https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/07/28/kyler-murray-disrespectful-to-think-i-dont-put-in-enough-work/ 


I want to focus on the “independent study” clause in a contract...

First off, I'm surprised it's allowed via the Union rules (which I don't know) but in the recent decade they've been extremely heavily on teams not being able to control or dictate what players do during their time away from the team, including putting in wording that very strictly limited coaches ability to work with players during the off-season and monitor them too much year round. So if they have an issue with this, I'm not sure it'll hold up to the Union/NFL agreement or not...

That being said... unless you KNOW it's not allowed... and NFL looks over all contracts and didn't deny this one...

Put this clause in ALL large contracts! Teams are surely monitoring them through their I-pads or Microsoft surface (or whatever devices they have) and Rob Gronkowski has even publicly talked about ways he has set up to fool them monitoring him... (changes cloths muliple times during a workout, so it looks like a different day when really it's the same day/have friends watch videos so he doesn't have to, etc).


Again, I'm not sure if it's actually enforceable with the Union deals, but it makes for a god argument if someone is not giving a crap and not watching film and you can try to argue to get some of that money back...

Like say the Packers with TE Marcellus Bennett...

---

I heard that Kyler is barking crazy mad over this clause. I have zero sympathy for him. He signed it. He has to know the contracts are accessible via NFLPA website, right? He should be more pissed off the TEAM put it in there in the first place. I've heard some people saying he didn't gripe about it because of the money. Well, tough squabble. You put your name to it because you wanted the money, you get to deal with the consequences. And if it were true he signed it just cuz he was like it's easy objective, then why the surprise press conference today? Why not just say "Hell, i was happy they put that in there cuz I get that done before Monday evening, easy clause to guarantee my cash, end of it" Squash it. But he was out there putting fingers at others. Childish.

---

I feel SOOO SORRY for him!
Four whole hours in a week?
For what!? A lousy 20 plus million a year? That's insane!
They should be punished severely for expecting that much!
(Sarcasm off)

---

I meant to put this in the around the NFL section, not the Packers section.

They reported agreed to take the clause out of the contract... and according to PFT rumor has it, Murray was supposedly considering changing his agent before this new contract, this clause didn't help, and Cardinals might want to keep this agent, as a new agent wouldn't be getting any money off the contract, and then would want a new contract so the new agent gets a cut.


But back to the point, I think it's a clause, if allowed, should be out in all contract, as a way to get some money back from a guy that's just stopped caring and aren't watching videos or aren't trying. Because it wouldn't be actually used if say a player like TE Rob Gronkowski isn't watching, but is still getting the job done (which Rob would probably pay someone to play the film and make it look like he's watching).


Speaking of which, #1 overall pick QB JaMarcus Russell was recently on a podcast, and of course blaming all his failures on the Raiders and their coaching staff (you didn't catch on anywhere else)... but they fired their coach and the new coach didn't like him and brought in some guys they had history with etc etc, never gave him a chance, blah blah blah...

One of the podcast hosts asked him about a rumored story, that the Raiders didn't think he was watching film, so they purpose gave him a completely blank film, to see if he'd turn it on an notice...

According to the story, Russell claimed he knew the game plans that were covered in it, which proved to the coaches he wasn't even turning the film on... much less watching it.

Russell avoided answering if that story was real, and talked about how coaches should be coaching and training and not playing games with players.

---

I also heard they wanted to add a "sanity clause".....
And as Chico Marx said,
"You canna not fool me ....there IS no Sanity Claus!"
😁Cheesey strikes again!🤪

---

A few important points I wanted to note, since I deal with negotiating contracts on a regular basis and have seen some NFL contracts:

1. I'm not sure there is any benefit in putting this in all contracts because it, ultimately, gives a sharp negotiator leverage from the player's perspective. For example, a player's agent can delete such "independent study" clause, and then force the team to give in on another point (such as guaranteed money, off-season bonuses, etc.) to reinsert the "independent study" clause. Put differently, business parties put items in contracts that they want to be efficient in negotiations, and a good agent would be able to turn the tables on a team pretty quickly - especially when the player is a franchise QB.

2. Tied to the above reason of using the "independent study" clause as leverage: teams are restricted in how they can use / monitor digital devices. In addition to constraints of employment law about monitoring employees on their time outside of work (because, ultimately, players are still classified as employed to teams they play for), teams would typically have some sort of privacy policy and/or terms of use that would be in place. These terms, even though they are likely not read, would specify the uses / actions a team can take to "collect data" or "monitor use" on devices. The outrage and penalties / legal fines that would result if a team ever "spied" on their employee using the devices would be huge, in addition to a PR disaster (if a team spied on their player, maybe they do so on customers, other employees, etc.). I would, for that reason, also wager that Microsoft has at least some restrictions that prohibit teams from spying on players using their devices. So, there are likely at least two levels of "spying bad" and "don't you dare do it or hell hath no fury [i.e., indemnity]" clauses that would shut down any thought of spying from a team's perspective.

3. Further to the above point, how will teams know a player hasn't fulfilled the "independent study" clause? The team would have to allege a player violated the "independent study" clause so they have the responsibility of proving that allegation. You can't keep tabs on a player 24/7; even if the player is out partying most of the night, they can claim they came home and completed "independent study". Then what? A team can't really introduce evidence outlining 24/7 surveillance of a player, nor would anyone from a player's circle be likely to sign an affidavit stating player X didn't study for the required number of hours this week.

So, while it is unusual in contracts, I'm inclined to think it isn't a huge deal to include from an agent / player's perspective - particularly if the team you are negotiating against really wants it and is willing to give the player more guaranteed money to have this clause inserted. The team will be hard pressed to prove a violation of such "independent study" clause, and if the player does at least the minimum amount of required study it is literally a bargaining chip to get the player something he'd be doing anyways.

From an agent's perspective, it can be bad optics if the agent didn't read the entire contract, but at that point you are in malpractice / negligence territory and the player can't be blamed for not reading what he signed. From a team's perspective, you risk pissing of a player and/or possibly evoke allegations of stereotyping an African American QB (i.e., not as studious, hard-working, etc.). This is not to say why the Cardinals wanted it was tied to race or stereotyping - just that there isn't a whole lot to be gained by the Cardinals for including that provision. I'd go further to suggest that the fact that the Cardinals deleted the provision further indicates it wasn't worth the trouble to include in the first place.

So, I don't think it'll be common place and I, personally, am miffed why the Cardinals would've thought it worth it (based on it is next to impossible to prove Murray didn't abide by that clause) to include in the first place. Good on Kyler for getting that money, though.

---

This is like being miffed at parents for stipulating a consequence for unsatisfactory behavior. Do the Cardinals do this with all of their players? If so, then yes, miffed at Cardinals, but if this was just for Kyler, perhaps the team who employs him knows more about what he is doing (or not doing) than we do, so how could levy being miffed at the Cardinals? I'm asking, not confronting because that baffles me. (Yes, I know, easy to do, shuddup)

---

I'm miffed because from a practical perspective, it is next to impossible to enforce. That is to say, you can legally have an "independent study" clause, but proving that Murray violated that clause using evidence is really, really difficult. If the Cardinals terminate Murray's contract for breach of "independent study", this is going to court or arbitration because Murray will want to keep his guaranteed money.

At that point, in front of a judge or arbitrator, how would the Cards prove a violation by Murray if they are restrained from spying on Murray using the Microsoft device, and employment law heavily restrains them from monitoring Murray outside of work? In other words, employment laws further limit the evidence the Cards can use to prove he breached the contract under the "independent study" clause, even if monitoring Murray 24/7 because you can't rely "proof" obtained illegally.

Something like "you won't play professional baseball" makes more sense, because that is something that can be monitored. However, Kyler Murray has the benefit of the doubt from a legal perspective (i.e., if the Cardinals allege a violation, they have to prove it and until so proven Kyler Murray is "clean") - even if social media shows Murray out partying until 7am each day of the week leading up to Sunday, he can still claim he watched video after he came home and skipped sleep. The Cardinals saying "no, you didn't" is not going to be enough to prove he violated the "independent study" clause; they need something more than tracking / monitoring data too because of legal restraints on using that. I don't think Murray will willingly let a team employee accompany him to confirm he's studying, and I doubt anyone in Murray's inner circle will also corroborate the Cardinals claim. What proof exactly is available to the team to support their position in the future that Murray violated that clause? Other than Murray saying "I study less than four hours per week", there wouldn't be much evidence available to corroborate claims of Murray not putting in enough independent study time.

The Cardinals definitely could know something we don't, but at that point why offer 100+ million guaranteed to someone you know doesn't put in enough time when you know you won't be able to prove he doesn't put in enough time? The Cardinals might as well have said Murray will warm all his cold food at home for at least one minute before eating, because it'd be similarly difficult to monitor and prove that Murray didn't comply with that either.

---

I honestly don't think it's that hard... teams own the devices with the play books in them, and my understanding (which could.be wrong) is they also have the power to monitor the activity on their work devices that they own, since the playbook and video and everything is on their now, and Gronkowski has talked about tricking them, and happy that they didn't look at the time stamp of when the videos were recorded (or didn't say anything if they did), as he and the entire time had to video record themselves working out.

If a team can force players to do that, it's not a stretch that they can monitor a device that they own and tightly control and have the ability to add or delete to it at will.


I think doing it is extremely extremely easy...

Though, as I stated from the state, of they went to enforce it, I'm not sure it'd hold up to the Union CBA agreement... I think players might have some easy loopholes with their personal time... but again, teams were forcing players to workout and have someone record it using the devices and they were able to get the players to do that and the Union didn't say anything.

---

I don't disagree that teams could be able to spy or monitor their players through devices because that would be pretty easy to do; however, teams can't rely on such monitoring or spying to prove breach of a clause because you can't submit in front of a judge, arbitrator or mediator illegally obtained evidence as proof of your position.

There is difference between informed consent (i.e., I know if I record this video, it will be something shared with the team that they use to track my workouts) and spying on players through apps or software they don't know about - "spying" by its definition indicates an absence of informed consent to be tracked / monitored.

If the Cardinals are legally not able to rely on findings based on spying / monitoring a player without their knowledge or consent (which is to say no judge, arbitrator or mediator will accept such evidence), then what? It very quickly becomes a 'he said, she said' matter, which favors Kyler Murray (or the player) because the overriding assumption is Kyler Murray (or said player) did abide by the contract unless proven otherwise by evidence.

Being more technical, adverse proceedings (trial, arbitration, mediation to some extent) contain an evidentiary burden. It's somewhat similar (though not the same as burden of proof) to the state claiming a person committed a crime: the state has the responsibility to prove that claim and the person has the benefit of the doubt if the state does not adequately prove that the person committed such crime. The Cardinals, alleging that Murray violated the "independent study" clause, would be required to prove it - and it is difficult to do so because the Cardinals cannot say "we spied / monitored on this player without his knowledge or consent, and see we were right". Knowing you are right and legally proving you are right are two very different things. Proving something legally often requires much more nuance and cannot be based on illegal tactics or methods.

Any dispute about breach of the "independent study" clause is a legal dispute. It isn't enough to know Murray doesn't study four hours a day because there is software on his device that can tell you that or you can turn the webcam on see the device is kept on his desk and never touched; that fact has to be proven in a legal setting. And, apologies for being repetitive, it is not as easy to prove things in a legal setting because there are a whole host of evidentiary rules that apply (for example, you cannot rely or submit proof that was obtained illegally or often times without consent or one's knowledge such as spying on them through a tablet).

So, practically speaking, I'm not sure what the Cardinals thought was the benefit of having this clause. Absent Murray saying on record "I don't study four hours per day", it is really, really hard for a team to prove it. For that reason, I don't think teams will be inclined to fight over including it in their contracts because it creates more headaches (i.e., headaches in attempting to enforce such a clause) than it really solves.

---