Possible CBA fall out (1 Viewer)

[GregR]

First heard of this on PFT.

As we explained on May 4: “If a player suffers any injury while doing anything away from the supervision of the team, the condition is regarded as a ‘non-football injury.’ As a result, the player’s team could choose to not pay the player until the injury has healed.”

It’s not a new concept, some discovery made while Mort was scouring through the fine print of the new CBA. Injuries and illnesses occurring away from the team facility are “non-football injuries” or “non-football illnesses,” respectively. And whether the team will pay the player always is optional.

One thing the players pushed for is more time away from the team. But if the players want to maximize their career (and potential earnings in new contracts) they need to keep working out. Only if they do it away from team activities, they can lose their salary portion if they miss time for it. It's optional for the team to pay them or not.

It sounds like the Eagles are going to pay Jason Peters, but not the full amount he'd have gotten. They are reducing by the $3.25m they are paying his replacement. Haven't heard a definitive word on Suggs yet, but ESPN is suggesting the team isn't likely to hold back his pay because they want to stay on good terms and give him incentive to rehab. Though I'd note, having to return to get paid is plenty of incentive too.

In short, players may choose to start working out at team facilities even if the new CBA doesn't require as many offseason workouts from them.