J.C. Tretter reiterates claim that he knew nothing about the hidden collusion ruling

NBC Sports

7 days ago

After former NFL Players Association chief strategy officer JC Tretter resigned, he submitted to an interview with Jonathan Jones of CBSSports.com. On Monday, we raised the question of whether Tretter will be doing more.
He will, and he is. Starting on Tuesday with an appearance on The Dan Patrick Show.
Early in the segment, Tretter said this: 'There's been some stories out there about me that aren't true, and I've been asked to sit on that and not talk about it.'
Dan gave Tretter a chance to identify the false reports. Tretter immediately focused on his role, or not, in the hiding of the collusion ruling.
'There's been a lot of narratives spun,' Tretter said. 'The idea that I buried the collusion grievance. I've never seen the collusion grievance. . . . I don't have access to the collusion grievance. I wasn't in any discussions about the collusion grievance, just not part of my job.'
So when did he find out about the ruling in the collusion grievance?
'I know we lost the collusion grievance in January,' Tretter said. 'I knew that. I didn't know of any agreements or what was happening with that because it's not part of my department. Once it leaked a few weeks ago, I started learning more. I was on the board [of player representatives] call and the [executive committee] call when it was explained what had happened over the last six months to the players. So I know more now, but at that point I knew nothing. I wasn't involved in the discussions.'
If Tretter is telling the truth, how is it possible the chief strategy officer wasn't involved in formulating the strategy for turning the outline into maximum leverage for the players? If it's not part of his job, what's his job? If it's not part of his department, what's his department?
And if he wasn't involved in the discussions, why was he even there?
Beyond his current job title, Tretter was the link back to the collusion grievance. He was the NFLPA president when it was filed. He testified in the case. He should have been livid to learn that the ruling had been hidden from him, and that a partial win had been dismissed as a loss.
And while Tretter initially called it a loss, things he said later in the interview made it clear that he realizes — and believes — it could still become a win.
'Now, this is still pending, so even though it was, quote, hidden, it was in a standstill agreement, and the right to appeal was still there,' Tretter said. 'So the NFLPA is appealing. So this is still open and can potentially change. So this is still a pending investigation or a pending matter. And I hope it comes out or I hope it's proven that we are able to prove those other two pieces [i.e., actual collusion and damages] that are needed to win the entire collusion grievance.'
We've since asked the NFLPA for an update on the appeal. While the union used to respond to our questions, that has abruptly stopped in recent days.
It's unclear where the directive is coming from, since the union doesn't currently have an executive director. And it's odd that the union would be adopting an adversarial stance with one of the few media outlets that is committed to the principle that people watch football games to see the players, and that the players should get more pay and better treatment than they experience.
I'll nevertheless remain committed to that principle, and I'll use this platform to get fans to think twice before blindly lining up behind the laundry.