49ers’ Richard Sherman explains why he voted against CBA proposal

The executive committee of the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) voted 17 to 14 on Tuesday night (one abstaining) in favor of passing the proposed collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to the rest of the NFL's players. Those players will soon vote for or against the proposal. Although, no timeframe for such a vote has officially been set.

Should the majority vote for it, the NFL and NFLPA will have a new 10-year CBA. The league hopes to have it in place by the start of the new league year on March 18.

Among the 14 to vote against approving the proposal was San Francisco 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman, who has long advocated for player safety and has made his position clear on the potential move to a 17-game regular season. That, of course, is an item that the NFL is unwilling to drop from the proposal.

Sherman tweeted out on Wednesday that player health and wellness is at the forefront of his priorities when it comes to all negotiations, and feels a 17-game season adds more risk to players.

RELATED CBA proposal passes another hurdle, moves on to NFL player vote

Adam Schefter of ESPN reported on Wednesday morning that Sherman was among the loudest voices on a conference call last week meant to discuss the proposed CBA. Members of the NFLPA executive committee, including Sherman, met for hours with NFL owners on Tuesday in Indianapolis, and eventually voted whether or not to pass the proposal to the rest of the league.

Schefter reported that Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was among the biggest objectors during Tuesday's meeting.


Sherman explained via Twitter on Wednesday why he voted against the proposal. His tweet was in response to another by Rodgers, who outlined his thoughts on the CBA.


Below is what Rodgers wrote and posted via screenshots within his tweet.

I voted no last night.

My decision to vote No is based off of the conversations I have had with the men in my locker room that I'm tasked to represent. This deal will affect every player that ever plays this game and we have made this decision with only an abbreviated version of the deal and that isn't good enough. Although I do see that there are many things in the proposal that improve the lives and care for past, present, and future NFL players, there are issues with others.

16 games to me, was never something to be negotiated. The owners made it clear that the 17th game is about paying for the "added" benefits, and had nothing to do with positive feedback received about any extra risks involved with the added regular season game (also an extra game for every 2 seed moving forward on Wild Card weekend, i.e. GBP 2019=no bye).

There were also many issues raised about the workplace, the workload and the offseason program. Some have been addressed, while others have not. With an extra game added to the schedule, added risk, and longer stretches before and after the bye week, we felt is was important to address adding more offseason recovery time. The ideas discussed would not add costs for teams, in fact if anything, would lessen some of the them.

My involvement has been far less than the negotiating team, the EC and the owners in these conversations, and I'm sensitive to that and appreciative of the time and sacrifices made. My involvement as a player rep, and a 15 year player in this great game though, allows me this platform to share my opinion, and at the same time, requires me to speak on behalf of the sentiment I hear from my teammates.

The value of our players and the strength of the NFLPA can only be realized, if we ourselves know and believe in our worth. I respect the democratic nature of this process and have been, and will continue to talk with my teammates on the Packers, and my colleagues across the league