Brent Skeen-Imagn Images
Pablo Torre acquired and released the NFLPA v. NFL arbitration document from the alleged collusion, including the dispute with Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson’s contract.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Pablo Torre of “Pablo Torre Finds Out” released the 61-page arbitration document on the alleged collusion filed by the NFL Players Association against the NFL. The alleged collusion was regarding three quarterback contracts during the 2022 season: Russell Wilson, Kyler Murray and Lamar Jackson.
The arbitration includes testimony from NFL Owners, NFL Management Council, Lamar Jackson, General Manager and Executive Vice President Eric DeCosta and Owner Steve Bisciotti, among numerous other owners, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, members of the NFL Players Association and others.
Link to the article, video and the 61-page arbitration document from “Pablo Torre Finds Out.”
I have gone through the document and re-written the information regarding the negotiation of Lamar Jackson’s contract, including Steve Bisciotti and Eric DeCosta’s testimony void of the legal citations for a more straightforward read.
I urge all readers to read the arbitration document in full, and listen to the episode from Pablo Torre and Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio to gain a better understanding.
Pg. 29
Mr. Jackson is an All-Pro and two-time NFL Most Valuable Player quarterback for the
Baltimore Ravens; his team reached the playoffs five times. Unlike most NFL players, Mr. Jackson is not represented by an agent. He is assisted by his mother, Felicia Jones, and negotiated directly with General Manager Eric DeCosta of the Ravens. Mr. DeCosta testified that he is not opposed to fully guaranteed contracts, just fully guaranteed contracts “pushed out to later years.” Additionally, he testified that Mr. Jackson has a different playing style—a running quarterback—and has incurred some injuries, and injuries are one reason why DeCosta tries to minimize guarantees in the fifth and sixth years of contracts.
In the 2022 offseason, Mr. Jackson was negotiating a new contract with the Ravens, with whom he had played with since he was drafted. Mr. Jackson asked for a fully guaranteed contract at the time, and Mr. DeCosta “knew that a fully guaranteed contract was important to Lamar.”
21. After a conversation with Mr. Jackson in 2022, Mr. DeCosta came to believe that Mr. Jackson would accept a non-fully guaranteed deal and offered Mr. Jackson such a contract. Mr. Jackson did not accept the offer. Following additional unsuccessful negotiations, Mr. Jackson texted Mr. DeCosta to inform him that rather than sign a non-fully guaranteed contract, he would play under his rookie contract’s fifth year option. Mr. Jackson also wrote, “I’m going to continue to request a FULLY GUARANTEED contract I understand you all DON’T and that’s fine.”
After the 2022-23 season, Mr. Jackson and Mr. DeCosta began negotiating again, and Mr. Jackson renewed his request for a fully guaranteed contract. Mr. DeCosta offered Mr. Jackson two different three-year contracts that Mr. DeCosta considered to be fully guaranteed. Mr. Jackson did not accept either of those contracts and requested a trade. During this time, Mr. Jackson said that the microphone on his phone was not working, making communications with Mr. DeCosta difficult. To assist Mr. Jackson, Mr. DeCosta asked him for the names of teams he might be interested in being traded to, but Jackson never provided such a list. The Ravens eventually “franchised” him using the non-exclusive franchise designation so that Jackson could negotiate directly with other teams, but the Ravens could match any offer he received. Only a couple of teams expressed interest to DeCosta in signing him prior to the Ravens’ decision to franchise him. Afterwards, no team reached out directly to Mr. Jackson.
There were several reasons why teams may not have pursued Mr. Jackson. Mr. Bisciotti testified that some teams already had accomplished quarterbacks with whom they were satisfied. Other teams may not have been interested in Mr. Jackson because of the size of the contract he likely would have demanded. Clubs may not have the cap room for a contract the size of Mr. Jackson’s expected contract. They also may not have had enough money to pay into the League escrow account as required by the CBA. Making an unsuccessful attempt to acquire another team’s quarterback also could negatively impact a franchise’s relationship with its current quarterback. Mr. Bisciotti also testified that under the terms of the nonexclusive franchise tag, any team who sucessfully traded for Mr. Jackson would have had to give the Ravens two first-round draft picks, which could have dissuaded teams from expressing interest in Mr. Jackson. Mr. DeCosta also believed that other teams may not have pursued Mr. Jackson in part because of his unique playing style as a running quarterback. Mr. Blank testified that Mr. Jackson’s injuries were factors in the Falcons’ public decision not to try to sign Mr. Jackson. (also testifying that keeping their quarterback rather than pursue Mr. Jackson also gave them more Cap room flexibility). Finally, it seemed that Mr. Jackson was not actually committed to playing elsewhere—he did not respond to Mr. DeCosta because of his asserted phone issues and never provided DeCosta with a list of teams he would like to play for. Although it seems unusual that more teams did not express an interest in signing such a valuable player as Mr. Jackson, it is understandable given the reasons stated by Messrs. Bisciotti and DeCosta. Both of those witnesses were credible in their explanations.
Mr. DeCosta was preparing for the 2023 draft in April 2023 under the assumption that Mr. Jackson would no longer be playing for the Ravens, but on the eve of the draft, sent Mr. Jackson a new offer. Much to Mr. DeCosta’s surprise, Mr. Jackson quickly accepted it. He signed a five-year, $260 million contract with $135 million guaranteed at signing and a $72.5 million signing bonus.
F. Kraft/Smith discussion
As explained in the Introduction, the NFLPA alleged in its October 19, 2022, letter commencing this arbitration that a high-ranking NFL executive asked an owner in August 2022 to encourage other owners at a meeting that month to not agree to large, fully-guaranteed contracts like Mr. Watson’s. Former NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith was the source of that information, and he was asked about this allegation at his deposition and at the hearing. He testified that
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft raised the subject of Mr. Watson’s guaranteed contract during a conversation with him, likely over the phone, at some point in the summer of 2022. Mr. Smith stated that “I just remember him [Kraft] saying, you know, Roger [Goodell] has asked me to talk about guaranteed contracts at an owners meeting.” He later also testified that Mr. Kraft told him that he was asked to raise that guaranteed contracts “were a problem.”
Smith testified that he did not say anything in response. He also testified that he did not tell anyone about this conversation, including J.C. Tretter, then-president of the NFLPA, with whom he had frequent contact and later exchanged texts expressing frustration with Mr. Wilson’s non-fully guaranteed contract with the Broncos. He also stated that he did not tell Mark Levin, the NFLPA Salary Cap administrator, about the conversation, though he eventually told NFLPA attorneys. Further, despite the apparent suggestion that the League might be working to restrict guaranteed money, he emailed Mr. Jackson, who was negotiating a new contract with the Ravens at the time, advising him to stand firm in his demand for a fully guaranteed contract because he is, “entitled to . . . the largest fully guaranteed contract of all time” and did not mention the Kraft conversation.
Page 53
c. Other evidence
The public statement of two owners following the signings of contract by their quarterbacks also do not indicate that the teams were adhering to and participaing in a collusive agreement. Mr. Bisciotti and Mr. Blank were quoted around the time of the owners’ meetings in response to reporter questions about Mr. Watson’s contract. While the NFLMC characterizes their responses as “signaling” to their fellow Clubs about the need to limit guaranteed money, the language and timing of the statements do not support this conclusion. Their comments merely reflect how notable and unusual Mr. Watson’s contract was, as well as some surprise that Mr. Watson was able to obtain such large guarantees, partly because of his off-field issues. While Mr. Bisciotti did say that the Watson contract will make future negotiations more difficult and he was not going to follow suit, this simply acknowledges how contract negotiations typically work in the NFL: agents and base their bargaining positions on comparable compensation amounts previously achieved by equivalent players.
Page 56
With respect to the three quarterbacks, the NFLPA also has not shown by a clear preponderance of the evidence that there was an agreement to prevent them from obtaining fully guaranteed contracts.
Page 57
Lamar Jackson. Emails from Mr. Jackson clearly show that he repeatedly requested a fully guaranteed contract, and the Ravens offered two three-year fully guaranteed proposals, though they were not as long-term as Mr. Jackson would have liked. Mr. DeCosta credibly explained why he did not wish to sign Mr. Jackson to a longer fully guaranteed contract for reasons that made sense, though he otherwise made an extensive effort to arrange a favorable deal for Mr. Jackson, a player he clearly respects and admires. Further, while many other teams did not express interest in Mr. Jackson after he asked to be traded, the NFL produced substantial evidence showing credible reasons for such lack of interest. Mr. DeCosta explained how Mr. Jackson’s playing style was not a fit for all teams, and Mr. Blank noted that his frequent injuries were one of the reasons why they did not express interest. Many teams were not in the market for a quarterback, some were skeptical that Mr. Jackson actually wished to leave the Ravens, and still others were deterred by the ultimate likely price of Mr. Jackson’s contract and the draft choices they would have to surrender to the ravens if they signed Jackson. Together, the circumstances show that the Ravens were not acting in accordance with a collusive agreement, or that other teams chose to not make an offer to Jackson as part of a collusive agreement. The NFLPA has not demonstrated by a clear preponderance of the evidence that Section 1 of the CBA was violated as to Mr. Jackson’s negotiations.
In sum, these three Clubs had individual incentives and justifications to propose contracts to these quarterbacks that did not contain guarantees commensurate with those of Mr. Watson.
Page 59
V. Conclusion
While the NFL Management Council encouraged the 32 member Clubs of the NFL to reduce guarantees in future contracts with players at the March 2022 annual meeting of the Club owners, the Clubs did not join in such a collusive agreement and did not act in accordance with one as to the three quarterbacks named in the initial arbitration demand or to other veteran players.
Accordingly, I dismiss the arbitration demand of the NFLPA in its entirety.
So ordered.
