RG3, NFL player rep debate merits of CBA proposal on Twitter
Two NFL players gave the public a glimpse at what a discussion over the proposed CBA might be like when they got into a back and forth on Twitter.
Baltimore Ravens backup quarterback Robert Griffin III engaged in a lively debate with Washington Redskins player representative and long snapper Nick Sundberg.
Griffin supported the public stances of Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson to vote against the proposal. Sundberg explained why he voted yes.
Simply put. The positives vastly outweigh the negatives. I wasn’t willing to risk a work stoppage over a little less time during OTA’s. We got a ton of the things we targeted last March at rep meetings. Former player pensions/medical facilities, current player benefits skyrocket. https://t.co/cpFjHmzkg5
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
We reduced training camp practice time, capped padded and joint practices, put a limit on consecutive padded days and total day lengths. Every minimum salary player year 9 and under gets a 100k raise this year and every player gets an extra check when we go to 17 games. Went from
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
47 to 48.5%. Made 1st rd players 4th and 5th years fully guaranteed when the 5th year is picked up and reworked the amounts they can make in their 5th year. Rookie minimums are over a million by the end of the deal, we have the ability to increase them even more if they don’t
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
Rise at the same rate as the cap. There are seriously a ton of really good things to focus on. These are just off the top of my head. Read through everything before you vote.
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
Why not hold out for a 50-50 split of revenue?
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
Right now 1st rounders can be held under contract for 7+ years before they hit free agency with 5th year options and tags. So why not hold out for the elimination of the franchise tag and options to expedite the process for players to get to free agency earlier?
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
Griffin and Sundberg then debated the merits of trying to persuade the owners to remove franchise tags or at least deter teams from using them, which led to a discussion on guaranteed contracts.
Bro you can have a guaranteed contract today. Have your agent negotiate it. The owners had 900 million guaranteed in escrow last season.
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
Yes that is true but it’s not happening so we has players and a union have to hold out to eliminate the barriers that are actively in place to prevent more fully guaranteed deals. It’s time to stop operating as if we don’t deserve the same treatment as the other leagues players.
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
It’s not happening because we, as players, aren’t working together to make it happen. There’s no rule against players colluding. Get together with other guys at your position and say none of you will sign anything until they’re guaranteed. Easy as that.
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
Then why don’t we get together and agree to vote no until we get a deal that not only protects our pockets but our brains and our future at the right level?
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
The topic then turned to the lengths the players should go to in negotiations and whether it would lead to them losing a deal entirely or even a lockout.
Hold out til when? Do you honestly thing an extra % is worth ripping the deal up? The owners told us if we didn’t get a deal done before now, they wouldn’t negotiate again until February, when we would have to start from scratch. It took us 10 months of negotiating to get here... https://t.co/PcV5HAWerQ
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
The claim is that going from 47 percent to 48.5 percent is an extra 5 billion to the players. So Yea I think an extra 5 billion in revenue to the players to get to a 50-50 split is worth it for financial reasons for everyone. You can’t negotiate from a position of fear
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
You still have to look at the possible outcomes of every situation. If we go back and try to get more and they tell us to kick rocks, then what? Strike? Are all 2100 players who paid dues last year in a position to sit out TWO years? How long would it take to make up that money?
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
You can’t negotiate a CBA from a position of fear. That’s our unions job to ensure that we are properly equip to endure a work stoppage. Your position is well it’s the best offer we got so we should accept it. This is a time to flip the script and get more of what we work for
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
The two continued on for some time, turning the conversation to the upcoming TV deals the owners are set to negotiate with networks and what would occur in the event of a lockout.
It's but a glimpse into the conversations players are having as the proposed CBA was sent to all players for a vote.