According to Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman, exiled Colin Kaepernick may be preparing an official collusion complaint against NFL owners.
Freeman tweeted Sunday that the polarizing QB is readying a statement and may have enlisted the services of criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos to represent him. Geragos has represented other celebrities and high-profile clients such as Michael Jackson, Gary Condit, former first brother Roger Clinton, Winona Ryder, Nicole Ritchie and Chris Brown.
If Kaepernick were to accuse NFL owners of colluding against him and staging a group boycott against giving him a job, the free-agent QB would have his work cut out for him.
He would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that more than one team owner or executive actually had a discussion and plotted to keep him out of football.
Collusion also doesn't require all 32 teams working together. As few as two individuals can collude against a player to trigger a legitimate antitrust infraction, according to legal experts.
If Kaepernick can prove so much as an email exchange or a text message or a phone call took place between just two people agreeing not to sign him, the CBA stipulates he could claim economic damages (likely the average contract QBs were getting from teams this offseason), as well as additional compensation equal to double whatever those lost wages calculate to.
NFL players have been calling it collusion for months.
"I would love to see him push back, because I do think he's been blackballed, and there's plenty of quotes from owners or whoever saying they're afraid of the backlash they would get," Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins told the Daily News in August. "With all the attention and people that are following him and ready to support Kaepernick, I think he should (file a complaint)."
The NFL has very clear and strict rules outlawing teams from colluding against players. Article 17 of the CBA prohibits teams from working together against players and states any victims of collusion are entitled to double damages.
Stop for a minute and just imagine the gravity and spectacle of such a case: the NFL on trial for conspiring against a player because of his racial, social, and political beliefs.
"Proving collusion is difficult," Eagles defensive lineman Chris Long said. "It's obvious he's being blackballed on some level, and that in and of itself, is problematic."
In the 1980s, free-agent baseball players proved MLB owners were conspiring against them to keep salaries down. An arbitrator awarded the players $280 million in damages.
Two years ago, Barry Bonds claimed MLB owners were also colluding against him when he was a radioactive free agent dogged by steroid allegations in 2007. He could not produce hard evidence teams were working against him and arbitrator Frederic Horowitz ruled against Bonds, an example of what happens if you bring a collusion claim based on circumstantial evidence. Winning requires more than just every team taking a pass on you.
"The challenge with making a successful collusion claim, both under antitrust law and under a sports collective bargaining agreement, is factually proving the wrongdoing," Marc Edelman, a sports law expert and law professor at Baruch College, said.
"When the Major League Baseball Players Association successfully proved collusion by the club owners, the players association was able to produce a smoking gun memo indicating a plan to collude. However, here it is reasonably likely that no such memo exists.
"Even if the absence of a smoking gun memo or other explicit evidence, it is still possible to prove collusion where a reasonable person could exclude the possibility of a given outcome absent collusion," he said. "However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation."
