Share story

In case you missed it, we had a package of stories today on Russell Wilson and his contract situation with the Seahawks.

The first was this column by Larry Stone on what’s at stake. The other was my look at some of the most frequently asked questions about what’s going on.

One sentence in the FAQ has created a little confusion, based on some correspondence I’ve gotten, so I wanted to try to clarify it will quick.

That sentence involved the fully funding of guarantees. I mentioned that in the story because there had been some talk a few months ago that the Seahawks might guarantee all of Wilson’s contract. The reason for doing that would be that Wilson might give up some a little in the overall value for the extra security — NFL contracts are almost never fully guaranteed.

That, however, won’t happen, as it has been revealed since then that fully guaranteeing the contract is not something that is being discussed (though the percentage of the overall guarantee is something that could play a big role in getting something done).

Something that works against teams guaranteeing contracts is that those deals must be fully funded at signing, requiring teams to front a significant amount of money immediately. That doesn’t mean the player gets all the money at signing, but that the team must provide the money.

That came into play in the case of case of Ndamukong Suh’s signing with the Dolphins. As explained here, Suh was expected to get much of the $60 million in guaranteed money up front with the rest being put into escrow. As is explained here, one reason for that provision is to assure that teams don’t make promises they can’t keep, guaranteeing $80 million or something and then not having the money to see it through.

In the case of Wilson and the Seahawks, though, that’s not expected to be a promise made.