Brandon Aiyuk says he terminated representation agreement, but NFLPA records reportedly show it stayed active

San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk said in a recent social-media video that he terminated a Standard Representation Agreement, commonly referred to as an SRA, with Ryan Williams of Athletes First in November 2025. The claim is notable because an SRA is a key component in how NFL players select and manage their representation in contract and league-related matters, and termination status can affect how negotiations and communications are handled.

According to Yahoo Sports reporting, NFL Players Association records show that Aiyuk’s SRA was still active as of Friday night, which would contradict Aiyuk’s account of when the agreement ended. The difference between what Aiyuk publicly described and what the NFLPA records reflect is the central detail driving the story.

The Yahoo report also frames Aiyuk’s statement as referring to a specific agreement and representative. The published account says that he stated the agreement was terminated on “Saturday,” but that the documentation reviewed indicates the arrangement had not been terminated at least up to the end of the prior week, suggesting either a dispute over effective dates or that the agreement’s status did not change in the way Aiyuk described.

For the 49ers, the episode lands in a sensitive part of the NFL offseason rhythm, when teams and players tend to move through questions of representation, future negotiations, and long-term planning. Even when the dispute is administrative, the optics can matter because they influence how industry observers interpret the posture of a veteran offensive player.

The broader takeaway is that public statements about representation agreements do not always align neatly with how those agreements are recorded or processed. In this case, the only clear, sourced points are Aiyuk’s statement in the video and the reported NFLPA-record status as of Friday night; the underlying “why” behind the mismatch is not established by the publicly available details in the report.

What to watch next is whether the NFLPA-record dispute is resolved or clarified through additional official documentation, commentary from the parties involved, or further reporting that reconciles the effective date of any termination. Until then, the practical impact is uncertainty about the agreement’s timeline and what it means for how communications tied to representation are treated.