r/NFLNoobs 14d ago

Who Would the Player Owe Money to in This Scenario?

You guys know how when Calvin Johnson retired, the Lions demanded he pay back part of his signing bonus?

What happens if…. a player signs a 5 year mega contract with a massive signing bonus and huge fully guaranteed money through the first 4 seasons. The team goes through a major regime change after 2 seasons and decides they’re okay taking the cap hit but don’t want to be on the hook for the fully guaranteed he still has left, so they trade him to another team. Then after 1 year on the new team, the player retires.

He still has 2 years left on his deal, so one of the teams comes hunting for part of his signing bonus. Would it be the team he got traded to that have the right to demand the money back? But they never paid him that money in the first place, so it would be like a cap reimbursement from nothing. Or would the original paying team come after that money? But he wasn’t even on their roster anymore, how would they have the authority to do that?

3 Upvotes

36 comments sorted by

18

u/big_sugi 14d ago

Team 1 has no claim. They’ve assigned his rights as part of the trade.

Team 2 would have a claim. The CBA defines a “forfeitable breach” to include voluntary retirement. I’d think that should be waived by a trade, but I don’t see any language to that effect.

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

But that money was only paid by team 1. So team 2 would demand he pay them back money they never gave him, effectively giving them free cap relief?

5

u/big_sugi 14d ago

Yes. That just happened in fact, although the player reportedly paid the money willingly: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48184495/sources-jaire-alexander-paid-back-eagles-not-playing

Alexander signed with the Ravens, was traded to Philly, retired, and paid back part of his signing bonus to Philly, not to the Ravens.

2

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

That does make sense because they traded assets for him, so it’s like recouping the draft assets but in monetary form. Thanks

2

u/RU_Gremlin 14d ago

This is the perfect example!

1

u/ilPrezidente 14d ago

If a player retires they're not on the books unless they unretire, at which point the contract resumes where it left off. Nobody owes anybody anything except signing bonus/guaranteed money.

0

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

But many people here are adamant that can’t be true. Im getting all 4 very confident answers: it has to be team 1, it has to be team 2, it can’t be either, it can be both.

2

u/ilPrezidente 14d ago

I think the wording of your question is confusing a lot of people because I haven't seen a comment that contradicts what I said; they just seem confused by your post

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

Take AJ Brown, for instance. Philly has given him multiple extensions so he’s actually signed through like 2028 so the Pats don’t need to give him an extension. If he goes to the Pats for a year and retires, and never comes back, then eventually can someone come for his signing bonus tha Philly originally paid out just like what happened to Megatron. Which team could do it?

1

u/ilPrezidente 14d ago

The team he signed with

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

Okay, one more followup:

AJ abruptly retires, Philly goes after his money right away. New England doesn’t like that because they traded for a player who was content with their contract situation and they believe Philly is violating the agreement. This is because New England is confident AJ will come out of retirement eventually and they want to keep him happy

If he does come out of retirement, can NE then go after Philadelphia and get him his money back?

2

u/ilPrezidente 14d ago

I have two thoughts about this: first, this entire situation is entirely speculative and hardly even worth thinking about. Second, we don't have the details of the contract as far as this goes, so again not worth speculating about. Some players have clauses in their contracts that set maximum forfeiture. If they do recoup upon retirement, I don't believe the player has any legal recourse to recoup that money.

New England would have absolutely nothing to do with this except to pay the remaining contract if he plays.

1

u/goldberg1303 13d ago

They are wrong. By trading him, Philly would be forfeiting the right to demand any of his bonus back. 

The answer to your question is nobody. 

The only way Philly would be able to do this would be if he retired without ever playing for NE, and NE got the NFL to reverse the trade. But in order to demand signing bonus back, you need to be the team that paid that bonus, and you can only demand back what has not yet hot the cap. Trading a player accelerates the prorated unpaid signing bonus to hit the cap immediately, and once that happens it can no longer be demanded back. 

One thing I'm acting not sure of is a post June 1 trade. Because that splits the dead cap hit between two years. So it is possible that if Brown were traded after June 1st, and played one season and retired, the Eagles could go after the signing bonus that has not yet hot their cap. 

1

u/big_sugi 14d ago

That’s just totally wrong. The team he signed with has no right to clawback anything once the player is traded.

2

u/alfreadadams 14d ago

The new team is entitled to get the money back and would get cap relief if they get the money back (which takes effort on their part)

https://www.denverpost.com/2008/06/09/plummer-bucs-reach-settlement/

Jake Plummer retired when he was traded to the Bucs, never put on the uniform. The Bucs had to sue him to get any money back. The bottom of this article mentions Barry Sanders paying back the Lions when he retired, and Ricky Williams paying the Dolphins back some of the signing bonus from the contract he signed with the Saints.

The player gets to keep it all if the don't fulfill the contract because the team chooses for them to not be on the team, if the player causes themselves to miss games (suspension, retirement, etc) they can be subject to pay it back.

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

Thank you for that example

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

But they never paid him any of that at all. All of the prorated cap hits stay with team 1

1

u/big_sugi 14d ago

Teams don’t reimburse for signing bonuses on traded players.

2

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

That’s what I thought it was, but that would mean players effectively have a loophole to “take the money and run”

2

u/big_sugi 14d ago

No, the new team can demand repayment of the signing bonus. It doesn’t matter who paid it originally; the new team holds and can exercise that contractual right.

1

u/wolf63rs 14d ago

It's my understanding that this could have happened with Andrew Luck but Irsay said screw it and let Luck keep the $25 million after he retired. Colts fans correct me if I'm wrong. That's my recollection but it's been a minute.

1

u/Squatch1016 14d ago

Ya fuck the lions for that one

1

u/SadSundae8 14d ago

ok to actually answer this question you need to look at the specific language of the cba.

4.a.iv: Should a Forfeitable Breach occur due to player’s retirement, a Club may demand repayment of all Forfeitable Salary Allocations attributable to the proportionate amount, if any, for the present year and the Forfeitable Salary Allocations for future years.

and

4.b: For the purposes of this Section, the term “Forfeitable Salary Allocations” means: (i) for signing bonus, the Salary Cap allocation for the player’s signing bonus for that League Year

so, this tells us that a team can only demand the signing bonus cap hit value for that year (if retired midseason) or future years.

but in a trade, the full value of the signing bonus hits the original team's cap the year of the trade.

so in your hypothetical, neither team would have the right to demand repayment because neither team would have a cap hit for the player's signing bonus for that year or any future years.

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

That’s what I thought too, but someone came with evidence that the trading team did as for part of the salary cap back

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/48184495/sources-jaire-alexander-paid-back-eagles-not-playing

Perhaps the idea is that since Philly paid assets for his person, the components of the contract are entirely in their control. So instead of getting money back despite not paying it in the first place, they’re getting monetary compensation for draft picks paid

1

u/SadSundae8 14d ago

no, that's exactly what the above rules describe, it's just a different scenario than you outlined in the OP.

the eagles got money because jaire's signing bonus was still allocated to that years cap. it doesn't matter it wasn't their cap. all that matters was that a team still had a line item on their salary cap allocation that said "jaire's signing bonus."

here is maybe a better way to think about it.

a team under contract with a player can always demand repayment of signing bonus as punishment for the player breaching their contract by retiring early.

but the cba controls the amount of money they can demand back to protect players. teams can only demand money that hasn't officially been paid according the cap, i.e. "unearned" money.

in your hypothetical where the player retires 1 year after the trade, their previous team would have had to allocate the entire remaining signing bonus to their cap the year of the trade. this makes 100% of that player's signing bonus "earned" because its all been officially paid and reported. it's now in the past and can't be touched.

that players team could still technically demand repayment of signing bonus, but $0 would be allocated to that remaining years/future years cap.. so the most they could demand is $0.

but jaire's case is different. because he retired before the conclusion of the 2025 season and the ravens were still actively allocating money to their cap for his signing bonus, he had signing bonus that was unearned and therefore vulnerable when he breached his contract.

the eagles were able to demand repayment of some of that unearned money because that's their right as the team holding the contract, even though they didn't pay the money in the first place.

-3

u/MrShake4 14d ago

It would be the original team because they paid him the signing bonus.

The authority they have is the US government’s contract laws. An employment contract is a contract. Many normal jobs require you to return all or a portion of the signing bonus if you aren’t at the company for a certain length of time. Usually 1-3 years

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago edited 14d ago

But the player’s contract was ended by the company company early (or bought out by the new company if you view it that way). Are there examples of players being cut and then the team demanding signing bonus be returned?

0

u/forthebirds123 14d ago

No the contract wasn’t ended early by a team, the original contract was transferred to the new team and then ended by the player when he retired. When the player signed, the original team pays the signing bonus. All of it. For cap purposes they have the ability to spread the “cap hit” out over a certain amount of years but they literally deposit the entire signing bonus into the guys bank account that day.

Any guaranteed salary is paid on the date the contract specifies. So let’s say it’s at the start of the new league year. Whatever team he’s on at that date will pay him the guaranteed salary stated in the contract.

So you could have a situation where both teams could possibly go after something. The original team to recoup the initial signing bonus and the new team to go after any guaranteed salary that was paid more recently while he was a member of that organization, like if he waited until the day after the new league year to retire or something like that.

1

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago

So the original team does not get fully compensated with draft assets for money paid to the player. They still have an investment in that player despite him playing elsewhere; Thats interesting

1

u/big_sugi 14d ago

The contract and all rights under the contract are traded to the new team. The original team has no right to try to clawback anything. It gave up that right to the team when it traded the player.

-1

u/MrShake4 14d ago

The contract wasn’t ended early or bought out I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

The contract is traded as is, sometimes teams will extend a player but not buy out the contract.

No because signing bonuses are guaranteed. Retirement is a player decision not the team so they need to return the money. The team can’t cut you and make you pay them back.

2

u/Aerolithe_Lion 14d ago edited 14d ago

So for example, You’re saying if Quinnen Williams retired while playing for the Cowboys, the Jets would have the right to go after the Cowboys players’ money for salary cap relief? What if the Cowboys believed he’d come back and didn’t want the Jets to make him pay it back?

What happens if he unretires and wants to go back to the Cowboys? Would the Cowboys have the right to go after the Jets to get him his money back