By settling with Kaepernick, the NFL avoids a public airing of grievances against the leagueGETTY IMAGES
Colin Kaepernick and Panthers S Eric Reid on Friday reached a "surprise legal settlement with the NFL," and the agreement "ended with a silence that left hanging whether the league admitted there was any collusion" and whether Kaepernick will play in the NFL again, according to a front-page piece by Draper & Belson of the N.Y. TIMES. There will now most likely be "further discussion, as people debate" whether Kaepernick "was right and what enduring lesson the owners and league might draw from the saga" (N.Y. TIMES, 2/16). ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert noted the settlement came before a hearing would have "forced both sides into a semi-public airing of grievances that could have exposed inner workings of league business" (ESPN.com, 2/15). ESPN's Tedy Bruschi said the settlement's confidentiality agreement means "we will not know if there was collusion." He said, "I thought this was all about them on a mission to prove that it did and I was looking forward to seeing if this happened" ("NFL Live," ESPN, 2/15).
SETTLED PRECEDENT: The N.Y. TIMES' Draper & Belson noted the NFL "has a reputation for using a scorched-earth legal strategy," and its decision to settle both cases has been "viewed by some as admissions of guilt." By settling, owners may have "calculated that they and many fans could then try to move past the contentious issues at the heart of the two cases -- the long-term effects of repeated head trauma in the first instance, and the right of players to protest in the second instance." Attorney Mark Geragos, who represented Kaepernick and Reid, said that he thought Kaepernick would "get a shot at an NFL job now that the litigation is over." He said, "You're going to see within the next two weeks that somebody's going to step up. It would not surprise me if [Patriots Owner] Bob Kraft makes a move." Draper & Belson wrote merely settling the cases "will not make the issues that Kaepernick raised simply go away" (N.Y. TIMES, 2/17). In Houston, Jerome Solomon wrote with the settlement, the NFL "seems to have tacitly admitted there is truth to Kaepernick's assertion that owners colluded to keep him off the field" (HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 2/17). NBCSPORTS.com's Peter King writes many did not see this settlement coming because of "how confident the NFL was in its case." With a strong '18 season "giving the NFL momentum this offseason, it's probably a smart investment for the league to make the Kaepernick problem go away" (NBCSPORTS.com, 2/18). SI.com's Michael McCann gave insight into why a settlement occurred under the header, "What's The Significance?" (SI.com, 2/15). ESPN's Bomani Jones said, "The NFL decided their chances of winning this were not good enough to deal with what would happen if all of this came out in an open proceeding" ("High Noon," ESPN, 2/15).
WINNERS & LOSERS: In Boston, Ben Volin wrote the settlement "seems a bit surprising on both sides." The NFL is "all but admitting that there was indeed collusion keeping Kaepernick and Reid out of the league," and both have "taken some criticism for accepting a dollar amount instead of keeping up the fight." However, in retrospect, a settlement is a "big win for both sides." Kaepernick and Reid "likely received huge windfalls" of between $50-70M or more, and the NFL "avoids having to go to court and the discovery process" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/17). In Dallas, Tim Cowlishaw wrote this is a "loss for the NFL, but it's hard to declare total victory for Kaepernick's side." His cause was "never supposed to be about the money (we were told), but in the end that's all he got" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 2/16). In N.Y., Michael Powell wrote this is an "unsatisfying conclusion" to the case, as NFL owners "almost certainly conspired to blackball Kaepernick." Now he can "say nothing about that travesty." Powell: "It feels a bit like the Freedom Riders integrating a lunch counter and agreeing not to talk about it" (N.Y. TIMES, 2/16). THE UNDEFEATED's Jason Reid wrote Kaepernick "won." He "stood his ground -- and the NFL backed down" (THEUNDEFEATED.com, 2/15). On Long Island, Bob Glauber wrote the NFL has "never backed away from a fight it thought it could win." Given the league's "track record for repeated courtroom victories in a variety of cases, the fact that the NFL wasn't ready to fight this time underscores how sweeping a victory Kaepernick and Reid scored" (NEWSDAY, 2/17). ESPN's Jazon Fitz said, "You can find victory from both sides of it. ... I don't think either side of this is wrong because we don't know." ESPN's Mike Golic Jr.: "The NFL has been used to having these lawsuits hang over their head for a while and I'm sure cutting one off was greatly satisfying for them" ("Golic & Wingo," ESPN Radio, 2/18).
LASTING LEGACY: USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes as it now stands, history will "not look kindly on the NFL -- especially if Kaepernick never plays another down in the league." Many are speculating that the resolution of the case "ensures that Kaepernick won't ever play in the NFL again" (USA TODAY, 2/18). YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote this was "one heck of a victory" for Kaepernick. The fact that the NFL was "willing to concede any ground is significant, if not historic." The settlement payout could include as much as $100M in "lost wages, damages and the convenience of the NFL avoiding discovery." That would cost about $1.5M per owner, and they "probably would have paid 10 times that amount" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 2/15). NBCSN's Chris Simms said, "I don't think this is the kind of money the 32 owners get around and say 'Oh damn, you're affecting a million dollars out of my pocket or my overall bottom line for my business'" ("PFT," NBCSN, 2/18). In DC, Jerry Brewer wrote Kaepernick "took on the NFL ... and stared until the league blinked." The league "likes to fight," and it "likes to win -- and win clearly" (WASHINGTON POST, 2/17). THE ATHLETIC's Lindsay Jones wrote the settlement "has to be viewed as a loss for the NFL, which rarely settles labor grievances with players and has publicly maintained a position that it was up to each individual team whether or not to offer Kaepernick a contract" (THEATHLETIC.com, 2/15). THE MMQB's Albert Breer writes the NFL "wouldn't settle with a player unless that player had something pretty damning." Breer: "I'd say the same would go here, even if there is value in the NFL simply moving past a situation that hurt it on both sides of the metaphorical aisle over the last three years" (SI.com, 2/18). ESPN's Dan Le Batard: "If the NFL paid a great deal of money to make all of this go away to make sure they never got into a courtroom, then they might not be guilty in the court of public opinion but they're not exactly not guilty either when they're willing to spend to make something go away" ("Highly Questionable," ESPN, 2/15).
WHAT NOW? PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio noted the settlement may have included a "permanent separation clause." Lawsuits and arbitrations "arising from employment issues routinely include a declaration that the former employee will not apply for employment with the company and will not accept an offer of employment with the company in the future." For the NFL to have "secured such a provision" in this case would have been "prudent, and it undoubtedly would have been expensive" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 2/16). In Miami, Greg Cote wrote a settlement was "not unexpected." Kaepernick "knew how difficult collusion is to legally prove," and the NFL "wanted to avoid having [Commissioner Roger] Goodell and several team owners deposed and having their cell phone records and emails examined." Whether the collusion settlement "crumbles a wall and makes more likely Kaepernick's return to the league is unknowable, but optimism is tough to feel" (MIAMI HERALD, 2/16).
