The NFL Players Association’s (NFLPA) player report cards over the last few years have provided an illuminating look into what really happens behind the scenes for all 32 teams. They have shown the general football-watching public just how neglectful many NFL owners are when it comes to providing consistent, quality working conditions for their most valuable laborers, namely NFL players (who remain anonymous when filling out survey reports).
In other words, the NFLPA has used these report cards to hold extremely wealthy but also extremely cheap businesspeople accountable for not taking better care of league players.
The results of these public-facing report cards, unsurprisingly, do not sit well with NFL owners who are particularly indifferent and thoughtless.
According to ESPN’s Seth Wickersham and Don Van Natta Jr., the NFL has, on multiple occasions, tried to nix the release of these player report cards. Once, in 2024, and again in June of this past summer. With the NFLPA declining on both occasions, citing the effectiveness of airing out this sort of dirty laundry, the NFL, at the behest of upset owners whose reputations are being dragged through the mud, has filed a legal grievance it would like decided on in February 2026.
What’s one of the reasons NFL executives are upset about these report cards?
They feel that the clearly detailed report cards — which have hundreds of words about where players feel their leadership falls short in multiple aspects and which are also inherently specific in their very nature — read more like mocking insults rather than providing constructive feedback.
Hmm. The math ain’t mathing for the people with a lot more power and influence in this dynamic.
More from ESPN:
Team owners and executives told ESPN that the topic of the report cards arose at a recent owners meeting, during a discussion over what management would like to change in future CBAs. Ownership sources told ESPN that they value the report cards but feel that because the union only issues general grades and not specific feedback, they serve as an instrument to mock teams without telling them which areas need improvement.
“It could make you better,” a team executive told ESPN, “but they don’t share how. They just take snippets to embarrass people without sharing the data.”
I’m so curious what “sharing the data” means in this context. Because, again, the “data” is shared.
If, for example, players on a specific team say their weight room is awful and outdated, then that’s literally the feedback. Nothing more needs to be said. Upgrade the weight room! I don’t know how you could spell it out any more. Sharing factual, grounded criticism in itself is not meant to mock or embarrass. It’s to demand better. That, to me, almost reads like executives want to know the names of players who are rightfully asking for better working conditions.
Needless to say: There’s a reason these report cards remain anonymous.
The real kicker in this shameless legal process over a labor union actually doing its job is that some owners sound frustrated about having to spend more money on people who work for them. Heaven forbid!
Take the New York Jets’ Woody Johnson, for instance. Johnson received an F grade for ownership in the Jets’ most recent player survey, which was last among all owners. Now, he’s one of the biggest critics railing against the report cards for “not being balanced” or “honest,” whatever those sentiments mean when they’re coming from a glorified charlatan.
More via ESPN:
[Woody] Johnson said he took issue with “how they collected the information [and] who they collected it from. [It] was supposed to be according to the agreement we have with the league. It’s supposed to be a process [where] we have representatives, and they have representatives, so we know that it’s an honest survey.
“And that was violated, in my opinion. I’m going to leave it at that, but I think there are a lot of owners that looked at that survey and said this is not fair, it’s not balanced, it’s not every player, it’s not even representative of the players.”
I don’t know, man. I’m no Business Expert™ by any means, but the solution seems pretty simple to me. Owners like Johnson could, perhaps, look inward and reflect on their players being frustrated with how they do business. Rather than dishonestly try to take a labor union to task, they could, simply, make a greater investment in the most visible people of their organization who make them the most money. That’s what I personally would do if I cared about my players.
But then again, my heart isn’t a black hole hollowed out by more money than I will ever need in countless lifetimes. Darn. Clearly, as a human being with normal moral standards, I don’t have the life experience to make this sort of call.
I guess that’s too much to ask for affluent people who want to be liked for owning a popular business without doing any of the work.
