What the Kaepernick grievance is and why it matters
The term Kaepernick grievance refers to former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s complaint that NFL teams colluded to keep him out of the league after his on-field performance declined while his activism intensified. In 2017, Kaepernick opted out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers and filed a grievance under the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement, alleging that team owners acted in concert to deny him employment. The league and the NFL Players Association appointed an independent arbitrator, who ruled in 2018 that there was insufficient evidence to find by clear and convincing evidence that the clubs colluded. This evergreen explainer clarifies the status of the grievance, the legal standards applied, the outcomes for Kaepernick and the league, and why the case remains a reference point for discussions about league discipline, player power, and the intersection of activism and employment in professional sports.
Background on Kaepernick and the origins of the grievance
Colin Kaepernick first entered the NFL as a backup with the San Francisco 49ers, eventually becoming a starter and leading the team to a Super Bowl appearance in the 2012 season. After becoming a free agent following the 2016 season, he remained unsigned despite publicly stating he would accept significant pay cuts to play. During this period, Kaepernick continued to draw attention for kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice and police brutality, a form of peaceful protest that sparked widespread debate. In November 2016, after reporting that he had received no offers despite being publicly committed to playing, Kaepernick and the 49ers agreed to restructure his contract rather than release him outright. The arrangement allowed the team to void the guaranteed money if he was not on an NFL roster by a fixed date, setting the stage for the grievance.
Timeline of key events related to the grievance
- August 2016: Kaepernick restructures contract with the 49ers, converting part of his guaranteed money in a way that allowed the team to void guarantees if unclaimed by a deadline.
- March 2017: Kaepernick opts out of his contract, becoming a free agent.
- April 2017: Kaepernick informs teams he is willing to play for a significant pay cut; no offers are forthcoming.
- July 2017: Kaepernick files a grievance with the NFL under the collective bargaining agreement, alleging collusion by NFL owners.
- May 2018: An independent arbitrator hears the case and issues a ruling.
- August 2018: The arbitrator publishes the decision, finding no clear and convincing evidence of collusion.
- Post-ruling: Kaepernick remains unsigned; the NFL and the NFLPA agree to jointly fund a mediation program for future disputes.
What a grievance means in the NFL context
In the NFL, a grievance is a formal complaint filed by a player or the players’ union against a team or the league regarding the interpretation or enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Grievances can address issues such as contract disputes, discipline, termination procedures, or alleged league-wide conduct that violates the CBA. Collusion grievances specifically involve claims that multiple owners acted in concert to suppress a player’s employment opportunities beyond what a competitive market would allow. The NFL’s grievance process is designed to resolve disputes without litigation, but parties can seek court review if they disagree with the arbitrator’s decision under limited grounds.
Details of Kaepernick’s collusion grievance
Kaepernick’s grievance alleged that NFL owners entered into an unlawful agreement not to sign him, in part because of his national anthem kneeling protests and his potential to disrupt league-wide policy on political expression. Under the NFL CBA, collusion claims require clear and convincing evidence of an agreement or concerted action to eliminate a player from the market. The league and the clubs argued that Kaepernick was not signed because teams judged him as a below-market quarterback whose performance did not justify significant playing time, not due to pressure from other owners. The case proceeded to arbitration, which is provided under the CBA for certain disputes, and the arbitrator issued a decision that became a widely cited precedent on how collusion claims are evaluated in professional sports.
Arbitrator’s decision and its reasoning
The arbitrator reviewed emails, league records, and testimony from team representatives to assess whether an agreement or understanding existed to keep Kaepernick out of the league. The decision emphasized that while many teams shared similar concerns about his ability on the field and the potential disruption of anthem-related protests, the absence of direct evidence of an express agreement among owners led the arbitrator to conclude that the required standard of clear and convincing evidence was not met. The ruling effectively ended Kaepernick’s ability to pursue the collusion claim in arbitration, though he retained other legal options in the courts, which he later pursued.
Key facts and figures at a glance
| Attribute | Verified Detail | Source Type |
|---|---|---|
| Player | Colin Kaepernick | Public records, team transactions |
| Position | Quarterback | Official team rosters |
| Original grievance filing | July 2017 | NFLPA and league statements |
| Arbitrator decision date | August 2018 | Arbitration award summary |
| Collusion claim outcome | Not proven by clear and convincing evidence | Arbitration ruling |
| Subsequent legal action | Kaepernick pursued claims in federal court | Court filings |
| Status as of the early 2020s | No on-field contract; grievance exhausted in arbitration; related civil litigation ongoing or settled depending on case | Public records and statements |
Implications for NFL players and league policy
The Kaepernick grievance established a high bar for proving collusion in the NFL, clarifying that shared concerns about performance or public conduct are not, by themselves, evidence of an unlawful agreement among owners. The decision reinforced that leagues and teams can evaluate players on performance, market considerations, and conduct without automatically running afoul of collusion rules, provided decisions are not the result of a coordinated effort to blackball a player. The case also underscored the importance of the grievance-arbitration mechanism in the CBA as a primary forum for resolving labor disputes, while highlighting the limits of that process when evidentiary standards are not met. Its influence extends beyond Kaepernick’s situation, shaping how future collusion claims are argued and assessed in professional sports.
Current status and ongoing relevance
As of the early 2020s, Kaepernick remains unsigned by an NFL team. He has not participated in an official NFL game since the 2016 season, and his path back to the league continues to be shaped by both legal channels and public discourse. While his specific collusion grievance did not succeed in arbitration, his case prompted widespread attention on league practices, player rights, and the role of activism in sports. The grievance and its outcome remain reference points in discussions about how leagues balance competitive integrity, discipline, and freedom of expression. Many stakeholders continue to monitor how CBA provisions on collusion and discipline evolve in response to this and subsequent cases, and the situation is periodically revisited in media and policy conversations about the NFL’s labor landscape.
Key takeaways
- The Kaepernick grievance centered on allegations that NFL teams colluded to keep him unsigned.
- An independent arbitrator found no clear and convincing evidence of collusion in 2018.
- The case clarified the evidentiary threshold required to prove collusion under the NFL CBA.
- Kaepernick’s status remains that of a unsigned former starter; he has not played in the NFL since 2016.
- The grievance process under the CBA continues to serve as the primary mechanism for resolving labor disputes in the NFL.
Related topics and further reading
For readers interested in deeper context, related subjects include the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement and grievance procedures, the legal standards for collusion in professional sports, the intersection of player activism and employment decisions, and comparable cases involving alleged league-wide discipline or exclusion. Reviewing official CBA language, arbitration awards, and credible legal analyses can provide a more technical understanding of how collusion claims are investigated and resolved.