A new allegation against Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson surfaced Monday. As first reported by ProFootballTalk, a woman, Jane Doe, says Watson “roughly sexually assaulted” her in her apartment while she prepared for a date between the two. The details of the civil suit, which you can read here, have similarities to the pattern of behavior relayed by two dozen of Watson’s previous accusers, though this was supposed to be a date and not an arranged massage. 

On Tuesday, NFL vice president of communications Brian McCarthy told reporters that, “We are reviewing the complaint and will look into the matter under the personal conduct policy.” Because there have been no charges filed—the allegations are contained in a civil lawsuit and not a criminal charge—and because the league’s review has just begun, Watson will not be placed on the commissioner’s exempt list. 

This comes a day after the NFL declined comment when asked by Sports Illustrated about a potential review of the allegations. The Browns have yet to release a statement pertaining to the allegations. 

While the news of an assault should have nothing to do with sports, the fact that the Browns signed Watson on the heels of so many accusations of sexual misconduct and assault—a grand jury in Texas declined criminal prosecution of Watson, and Watson has since settled out of court with a vast majority of his accusers—has inextricably linked Watson, his performances and his actions as an ambassador of the Browns, with his alleged history of sexual misconduct. The revelation of a potentially “new” allegation—more on that below—could possibly alter our perception of what has been viewed as the largest and most ironclad contract doled out in the history of the NFL.  

The Browns signed Watson to a five-year, $230 million deal on March 18, 2022, a week after the grand jury declined to prosecute him criminally. On Aug. 18, 2022, Watson was formally suspended for 11 games and fined $5 million. In a review of the case, former U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson, who served as an arbitrator, noted that, “the NFL has produced sufficient circumstantial evidence … to prove that Mr. Watson knew such sexualized contact was unwanted.”

In light of the new case—and fueled at least in part by Watson’s struggles on the field since he joined the Browns—questions have again risen about the Browns’ ability to cut ties with Watson. While the NFL is in the nascent stages of its investigation, a look at Watson’s contract could provide some answers. Sports Illustrated obtained copies of both Watson’s original contract from 2022 and a restructured deal signed with the Browns the following offseason, and we’ll highlight some relevant passages below. 

Within the document from March 2023, there is a subheading titled “DEFAULT.” In it, the player and team agree on relevant terms that would render Watson “in default of this Contract” where his “2023 Guarantee shall be deemed null and void from the beginning and in its entirety regardless of whether or not the 2023 Guarantee had otherwise been earned in accordance with its terms at the time of Player’s default.” 

This list includes the sustaining of injury while “skydiving, hang gliding, rock or mountain climbing, racing of any kind including as a driver or passenger, motorcycling, use of any off-road or all-terrain vehicle, professional wrestling, boxing, use of firearms, scuba diving, jet skiing, surfing, bungee jumping, basketball,” or if Watson “fails or refuses to report, practice or play with Club for any reason; leaves Club without its prior written consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld); retire from professional football” and more. 

It also includes this clause, which may be relevant now that the NFL has opened its investigation: Watson would be considered in default following an NFL or team suspension “for Conduct Detrimental” or being “suspended under the NFL Personal Conduct Policy” or “the NFL Policy on Performance-Enhancing Substances, or the NFL Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse.” 

It also includes a potentially relevant clause where Watson can be considered in default if he is “reasonably believed by Club to have engaged in personal conduct that materially and adversely affects or reflects on Club or has his contract terminated for engaging in personal conduct that reasonably judged by Club to materially and adversely affect or reflect on Club.” 

This section of the contract also says: excluding the specific facts disclosed to Club in writing pursuant to Paragraph 42.

Here’s what paragraph 42 says, under a heading that says Representation and Warranty: 

“By executing the Contract, Player hereby represents and warrants (except as otherwise disclosed to club in writing), as of the date hereof, that (i) Player has not been charged with, indicted for, convicted of or pled nolo contendere to any felony and/or misdemeanor involving fraud or moral turpitude, (ii) Player has not engaged in conduct which could subject him to a charge, indictment or conviction of any such offense, and (iii) no circumstances exist that would prevent Player’s continuing availability to the Club for the duration of this Contract.”

We do not know whether Watson disclosed the events outlined in the newly surfaced allegations to the Browns before the contract was signed. 

If Watson did not disclose these allegations, and if the allegations result in a suspension that “would prevent [Watson’s] continuing availability to the club,” one could presume the Browns may have an avenue to explore considering Watson in default. 

Obviously, there is a long way to go before team and player separate, and no indication that the Browns are ready or eager to back out of their pact with a player who, just yesterday, was seen in a post on the team’s official X account  smiling as he entered the stadium with the caption “4 The Land.” 

The Browns had no scheduled media availability Tuesday.