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).
Originally Posted by: beast
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.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.