The Raiders released star defensive tackle Christian Wilkins on Thursday and the sides will soon begin a legal tug of war over the remaining guarantees in the four-year, $110 million deal Wilkins signed a year ago.
The Raiders released a statement following Wilkins’ release and accused Wilkins of having “no clear path or plan for future return to play.”
A little more than $35 million is now at stake between Wilkins and the Raiders, and NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport believes the legal battle could last as long as two years.
Unless the Raiders know something about Wilkins’ rehabilitation process that hasn’t been made public, it could be a challenge for the organization to avoid paying him the remainder of his guaranteed money.
One reason that could be true is because two months ago their head coach told members of the media that Wilkins was doing everything he needed to do to get healthy.
“This has been a difficult recovery and he’s done everything he needs to do,” Carroll said of Wilkins in May.
“He’s been here every day. He’s here early, working hard, but we’re still working it, and he’s not ready to get back out,” Carroll continued. “We’re in the midst of a long, challenging process here. So, fortunately there’s a lot of time, and we’re going to take every bit of it. We’ve really tried to be really diligent about the way we’ve worked it and the way we’ve monitored it and all of that, and he’s really been on board the whole time. But it has been challenging.”
A lot has apparently changed since Carroll made those comments and there’s no question that NFLPA lawyers have his quote bookmarked and saved.
It’s possible the Raiders learned something that Wilkins did or didn’t do since Carroll’s comments, but at face value they present a problem for the Raiders in their case against their former defensive star.
ProFootballTalk’s Mike Florio, who made his name reporting on NFL legal matters, believes Wilkins might have the upper hand in the upcoming legal squabble.
Florio believes the Raiders are going to have a hard time winning the case based on the information available at this time.
As a former lawyer, Florio said he found nothing obvious in Wilkins’ contract to suggest the Raiders could avoid paying him based on the notion that Wilkins didn’t want to have a second surgery.
Per Florio, the language in Wilkins’ contract reads as follows…
“If at any time Player: 1. does not report to Club; 2. does not practice or play with Club; 3. leaves Club without prior written approval (including, but not limited to retirement or incarceration, unless such incarceration is for no more than 72 hours, provided that Player does not miss a game during such incarceration); 4. does not honor any terms of the Contract (including any addenda thereto); 5. is suspended by the NFL or Club for conduct detrimental, violation of the NFL Personal Conduct Policy, violation of the NFL Policy on Substances of Abuse, or violation of the NFL Policy on Performance-Enhancing Substances; 6. violates any other agreements between Club and Player; 7. is injured or dies as a result of a breach of Paragraph 3 of the Contract or as a result of participation in hazardous activities which involve a significant risk of personal injury and are non-football in nature (including but not limited to skydiving, hang gliding, mountain climbing, auto racing, motorcycling, scuba diving, skiing, and any other sports): 8. engages in egregious conduct judged by Club to significantly and adversely affect or reflect on Club, in Club’s sole discretion; or 9. commits any Forfeitable Breach (as defined in Article 4, Section 9(a) of the CBA), then Player shall be in default {‘Default’) and the Skill, Injury and Cap Guarantee shall be null and void and Player shall only be eligible to earn his remaining stated Paragraph 5 salary on a weekly, non-guaranteed basis, if Player is on Club’s roster for the 2025 League Year and meets all ordinary criteria for earning Paragraph 5 salary, subject to any applicable fees. It is expressly understood and agreed that Player’s waiver of rights to certain unpaid amounts as indicated above are express provisions of this Agreement and, but for these provisions, Club would not have executed the Contract. Player’s failure to report to Club, practice with Club or play with Club due solely to an NFL suspension of two games or fewer for an in-game violation of NFL Playing Rules shall not constitute a Default.”
But if the case was really a slam dunk for the NFLPA, why would the Raiders have chosen this path with Wilkins?
Is it possible there is a ‘smoking gun’ in the situation that hasn’t been reported?
Clearly, the Raiders weren’t leaning towards releasing Wilkins two months ago.
Inquiring minds would love to know what changed between Carroll’s comments on May 21 and now.
x: @raidersbeat
One of the RaaDuhs Biggests Busts Ever … especially if you add in taking Tyree over Jalen Carter and then needing to sign Wilkens because they still needed a force inside. Maybe they can steal Hendrickson from the Bengals … but I doubt it .
Last I checked, Hendrickson plays DE not DT. Plus that would be too much cap space tied up in the DE positions.