The
NFL's antiquated "Funding Rule" dictates that when a team signs a player to a contract with future fully guaranteed money, the owner must deposit that cash into a third-party escrow account immediately.[
1,
2]
Because the
Pittsburgh Steelers and
Cincinnati Bengals feature
"traditional" family ownership models—where the franchise is the family’s primary source of wealth rather than an independently wealthy tech or retail mogul—this rule heavily restricts their cash flow. To protect their liquidity, both teams enforce a strict
organizational policy against guaranteeing money beyond Year 1 of a contract. This creates an explicit friction point in player extensions, leading to distinct escrow and roster impacts.
1. Contract Structure Adjustments
To avoid parking tens of millions of dollars in a zero-interest escrow account, both front offices manipulate contract language rather than giving true future guarantees: [
1]
- The Bengals' "Pay-As-You-Go" Model: Instead of signing bonuses or future fully guaranteed salaries, Cincinnati relies heavily on large roster bonuses or option bonuses that trigger on specific dates early in a league year. If a player is on the roster by March, they get paid, but because it technically isn't "guaranteed at signing," the Browns avoid placing the cash into escrow immediately. [1, 2]
- The Steelers' Traditional Precedent: Pittsburgh historically gives standard signing bonuses (which are paid immediately and don't require long-term escrow), but they strictly refuse to guarantee base salaries in years two, three, or four of a contract. [1]
2. Recent Standoffs and Roster Friction
Because elite players demand modern, fully guaranteed market security, these escrow-dodging policies have caused high-profile contract stalemates for both teams:
- Joey Porter Jr. (Steelers): In September 2026, cornerback Joey Porter Jr. skipped practices and reportedly requested a trade due to a "complicated" contract standoff. Reports confirmed the issue wasn't the annual average salary, but the Steelers' refusal to cross their historic boundary of providing meaningful guarantees beyond year one. [1, 2, 3]
- Shemar Stewart (Bengals): The Bengals faced a notable training camp holdout with their rookie first-round pick, Shemar Stewart, over a controversial clause designed to let the team easily void his guaranteed money for "detrimental conduct". The standoff only ended when Cincinnati compromised by softening the clause and accelerating part of his signing bonus to get him on the field. [1]
3. The Long-Term Impact
While this strategy maximizes the owners' liquid assets and prevents team funds from sitting idle, it hamstrings both franchises in free agency. Many elite, tier-one free agents refuse to sign with the Steelers or Bengals because they can get true, ironclad multi-year guarantees from "cash-flush" owners (like the Broncos' Walton family or the Panthers' David Tepper) who don't care about the immediate escrow penalty.
