Here's a clause in a standard NFL contract:
"Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, if Player is injured in
the performance of his services under this contract and promptly reports such injury to
the Club physician or trainer, then Player will receive such medical and hospital care
during the term of this contract as the Club physician may deem necessary, and will
continue to receive his yearly salary for so long, during the season of injury only and for
no subsequent period covered by this contract, as Player is physically unable to perform
the services required of him by this contract because of such injury. "
Originally Posted by: Barfarn
Nothing in that clause states or even implies that an injured player cannot be cut. If anything, the phrase "term of his contract" implies just the opposite, since teams can and do terminate player contacts. As PFWT points out, however, a team that waives a player is on the hook for the entire season's salary.
Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel
Your argument demonstrates a complete dearth of legal acumen and evidences a mind so closed itās driven to agenda.
REMEMBER: This is just one single clause in a contract that must work in harmony with the other clauses in the contract and be worded in a way that does not abate bargained for rights in the CBA. This prevents one from taking one clause like "term of contract" being used out of context just as you just did.
It should be blatantly obvious that this single clause [And thatās why I picked this one] that the player is guaranteed to certain things that effectively prevent the team from cutting he player, to wit:
Player is entitled to:
(1) āRECEIVE MEDICAL CARE DURING THE TERM OF THIS CONTRACT AS THE CLUB PHYSICIAN MAY DEEM NECESSARYā;
(2) A player is also entitled to āCONTINUE TO RECEIVE HIS YEARLY SALARY FOR SO LONGā¦AS PLAYER ISā hurt or until that yearsā contract expires.
These rights are conferred for the "term of the contract" of the injury year "
for so long...as player is physically unable to perform." Hence, a team cant terminate these right while the player is injured. Proposing the idea that a contact can be terminated at anytime, hence these rights can be terminated at any time is patently absurd.
When a guy is under contract there is an incredible amount of control a team can exert over this person that they cant when the player is no longer under contract. If you cut a guy, who has the right to access to your med staff and facilities, how does the team work that out? Does Dr. McKenzie meet the ex-player at the 7-11 pulling a mobile treatment trailer? Do you allow a non player to come and go from the facility and if he cant get in at 1:00am, or use the Chill tubs an hour after a home game, he may call his union rep and file a grievance.
This clause was negotiated the way it was because it effectively gave the Club no choice; but to keep the guy on the team.
One of the reasons, probably the main reason, players refuse injury settlements is they want their treatment supervised by the clubās med staff and to utilize their facilities for rehab [and workout]. Plus they still get to be part of the team.
Another huge reason why some donāt agree to injury settlements is they get all their cash upon termination. Some donāt want the money in one lump. Some have arrangements to pay the money throughout the year. A guy like Schum could hedge against playing next year by having some of his 2107 salary paid in 2018, thus reducing total tax consequence. Plus, heād have more cash flowing-in in 2018 to accompany the WC settlement left over after GB is reimbursed from it.
Every year there are a dozen or two NFL players cut from IR day 1 of the new year. Why does a team carry a guy on IR all year just to cut them? Answer: because they cant cut them until THE END OF CONTRACT YEAR! Itās possible GB wants Schum around, but heās probably going to be one of those dozen or two.
If you donāt get this; then I refer you to Farmer in the LA Times article mentioned above or go read the CBA.