Early Wednesday morning (some might prefer to call it late Tuesday night), after a four-hour meeting between the NFL Management Council Executive Committee and NFL Players Association,, where a simple majority is needed for ratification.
There's no way to know how an entire league's worth of players feel about the proposal, especially considering all of the details haven't even been released, but on Wednesday morning, a few notable players took to Twitter to announce their displeasure with the proposed CBA.
On that note, Saints left tackle Terron Armstead fought back against the notion that the current proposal would give NFL players the highest percentage of revenues of any American professional sports league.
Bears receiver Allen Robinson also doesn't seem very fond of the offer. At the very least, we know what he would like to see changed. Robinson, who was lucky enough to avoid the franchise tag in Jacksonville, which allowed him to sign a long-term deal with the Bears in 2018, wants the franchise tag to be eliminated.
Get the franchise tag out the new CBA— Allen Robinson II (@AllenRobinson) February 26, 2020
So can we just let an executive group of NFL agents be a part of our counsel to negotiate our CBA?!? This is rediculous...— David Bakhtiari (@DavidBakhtiari) February 26, 2020
Saints defensive end Cameron Jordan, who retweeted Russell Wilson's tweet, also has questions.
No cap🤔 continue...17th game we catching an extra bye week for this? Longer break before last preseason game to reg season start https://t.co/hKJEUewebU— cameron jordan (@camjordan94) February 26, 2020
By far, the player that came out the strongest against the proposal via social media was Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey, who posted a video that ESPN's Brooke Pryor captured. You can watch that video by clicking here, but be advised that he uses strong R-rated language. Here's an excerpt from the rant:
"And if any player, on any one of our teams, if y'all are hurting for rent money or anything while we're going through this lockout, call us. Man, we've got way more money than what they had back in the days. We ain't got to worry about that. All the vets on each team, stand the f--- up. Stand up. Show these guys that we care about them. Man, I care about all you young players and I love you guys to death. I ain't going to let y'all down. Trust and believe."
Later on Wednesday, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers explained on Twitter why he voted against the current proposal. In his detailed explanation, Rodgers took issue with an expanded schedule and advocated for changes to the offseason program. His response has been transcribed in full below:
"I voted no last night.
"My decision to vote No is based off of the conversations I have had with the men in my locker room that I'm tasked to represent. This deal will affect every player that ever plays this game and we have made this decision with only an abbreviated version of the deal and that isn't good enough. Although I do see that there are many good things in the proposal that improve the lives and care for past, present, and future NFL players, there are issues with others.
"16 games to me, was never something to be negotiated. The owners made it clear that the 17th game is about paying for the 'added' benefits, and had nothing to do with positive feedback received about any extra risks involved with the added regular season game (also an extra game for every 2 seed moving forward on Wild Card weekend, i.e. GBP 2019=no bye).
"There were also many issues raised about the workplace, the workload and the offseason program. Some have been addressed, while others have not. With an extra game added to the schedule, added risk, and longer stretches before and after the bye week, we felt (it) was important to address adding more offseason recovery time. The ideas discussed would not add costs for teams, in fact if anything, would lessen some of them.
"My involvement has been far less than the negotiating team, and EC and the owners in these conversations, and I'm sensitive to that and appreciative of the time and sacrifices made. My involvement as a player rep, and a 15 year player in this great game though, allows me this platform to share my opinion, and at the same time, requires me to speak on behalf of the sentiment I hear from my teammates.
"The value of our players and the strength of the NFLPA can only be realized, if we ourselves know and believe in our worth. I respect the democratic nature of this process and have been, and will continue to talk with my teammates on the Packers, and my colleagues across the league."
Health and Wellness of our men is always the most important aspect. There is no price you can put on that and that is why I Voted No. I respect the Men that have been part of this discussion and stood up for their locker rooms. https://t.co/mL0Yj3E6d9— Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) February 26, 2020
Again, just because a few notable players have come out against the CBA, doesn't mean it won't be ratified. The vast majority of players who will be voting did not make their opinions known on Twitter. And there are incentives for some of the lesser known players, who don't make as much money as most of the players named above, to take the offer.
Last week, it was reported that the proposed CBA includes, in addition to the information released below.
But again, that information was released last week, before the two sides sat down in Indianapolis for four hours on Tuesday night.
A few notes on NFLPA reps voting overnight to pass along proposed CBA to all players:— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) February 26, 2020
- Vote was 17-14 (1 abstained)
- Owners agreed to remove $250K cap on 17th game check for existing contracts, but rejected proposal to shorten offseason
- Timing of final vote to ratify TBD
What we do know is that it could a while to finish the voting process. According to NFL Media's Jim Trotter, there's a chance it could "take up to two weeks to get a final vote from the full membership."
And now, we wait.