Before the Denver Broncos faced the Los Angeles Chargers on Sunday, a new story from NFL insider Ian Rapoport appeared to cast doubt on Russell Wilson’s claim that the franchise “threatened” to sit him unless he removed the injury guarantees from his contract.
According to Rapoport, the Broncos did contact Wilson’s agent, Mark Rodgers, who then forwarded the team’s request to the NFLPA. However, Rapoport created the picture that, although Wilson interpreted the Broncos’ request as a threat, the players’ union did not regard it as’real’ – whatever that means.
As many agents do amid negotiations, Rodgers took the Broncos’ proposal to the NFLPA, which often consults with agents on big-money player contracts. The union did not view any “threat” of benching as a real threat, and Wilson turned down the Broncos’ offer, which is his right. No grievance was filed, and it’s unlikely one will be. One source called such negotiations “commonplace.”
Skip ahead to Monday, as the Broncos advanced in the standings with their eighth season win and got eliminated from playoff contention. A letter from the NFLPA to Denver’s front office, revealed by The Washington Post, appears to conflict with some of Rapoport’s reports. The letter not only addresses the current situation but also appears to be setting the stage for potential legal action, contrary to Rapoport’s suggestion that a grievance filing is improbable.
The Denver Broncos recently conveyed to Mr. Wilson and his Certified Contract Advisor their desire for him to renegotiate his Player Contract, suggesting that failure to do so would result in his removal from the starting lineup, with specific salary guarantees being relinquished. In response to this, concerns have been raised about potential violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Wilson’s Player Contract, and New York law, particularly under the guise of ‘coaching decisions.’
In light of these circumstances, the NFLPA and Mr. Wilson anticipate arbitration and/or litigation against the Broncos and the Management Council. This expectation triggers the obligation to preserve relevant documents. Initial reports from the Broncos denied any threat to Wilson, emphasizing the documented nature of GM George Paton’s call to Rodgers. The team defended its reputation for ethical business dealings.
While the NFLPA’s letter supports Wilson’s claim of being threatened, it reflects the player’s interpretation of Paton issuing an ultimatum. Occam’s Razor suggests the simplest explanation may be that the Broncos did indeed threaten to bench Wilson unless he agreed to renegotiate his contract’s injury guarantee terms. Despite the team’s denial and Paton’s reputation, the NFLPA’s letter provides circumstantial evidence supporting Wilson’s case.
Verification of the truth may only come to light if recordings or transcripts of the relevant calls are leaked by either the Broncos or the Wilson camp. The NFLPA’s letter implies that the Broncos justified benching Wilson as a “coaching decision,” with Head Coach Sean Payton maintaining that it was a football move influenced by “economics.” Payton denies knowledge or participation in discussions regarding the contract renegotiation.
While Paton’s credibility as a general manager is generally accepted, Payton’s past ‘Bounty-gate’ denials cast some doubt. The situation appears binary: either the Broncos did or did not threaten Wilson, and Payton was either involved in the discussions or not. Wilson’s public comments have intensified the spotlight on this matter. If the Broncos are truthful, they may need to counter with evidence to refute Wilson’s interpretation and clear the organization of any wrongdoing.
Leave a Reply