Leaked NFLPA Letter Lends Credence to Russell Wilson’s Accusation of Denver Broncos’ Threat
Leaked NFLPA Letter Makes Broncos Look Worse in Russell Wilson Saga
The NFLPA’s letter to the Denver Broncos on behalf of Russell Wilson has fueled more scrutiny on the demotion heard ’round the world.
Sunday morning, before the Denver Broncos took the field against the Los Angeles Chargers, a new report from NFL insider Ian Rapoport seemed to cast doubt on Russell Wilson’s accusation that the team “threatened” to bench him unless he removed the injury guarantees from his contract.
Rapoport cited a source confirming the Broncos did reach out to Wilson’s agent Mark Rodgers, who then took the team’s request to the NFLPA. But Rapoport painted the picture that while Wilson took the Broncos’ request as a threat, the player’s union didn’t view it as being ‘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.”
Fast forward to Monday, and amid the Broncos moving up in the standings by securing their eighth win of the season while simultaneously being eliminated from playoff contention, a letter the NFLPA sent to Denver’s front office seems to contradict some of Rapoport’s reporting. The Washington Post published excerpts from that letter to the Broncos, which also seemed to be laying the groundwork for future litigation, despite Rapoport claiming that a grievance is “unlikely” to be filed.
“It has come to our attention that the Denver Broncos recently informed Mr. Wilson and his Certified Contract Advisor that if Mr. Wilson would not renegotiate his Player Contract to relinquish certain salary guarantees, the Broncos would remove him from the starting lineup.
“If the Broncos follow-through on the Club’s threat, the Club will violate, among other things, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Mr. Wilson’s Player Contract and New York law. And, we are particularly concerned that the Broncos still intend to commit these violations under the guise of ‘coaching decisions.’
“Accordingly, we write to notify you that the NFLPA and Mr. Wilson ‘reasonably anticipate’ arbitration and/or litigation against the Broncos and the Management Council, triggering your respective obligations to preserve potentially relevant documents.”
Initial reports on the Broncos’ alleged threat included the team’s side of the story, who adamantly claimed that no threat to Wilson was made. But the Broncos also made sure to stipulate that GM George Paton’s call to Rodgers was “documented,” so if this does end up in some sort of arbitration or litigation, it will play a role in determining the veracity of the team’s defense.
If the call were to ever leak into the public, and it’s revealed that Paton did, in fact, threaten to bench Wilson if the quarterback’s camp didn’t play ball, the Broncos would be caught lying. The team went to great lengths to assure ESPN‘s Josina Anderson that no threat was made, resting on their laurels of the Broncos’ long-standing reputation for ethical business dealings.
However, while the NFLPA’s letter to the Broncos does lend credence to Wilson’s accusations of being threatened, the union will always take the side of the player. It’s the reason for its existence, after all.
This letter proves that the NFLPA was led to believe by the Wilson camp that the Broncos made threats, but it’s still based on the quarterback’s interpretation that Paton was actually levying an ultimatum.
Occam’s Razor could apply here. The simplest explanation is often the right one, meaning the Broncos probably did threaten Wilson with the bench if he didn’t renegotiate the injury guarantee terms of his contract.
But the team’s adamant denial in the press, and what we know about Paton, is enough to give pause to automatically believing Wilson’s side of the story. However, even if it’s not rock-solid proof the Broncos are lying, the NFLPA’s letter does offer circumstantial evidence that supports Wilson’s claim.
The only way we’ll ever know for sure is if the Broncos or the Wilson camp leak the recordings or transcripts of the calls in question. The NFL, and especially the Broncos, don’t usually air their dirty laundry in public, so while I don’t expect such concrete proof to ever materialize, never say never.
The NFLPA’s letter paints the picture that the Broncos benched Wilson under the rubric of “coaching decisions.” Head coach Sean Payton has maintained his position that Wilson’s demotion was a football move, though he did acknowledge that “economics” were part of the picture.
Payton has also denied having any knowledge of or participation in the phone calls to Wilson’s camp relative to the Broncos’ request for the QB to renegotiate his contractual injury guarantees.
“I’m not privy to any of those [discussions],” Payton said on Friday. “I’m handling the football.”
However, while we don’t have cause to doubt Paton’s word as a general manager, Payton’s track record for veracity isn’t exactly bulletproof, as his ‘Bounty-gate’ denials more than a decade ago proved to be false in the fullness of time. It’s too easy to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle of these two sides’ respective claims.
Either the Broncos threatened Wilson, or they didn’t. Either Payton was involved in those “discussions,” or he wasn’t. There’s no gray area.
Wilson has opted to kick this story into the public spotlight by commenting from his locker last Friday. If the Broncos are telling the truth, and Wilson’s interpretation of the team’s request is off-base, Denver may have no choice but to fight fire with fire and leak whatever evidence Paton may be sitting on that exculpates the organization of any wrongdoing.
