NFLPA says NFL agreed to nix fully guaranteed deals

According to sources, the league and its teams colluded against the players' pursuit of fully guaranteed deals.

According to a source, the union filed a grievance in recent weeks and will be heard by a third party.

The Athletic reported that Jeff Pash sent a memo to the teams telling them that they would not be allowed to use fully guaranteed contracts for certain quarterbacks.

According to the report, the owners agreed not to give out large-scale, fully guaranteed deals at the August meeting.

The NFL could not be reached for comment immediately. It's not clear what evidence the players have to back up their claims. The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not require teams to guarantee contract extensions with players.

The discussion that led to the claim was related to Lamar Jackson's negotiations with the Baltimore Ravens. Jackson made clear to the team that he wanted a fully guaranteed deal, but the Ravens were unwilling to do that.

The quarterbacks who recently signed non-fully-guaranteed extensions were Kyler Murray and Russell Wilson. The first of its kind for such a large amount has been struck byWatson.

The owner of the Ravens was candid about the deal when he spoke to the other owners.

When I had a reaction to it, I'm trying to figure that out. It's like I wish they hadn't guaranteed the whole contract. He should've been the first one to get a guaranteed contract. It will make negotiations harder with other people. It does not mean that we have to play that game. We will look at it. I might have a quicker reaction to that news if I were in bogged down negotiations.

Some teams still don't offer much in guarantees save the signing bonus, despite the fact that vested veterans have rights to certain guarantees. The league's funding rule requires teams to pay a lot of a guaranteed contract within the first year of a deal, and agents feel that teams hide behind that rule to avoid paying high guarantees.

The players want the deal to push modern contracts forward, while teams think it's an outlier. The issue at hand is if teams are acting independently when opting against guaranteed deals or if they are in an arrangement with other teams.