CK’s motivation is, but it’s very easy for us to say “well if you want X thing, just give away Y rights” and use it as some sort of proof that he doesn’t want to play again. Signing waivers and releases in an already strained situation between parties is a tricky business and should be done thoughtfully. It’s very poor form to present a document like that within a day or two of when a supposed event will occur.

CK did host his own workout, as you suggested. Reports seemed to indicate he looked fine and a few teams attended. Likely nothing will come of it regardless.

Actually, I hadn’t made up my mind. You seem to feel that the League has been unfair to him (and I agree that the settlement this February suggested that the League had violated the CBA in its dealings with CK). What is the best way to make this situation right?

 

[thewildcat2011]

Actually, I hadn’t made up my mind. You seem to feel that the League has been unfair to him (and I agree that the settlement this February suggested that the League had violated the CBA in its dealings with CK). What is the best way to make this situation right?

I already said that I have no clue what his motivations are or what the league did or didn’t do. I don’t know if the league did him wrong, but as you said I do feel their actions point in that direction. I just wanted to counter the notion that if CK “really wanted to play” he would bend over backwards to meet the league’s demands—it’s not that easy and it’s not prudent on his part.

A poster above said he’s not sure CK even wants to play. I agree. However, I’m also open to the idea that the league isn’t exactly acting in good faith and wasn’t doing so in trying to hastily arrange this tryout (which tryout is almost certainly some type of stipulation from the settlement agreement).

Personally, I don’t think the situation can be righted by the parties in question. The settlement agreement was supposed to accomplish that to the extent possible. The league can’t make a team sign CK. CK can’t make a team sign him, even if he does well on film and various workouts either. My guess is that CK will allege the league is not complying with the agreement and we will have further battling. Of course, I don’t know what the agreement says, so we will have to see how that shakes out.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I can’t pretend to know what CK’s motivation is,

I can pretend to know.

 

[docrugby1]

Well, once you get all lawyered up, you’ve already lost. That applies to both sides.

Still, it seems pretty simple to reason that if CK’s sole goal was to play again, he would have agreed to the conditions and worked out. What football player turns down a job audition? Or maybe he would go to Canada or the X.

It seems CK has motives beyond playing again. He certainly has a fresh dose of publicity. Maybe he will convey it somehow to his cause (to which I am sympathetic).

I would say Canada is the perfect location for CK

 

[thewildcat2011]

I can pretend to know.

Ok?

 

[SimpsonElmwood]

Meanwhile, the Lions want to sign Josh Jackson?!?

 

[Hungry Jack]

Meanwhile, the Lions want to sign Josh Jackson?!?

Josh Johnson, Ben’s brother

 

[ricko654321]

I already said that I have no clue what his motivations are or what the league did or didn’t do. I don’t know if the league did him wrong, but as you said I do feel their actions point in that direction. I just wanted to counter the notion that if CK “really wanted to play” he would bend over backwards to meet the league’s demands—it’s not that easy and it’s not prudent on his part.

A poster above said he’s not sure CK even wants to play. I agree. However, I’m also open to the idea that the league isn’t exactly acting in good faith and wasn’t doing so in trying to hastily arrange this tryout (which tryout is almost certainly some type of stipulation from the settlement agreement).

Personally, I don’t think the situation can be righted by the parties in question. The settlement agreement was supposed to accomplish that to the extent possible. The league can’t make a team sign CK. CK can’t make a team sign him, even if he does well on film and various workouts either. My guess is that CK will allege the league is not complying with the agreement and we will have further battling. Of course, I don’t know what the agreement says, so we will have to see how that shakes out.

I think you nailed it. Neither Kaep nor the NFL is acting in good faith here, and both bungled it. The NFL doesn’t really want to have him on a team (though they wouldn’t actively stop a team from signing him), so they scheduled a workout with bizarre times and conditions. Kaep doesn’t really want to play (though he would prob be willing to if he got a great offer from some team, but he doesn’t want to accept min salary for a marginal role). He prefers to continue making money off his status via Nike and other publicity as a perceived hero for social justice. And some NFL owners realize he might be equal to or better than their current backup QB but he’s not worth the circus that comes with it. Maybe it’s worth a circus for a game changing player (eg Antonio Brown, though even he’s gone from two rosters now), but definitely not for a marginal upgrade at backup QB. Kaep did himself no favors in this regard with how they handled the workout - though as per above (i) the NFL intentionally stuck him in a shitty situation, and (ii) I’m not sure he wanted to do himself favors as it relates to playing in that way anyhow.

In conclusion, I don’t believe either of them, neither is acting in good faith, though perhaps both are rational when you consider what their actual motives are. But I’m not really going to read any more headlines or articles about this whole thing cause it’s a total farce on both sides.