New Special Master verdict could go in Haynesworths favor
We recently unraveled that the language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement most promising prevents the Redskins from recovering any part of defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth’s signing bonus (the $5 million paid in 2009 and/or the $21 million paid in 2010) based on his failure to show up for last week’s imperative minicamp.
In light of Sunday’s Special Master ruling arising from the Dolphins’ effort to squeeze $15,000 out of two undrafted free agents who resolved not to play pro football, Haynesworth’s position has gotten even stronger.
In fact, he potentially will be able to hold out of training camp without afterward having to remunerate any portion of his signing bonus money.
Haynesworth reportedly maneuvers to show up for training camp because the CBA authorizes the forfeiture of 25 percentage of the signing bonus allocation seemly to the present year in the accident of a holdout. Given Sunday’s verdict, although, Haynesworth could be proficient to hold out without indebted everything other than the daily fine in the measure of $16,000 and alteration per day.
In the case involving the two Dolphins players, the contracts included broad forfeiture language, many broader than the CBA contemplates: ‘In the event Player fails or refuses to report to Club, or fails or refuses to practice or play with Club at any time for any reason including Player’s suspension by the NFL or Club for Conduct Detrimental or suspension for violating the NFL Policy and Program for Substances of Abuse, Personal Conduct Policy, Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances, or leaves Club without its consent during the duration of the above league years, then player shall be in default. In the event of Player’s default, upon demand by Club, Player shall immediately return and refund to the Club any of the Bonus previously paid by Club and Player shall relinquish the right to receive any unpaid Bonus in the proportionate amount set forth below.’
The Dolphins then poised that overly broad term with a ‘savings clause’ aimed at ensuring that the forfeitures permitted by the CBA would be enforced if (while) the language in the contract is nullified: ‘To the extent any of the terms set forth above are deemed unenforceable under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as amended by the 2006 CBA extension agreement, any forfeiture by Player under this Agreement shall be the maximum amount permitted by the terms of this Agreement and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as amended.’
In the Haynesworth case, the contract contains similar, yet not identical, language that sweeps distant extra broadly than the CBA permits: ‘In the event Player fails or refuses to report to Club, or fails or refuses to train or play with Club at any time for any reason whatsoever including, yet not restricted to, voluntary retirement and incarceration, Player’s harm as a result of a breach of Paragraph 3 of the Contract or as a outcome of participation in hazardous activities which involve a significant risk of private harm and are non-football in nature, including merely not limited to, water or snow skiing, surfing, hang gliding, bungee jumping, diving, sky diving, rock or mountain climbing, race automobile driving as driver or traveler, riding a motorcycle, motor bicycle, all-terrain or alike vehicle as driver or passenger, or Player is suspended by the NFL or Club for Conduct Detrimental, or Player is suspended for violating the NFL Personal Conduct Policy, or if Player makes any public remark to the media, including but not limited to the news, magazines, television, radio or internet that breaches Player’s obligation of loyalty to Club and undermines the public’s adore for the Club, Club coaches, or Club treatment under Paragraph 2 of Player’s NFL Player Contract and Article LV, Section 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement or Player otherwise breaches the Contract during the period of the above contract years, then Player shall be in default (‘Default’) of this Contract.
In the event of Player’s default, upon claim by Club, Player shall now return and repay to the Club any of the Bonus previously paid by Club and Player shall abandon the right to receive any owing Bonus in the proportionate amount set along under.’
As to the ‘savings clause,’ Haynesworth’s deal includes language hardly identical to the terms of the Dolphins’ contracts (collusion, anybody?): ‘To the amplitude any of the terms set forth above are believed unenforceable beneath the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as amended by the 2006 CBA extension agreement, the leftover of the terms shall remain in full compel and achieve and any forfeiture by Player below this Agreement shall be the highest amount permitted by the terms of this Agreement and the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as amended.’
In the Dolphins case, Special Master Stephen Burbank base namely the ‘savings clause’ would not cure an overly roomy forfeiture clause. If that same reasoning applies apt Haynesworth, he may hold out without hazard of forfeiting anybody premium money.
The NFL certainly would collar upon language in the recent ruling pointing to the reality that undrafted free agents lack bargaining power, and accordingly have to accept however terms the teams foist upon them. Haynesworth virtually occupied that same position.
But if each team uses those criterion terms in veteran free-agent deals, too, the player had not real bargaining power for to those terms, even if he’s being paid $100 million over seven years. Thus, it’s feasible that the opener language from the most recent ruling would apply to Haynesworth: ‘[T]he fact that these players could have been made to forfeit their signing bonuses pursuant to legal forfeiture provisions should be considered in light of the facts that agents may not protect players (especially Undrafted Rookies) from overreaching and that the Dolphins made a strategic choice to use language understood to violate the SSA and CBA and to depend on the Special Master to rewrite the offending provisions if they were dared. Without reference to other situations where a savings clause may be effective, in these circumstances and given the language of Section 9, I decline to do so.’
It remains to be penetrated if Haynesworth ambition be willing to gamble with big money hoping that his case is dissimilar case in which the ‘savings clause’ would not be effective. Thus, if Haynesworth is considering the possibility of holding out, he should think seeking a declaratory decree prior to the launch of education camp regarding the question of whether the Redskins would be permitted to retrieve bonus money, or whether he tin hold out without risking a forfeiture.
Though the NFLPA would be placed in the tough situation of advancing an unpopular reason and the NFL undoubtedly would bring out the P.R. cannons if the association tries aboard behalf of a very unpopular athlete to get the competence to violate his contract without consequence, it’s a linear matter of contract applying and interpretation ‘ and the NFL set the table for this likelihood by picking a fight with a couple of slappies over $15,000.