Do you think threatening to bench Russell Wilson if he doesnt renegotiate his contract is ok/legal

It legal and ethical. Of course.

I've yet to read anything showing it not to be legal, so until I do, I will believe it to be legal.

He could renegotiate and still get benched. I see no upside for RW in this scenario. He has a contract. If they don't want him, they can trade or cut him.

My question is do you think it’s proper to FORCE RW to renegotiate a previously signed contract in an effort to decrease the owners risk of paying him $37 million OR be benched? Doesn’t sound ethical to me. I think the NFLPA may win that case.

Russ has a simple solution. - Pay Me

Nothing wrong with riding the bench for $37 million

Based on what?

It’s not uncommon for teams to threaten to/ actually cut a player if they don’t renegotiate their deals. RW is still going to get paid a hefty sum by the Broncos whether he’s benched or cut in the off-season, which is the most likely outcome. It’s a tough business in that regard.

Looking forward to him signing with Atlanta in the near FUTURE as a free agent once the Broncos cut him.

It’s a tough business for the Broncos to have to pay another $37M for a player they don’t want. After he is cut, Wilson can play for another team and still receive the $37M. It seems like win-win for Wilson.

No less ethical than a player that signed a contract but later thinks he is worth more sitting out until he gets a new contract. Can't have it both ways. Either both sides sign and then see-out a contract or either can try to force a renegotiation.

i've heard of cheaper european soccer teams sitting players either about to trigger performance incentives or who refuse to sign an extension. it's presumably legal but self-defeating.

i understand the deal with wilson is how many guaranteed years he willl have. that if he punts his approaching guarantee for the balance he will have only 2 guaranteed, but they are waving in his face he will see the field.

i don't know how much incentive it is for a benched player on his way out the door to make it easier on the abandoning team on guarantees, by offering to play him the last week. so what.

re consequences, i understand some degree of this sort of reshuffling is regularly done but a big public feud about it might send a "don't sign here, they don't honor deals and play head games" kind of message. you have messed up if this is gone public.

You used the word.. legal...yes it's fully legal...

Whatever they do to Russell Wilson is legal.

But Russell Wilson pre-dated Sean Payton...

It's unethical to be judgmental in a sport

It's unethical to blame a quarterback for a lack of defense

If you look at Sean Payton and Jameis Winston on the Saints... it's pretty similar.

Winston had potential Hall of Fame numbers before Payton.

So to be clear... racism isn't illegal... it's not immoral.. but in a job.. it's unethical...

Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, Clinton Portis, Tom Brady, Ray Rice, Ray Lewis.. Aaron Rodgers..

I guess only the sport matters...

Must be nice..

Yeah, it's ethical. No ethical rule requires them to play RW, so they can decline to play him for any reason so long as they pay him.

Isn’t the whole point of benching him so they can cut him this off-season and save 37m? If they let him play he could get injured and they couldn’t cut him…

As usual, all you morons got it wrong. Wilson is guaranteed 39 million in 2024. However, if he is injured and cannot pass a physical next march, he is guaranteed an additional 37 million.

Denver can't risk getting him injured because they have no intention of keeping him next year. He will be traded or released and Denver will be on the hook for his 2024 salary no matter if he plays or not. But they will save 37 million on the injury guarantee and the remainder of his 242 million dollar contract will be void.

If I'm reading this right, his 2024 salary was already guaranteed when they did not release him in March 2023. So even if they release him this year, it looks like he still gets paid the full 2024 salary.

This article says the $37 million is for 2025, which requires the option to be picked up in March of this year. BUT it was was guaranteed for injury when he signed the contract. So not injured and cut in March means they don't have to pay him. I wonder how severe the injury would need to be to trigger the injury guarantee?

cbssports.com

Agent's Take: Breaking down Russell Wilson's contract and when the Broncos can realistically get rid of him

@corryjoel

Simply put, Denver doesn't have any good options for parting ways with its disappointing QB

Open link

The NFLPA is a joke, and has been for sometime. Remember when the film "Concussion" was going to draw all that light and heat to an important issue of professional athletes being treated poorly without so much as an ironic, "Are you not entertained?" I vaguely remember it...it starred Will Smith, right? Now he's famous for a completely different reason.

Also, Steelers star center Mike Webster died homeless under a bridge. That is all that needs to be said about the NFLPA.

Wait...one more thing. Their contract stipulates that players get healthcare for life...as long as they play in the league for *five* years. The average NFL players makes it less than two.

"If you look at Sean Payton and Jameis Winston on the Saints... it's pretty similar.
Winston had potential Hall of Fame numbers before Payton."

what?