Nick Sundberg and Robert Griffin III have spirited debate over NFL CBA on Twitter
By Tim Payne
A current member of the Washington Redskins, Nick Sundberg, and former Washington Redskins quarterback, Robert Griffin III, got into a spirited debate about the NFL’s CBA on Twitter Wednesday night. Here’s a recap of their conversation that shows the different points of view on the NFL’s new CBA proposal.
The proposed CBA between the NFL and NFLPA has sparked fierce controversy among fans, media, and players. With a final vote on the current CBA proposal due this week by the some 2,100 players currently on NFL rosters, many players have begun to share their thoughts and even publicize their votes on the proposal.
Many high-profile players have voiced displeasure over the proposal, but most inside observers believe the required majority of current players will indeed vote to approve it.
This is one of those situations where there’s a disconnect between NFLPA leadership and the rank-and-file members of their union…largely because of the massive disparity in the overall net worth of those players. The guys who have tens of millions of dollars in the bank can afford to play hardball to get an even better deal while the guys who are making rookie or UDFA salaries, and those veterans working on veteran minimum deals likely don’t have the cash reserves to withstand a long work stoppage.
Nick Sundberg and Robert Griffin III (former teammates here in Washington), had a spirited debate about the pros and cons of the agreement in the public forum of Twitter, and it’s worth a read, so I’ve compiled the thread here for your viewing pleasure.
Why did you vote yes my brother?
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
Why not hold out for a 50-50 split of revenue?
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
The claim is that going from 47 percent to 48.5 percent is an extra 5 billion to the players. So Yea I think an extra 5 billion in revenue to the players to get to a 50-50 split is worth it for financial reasons for everyone. You can’t negotiate from a position of fear
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
You still have to look at the possible outcomes of every situation. If we go back and try to get more and they tell us to kick rocks, then what? Strike? Are all 2100 players who paid dues last year in a position to sit out TWO years? How long would it take to make up that money?
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 26, 2020
You can’t negotiate a CBA from a position of fear. That’s our unions job to ensure that we are properly equip to endure a work stoppage. Your position is well it’s the best offer we got so we should accept it. This is a time to flip the script and get more of what we work for
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
It’s also an easy thing to say “Just take the deal” because we have no other option. We do have options. If players lose 13 billion imagine how much money, noteriety, and credibility the other side loses. Does the other side want to risk that? No they just hope we take the deal
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 26, 2020
So those players jerseys are leading the league in sells, or plastered on every commercial and billboard you can find around the USA? I would be on the front lines! But I’m getting the sense that I’m not taking to a player who is looking out for what we are truly entitled to.
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 27, 2020
That’s funny bro. We are a part of a union. We have to make hard decisions for the majority of our membership. 65+% are on minimum contracts. Every one of those guys gets paid more, better benefits, and better work conditions. https://t.co/Nrz6TlwIfV
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 27, 2020
If we hold out and say no now until we get a better all around deal and protect our health and safety, that 65% you are referencing gets even more pay, more benefits and we all get better working conditions https://t.co/lgtiLRJzkg
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 27, 2020
Players cross. We have a war chest to pay every player a little bit, but nothing compared to anyone’s yearly salary. So we wait, picketing and causing as much chaos as we can. Teams get scabs from the XFL and that college class. People go watch games anyways bc history has shown
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 27, 2020
But that’s a worst case scenario, which we all have to think about. I’m not coming at this from a place of fear, I’m looking at it from a place called reality. Fans aren’t fans of us, they’re fans of teams. Players come and go, they’ll watch and gamble on anything.
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 27, 2020
The reality is we have to decide whether or not to accept a CBA that is better than the previous one but not what we have worked for or representative of the sacrifices our fellow players make every time they buckle their chin strap. https://t.co/jvshSijOqf
— Robert Griffin III (@RGIII) February 27, 2020
I can’t argue that. Does it have every single thing we wanted in it? No. Is it far better than the last deal? No question. It’s up to the majority now. https://t.co/6PhMeEzb5v
— Nick Sundberg (@NickSundberg) February 27, 2020
And there you have it. That’s the gist of the NFL’s CBA debate in a single thread.
Next. The case for cutting QB Alex Smith. dark
And as Nick Sundberg said, it’s up the majority now.