With fight over guarantees begun, Christian Wilkins's contract language becomes relevant
The Raiders have voided more than $35 million in remaining guaranteed payments for defensive tackle Christian Wilkins. Wilkins has filed a grievance challenging the decision.
One key piece of evidence in resolving the claim becomes the language of his contract. The default language, which voids guarantees, from the Wilkins contract appears below.
"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."
There's nothing in this gobbledygook that would apply clearly to a dispute over how to treat an injury. Even if there was - and as a league source pointed out earlier today - the player has a right to rely on medical advice. If an army of Raiders' doctors recommend surgery but the player finds a doctor who doesn't, the player would be within his rights to accept and follow that conclusion.
Regardless, there's no obvious provision in the default language that would give the Raiders the ability to void the guarantees if Wilkins declines to fix the injury in the way the team wants him to fix it.
This raises the possibility that the Raiders may try not to avoid, but void, the guarantees. Remember, the term "full guarantee" is technically inaccurate. A "fully-guaranteed" payment is guaranteed for skill, injury, and cap. The player can be cut for another reason, such as (as the Ravens did with safety Earl Thomas) "personal conduct that has adversely affected" the Raiders.
Regardless, the battle lines are drawn. Even if the Raiders have done so clumsily. On the surface, it's a fight about contract language. At a deeper level, the new regime in Las Vegas seems to be determined to move on from a big-money mistake - and to roll the dice on trying to keep some of the money that already has been committed to Wilkins.