Key Answer
Yes. Colin Kaepernick and the NFL reached a settlement in 2019 that resolved his grievance, though the exact amount was not disclosed publicly. The case was not about employment or reinstatement, but about the league's handling of its collective bargaining agreement during the national anthem protests that began in 2016.
What Prompted the Legal Action
Kaepernick first knelt during the national anthem in preseason 2016 to protest racial injustice and police brutality. After becoming a free agent in early 2017, he went unsigned despite stating he was willing to play. He filed a grievance under the NFL's collective bargaining agreement in October 2017, alleging that team owners colluded to keep him out of the league in retaliation for his peaceful protest.
The Central Allegation
The core of the grievance was that NFL owners violated the league's labor agreement by colluding not to sign or trade for him. Kaepernick's legal team argued that owners communicated to avoid signing him to punish his activism, which they claimed was a protected form of speech under the agreement and under the law.
Timeline of the Case
The grievance moved through several stages, including an NFLPA-conducted investigation, a hearing with an impartial arbitrator, and mediation. The process highlighted tensions between labor rights, free expression, and league policy. The case lingered for years as parties sought resolution, with significant disclosures about league communications during discovery shaping public understanding.
| Date or Period | Event | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| August 2016 | Kaepernick begins kneeling during the national anthem | Sparked a league-wide debate on race, protest, and the role of athletes |
| March 2017 | Kaepernick becomes an unrestricted free agent | No team signs him despite stating he was willing to play |
| October 2017 | Grievance filed against the NFL | Alleged collusion under the collective bargaining agreement |
| February 2019 | Settlement reached | Case resolved without a public damage award; league adopts policy allowing on-field protest |
The 2019 Settlement
In February 2019, Kaepernick and the NFL announced a settlement. The league agreed to implement policy changes, including allowing players to stay in the locker room during the national anthem and establishing a process to review anthem-related practices. The specific financial terms were not disclosed, consistent with typical confidential settlement agreements, but the resolution effectively closed the grievance.
What the Settlement Did Not Do
- It did not require the NFL to rehire Kaepernick or provide a job guarantee.
- It did not include a public admission of liability by the league.
- It did not end the broader conversation about athlete activism and league rules.
Impact on the League and Athletes
The case influenced how the NFL approached player protests, leading to a brief period where players could stay in the locker room during the anthem. That policy was later revisited and changed. Kaepernick's grievance also emboldened other athletes to speak on social issues, reshaping the landscape of athlete activism and labor negotiations in professional sports.
Why the Case Still Matters
Kaepernick's grievance remains a landmark example of how labor law, free speech, and corporate policy intersect in professional sports. It set a precedent for how players challenge league practices and informed later collective bargaining discussions, including those around social justice initiatives and player expression.
Persistent Questions
While the legal dispute is closed, questions remain about the long-term effects of the settlement on league policy and whether the grievance achieved its broader aims. Debates continue about the role of activism in sports, the balance of power between leagues and players, and how anthem-related expression is managed under current agreements.
Bottom Line
Colin Kaepernick did sue the NFL, settling his grievance in 2019. The case centered on allegations of collusion under the collective bargaining agreement and led to policy changes around anthem demonstrations. It was less about getting his job back and more about challenging how the league managed labor rules in response to peaceful protest.