The NFL’s decision to deny Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby’s request for entry into the league via the supplemental draft has placed the NFL Players Association under scrutiny.
When the NFL on Tuesday informed Sorsby of the decision to deny his application, encouraging him to focus on his personal growth and preparations for the 2027 annual draft, his attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, told The Athletic: “This is an unlawful act in violation of the CBA. The player is going to bring this to the NFLPA.”
Kessler has served as outside counsel for the NFLPA for several decades. He also has the freedom to represent players independently. However, he may have spoken out of turn when referencing support from the NFLPA, and his stance doesn’t at all guarantee that the players union will assist Sorsby in a fight against the NFL.
NFL supplemental draft explained: What it is & how it works
Jayna Bardahl
The NFLPA represents the players in negotiations to protect player rights, including fair wages, safe working conditions and adequate benefits. The collective bargaining agreement — an 11-year pact by which the league and the union abide — comprises those provisions and more.
The NFL’s annual college draft and supplemental draft are among the many items that the owners and players collectively agreed upon, and the CBA states that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has the discretion to decide whether to hold a supplemental draft.
Sorsby sought early entry into the NFL through the supplemental draft after dropping a legal battle against the NCAA, which deemed him ineligible for violating college football’s gambling rules, including betting on his own team prior to his transfer from Cincinnati to Texas Tech.
Although the union’s mission involves protecting player rights, including employment opportunities, the NFLPA and owners agreed to the terms of the annual draft and the supplemental draft.
Additionally, players don’t become eligible for NFLPA representation until they are drafted or go undrafted and sign a free-agent contract with a team. Sorsby checks neither box, which makes Kessler’s stance peculiar.
On Tuesday evening, a union source, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity because they aren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said union leaders and its legal team were in the process of reviewing the situation to determine what, if any, action they would take, and whether Sorsby had any legal grounds that would warrant the NFLPA lending its support. Popular perception is that the NFLPA is always eager to lock horns with the league over player rights.
However, the union has taken a cautious approach in this case. Assisting Sorsby in his attempt to contest the NFL’s decision could put it in a sticky situation.
According to two union sources, NFLPA officials would be inclined to join the fight only if they believed the outcome of this decision would set a precedent. However, the NFL and the union have agreed to strict anti-gambling policies, and players found guilty of betting on any NFL games set themselves up for a minimum one-year suspension. Players guilty of betting on their own games draw suspensions of two years at a minimum. Seeking immunity for a future union member guilty of betting on his own team repeatedly could lead to conflicts between NFLPA leaders and current membership.
This isn’t the first time the NFLPA has opted against assisting a player pursuing early entry into the NFL via legal action. In 2003, suspended Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett attempted to sue the NFL to gain early entry into the league, claiming that the league’s requirement of three years’ removal from high school for draft eligibility was unlawful.
The NFLPA did not provide assistance to Clarett; rather, the union supported the stance held by the league. Clarett’s case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, but he ultimately lost his bid for early entry and was deemed ineligible for the 2005 annual and supplemental drafts.
It’s very possible that the union could take the same course of action in this case.