Pro Bono wrote:
Also, many law schools have pro bono legal clinics where law students, who are supervised by licensed attorneys, represent clients without charge. I'll bet some idealistic law student would jump at the chance to take this one on.
This is my favorite of all the nutty comments. But it'd be fun to see a "supervised" 3L in court against counsel for an $86 billion corporation.
doot doot wrote:
rojo wrote:I just got a good text from a friend.
Irony? So Adidas wouldn't match Nike's offer and so Nike poached Mo. They lost in this transaction. I don't exactly see the comparison here.
Either way, Mo got paid and honored his contract. In fact, it looks like Nike respects contracts so much that they let Mo (who looks to have been properly advised...) train in a competitor's equipment in their city...
It looks to me like Berian got paid in full by Nike, **very likely** got offered a similar in kind offer from Nike, but chose a second, more immediate pay day.
He and especially his agent should have erred on the side of caution.
(We won't know for sure without the terms. But I just don't buy the propagated notion that Nike is just out to ruin a guy's career. It's a valid business decision.)
At worst case Nike "poached," Mo. Mo wasn't that attractive of an up and coming athlete, as BB was when signed.
Both wanted new coaches / situations / a situation.
AS was probably already an advisor (unpaid, IMS).
Also, IMS, Mo didn't just wait out his adidas contract, there was a buy out negotiation, and adidas chose to let him go.
Anyway find old links?
Either way, it is not an equal comparision.
BB may be a rising star, or continue to be a rising star...
Get that Nike doesn't just "pay" athletes, they "invest" in athletes. Take gambles, and mostly lose on those gambles, ergo, it is important to defend their contracts, and even more so when an athlete who may have a decade of stardom before him jumps ship in a rinky dink way. (If that's what happened).
Frankly I don't see how this ends up good for Boris. I think he and his agent tried to overplay their hand.
Of course everything specific on the actual wording of the contract. And there are two main issues at play The first is what was the right of first refusal, and the second is whether the offer was matched
Going by the complaint and general logic it's hard to imagine that Nike's agreeing to match the New Balance offer was not a contract. It didn't have to match 100% but It did have to match it according to the terms of the 2015 contract. But more importantly according to Nike they wrote back Nike will "match" your new balance contract. It's hard to imagine an argument that claims Nike did not match the new balance contract. The February contract was a memorialization of that match not a new offer.
And it seems pretty clear the right of first refusal wasn't mearly a chance for Nike to bid if Boris got another offer. Because you don't need a right of first refusal to do that. And it would kind of dilute the right of first refusal.
It's kind a like the restricted free agent's in the NFL they can look for another team and get an offer from another team but if there are original team matches the offer that's the contract.
Boris could have avoided this easily. He could've tried to negotiate having no right of first refusal him after the contract. But he probably would've got less money and that the trade off.
It seems his agent had some bad advice by telling him to ignore Nike instead of trying to resolve it. I'm sure Nike doesn't want someone who doesn't want to be on the roster if they don't
That being said this looks bad for Nike because they look like a bully.
Boris' agent should have really provided legal advice to his client with an attorney.
Recovering Attorney wrote:
Frankly I don't see how this ends up good for Boris. I think he and his agent tried to overplay their hand.
Of course everything specific on the actual wording of the contract. And there are two main issues at play The first is what was the right of first refusal, and the second is whether the offer was matched
Going by the complaint and general logic it's hard to imagine that Nike's agreeing to match the New Balance offer was not a contract. It didn't have to match 100% but It did have to match it according to the terms of the 2015 contract. But more importantly according to Nike they wrote back Nike will "match" your new balance contract. It's hard to imagine an argument that claims Nike did not match the new balance contract. The February contract was a memorialization of that match not a new offer.
And it seems pretty clear the right of first refusal wasn't mearly a chance for Nike to bid if Boris got another offer. Because you don't need a right of first refusal to do that. And it would kind of dilute the right of first refusal.
It's kind a like the restricted free agent's in the NFL they can look for another team and get an offer from another team but if there are original team matches the offer that's the contract.
Boris could have avoided this easily. He could've tried to negotiate having no right of first refusal him after the contract. But he probably would've got less money and that the trade off.
It seems his agent had some bad advice by telling him to ignore Nike instead of trying to resolve it. I'm sure Nike doesn't want someone who doesn't want to be on the roster if they don't
That being said this looks bad for Nike because they look like a bully.
Boris' agent should have really provided legal advice to his client with an attorney.
As the article below states
The contention began as other sponsors began pursuing Berian. As a competitor – Boston-based apparel company New Balance – made Berian an offer, Nike returned with an offer that Berian and his representatives didn't think matched New Balance’s.
The issue is that Berian claims the offer wasn't a match. So it will depend on the details. Does NIKE have the right to serve Berian whenever they like? The Hoka One meet is on private property. As far as I can tell Berian scratched due to being served right before his race. Can he claim damages? I assume not, but a thought. I'm wondering if there is any option for a counter suite.
http://www.sportingnews.com/athletics/news/boris-berian-nike-lawsuit-hoka-one-one-middle-distance/xcdsrxczqdx0120r9b0qxmiq8I'd like to watch a televised Battle of Wits between Boris Berian and Tyson Gay.
WTFudge wrote:
Recovering Attorney wrote:Frankly I don't see how this ends up good for Boris. I think he and his agent tried to overplay their hand.
Of course everything specific on the actual wording of the contract. And there are two main issues at play The first is what was the right of first refusal, and the second is whether the offer was matched
Going by the complaint and general logic it's hard to imagine that Nike's agreeing to match the New Balance offer was not a contract. It didn't have to match 100% but It did have to match it according to the terms of the 2015 contract. But more importantly according to Nike they wrote back Nike will "match" your new balance contract. It's hard to imagine an argument that claims Nike did not match the new balance contract. The February contract was a memorialization of that match not a new offer.
And it seems pretty clear the right of first refusal wasn't mearly a chance for Nike to bid if Boris got another offer. Because you don't need a right of first refusal to do that. And it would kind of dilute the right of first refusal.
It's kind a like the restricted free agent's in the NFL they can look for another team and get an offer from another team but if there are original team matches the offer that's the contract.
Boris could have avoided this easily. He could've tried to negotiate having no right of first refusal him after the contract. But he probably would've got less money and that the trade off.
It seems his agent had some bad advice by telling him to ignore Nike instead of trying to resolve it. I'm sure Nike doesn't want someone who doesn't want to be on the roster if they don't
That being said this looks bad for Nike because they look like a bully.
Boris' agent should have really provided legal advice to his client with an attorney.
As the article below states
The contention began as other sponsors began pursuing Berian. As a competitor – Boston-based apparel company New Balance – made Berian an offer, Nike returned with an offer that Berian and his representatives didn't think matched New Balance’s.
The issue is that Berian claims the offer wasn't a match. So it will depend on the details. Does NIKE have the right to serve Berian whenever they like? The Hoka One meet is on private property. As far as I can tell Berian scratched due to being served right before his race. Can he claim damages? I assume not, but a thought. I'm wondering if there is any option for a counter suite.
http://www.sportingnews.com/athletics/news/boris-berian-nike-lawsuit-hoka-one-one-middle-distance/xcdsrxczqdx0120r9b0qxmiq8
Here is a Nike agreement with ROFR language. Granted it's with ASU and not an individual but it seems to track what they say in the complaint.
http://media.oregonlive.com/pac10/other/Arizona-State-Nike-Sponsorship.pdfDMBEAY wrote:
At worst case Nike "poached," Mo. Mo wasn't that attractive of an up and coming athlete, as BB was when signed.
happened).
You think Mo Farah - a guy who was just 27, and was clearly the best distance runner in all of Britain, where the Olympics were going to be held the next year, as he'd just run 12:57 in 2010, wasn't as attractive??
Berian was a 1:43 high guy.
Recovering Attorney. wrote:
Here is a Nike agreement with ROFR language. Granted it's with ASU and not an individual but it seems to track what they say in the complaint.
http://media.oregonlive.com/pac10/other/Arizona-State-Nike-Sponsorship.pdf
Not the same type of contract an individual would sign.
P. 9: 11. RIGHT OF TERMINATION BY UNIVERSITY.
UNIVERSITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to NIKE at any time without further obligation if:
There is no clause for how long ASU (UNIVERSITY) would have to wait to agree to a new sponsorship agreement.
rojo wrote:
DMBEAY wrote:At worst case Nike "poached," Mo. Mo wasn't that attractive of an up and coming athlete, as BB was when signed.
happened).
You think Mo Farah - a guy who was just 27, and was clearly the best distance runner in all of Britain, where the Olympics were going to be held the next year, as he'd just run 12:57 in 2010, wasn't as attractive??
Berian was a 1:43 high guy.
Clearly not to adidas if they didn't offer to match...
Duh.
Recovering Attorney. wrote:
Here is a Nike agreement with ROFR language. Granted it's with ASU and not an individual but it seems to track what they say in the complaint.
http://media.oregonlive.com/pac10/other/Arizona-State-Nike-Sponsorship.pdf
Recovering attorney, that's a GREAT post. Where did you find that>
Under that link, which appears to be a contract between ASU and Nike, it says on page 8.
contract says:
If UNIVERSITY receives any bona fide third party offer at any time on or after the Exclusive Negotiating End Date with respect to any Product Supply/Endorsement, UNIVERSITY shall submit to NIKE in writing any specific terms of such bona fide third party offer. NIKE shall have 15 business days from the date its receipt of such third party offer to notify UNIVERSITY in writing it will enter into a new contract with UNIVERSITY on terms no less favorable to UNIVERSITY than the material, measurable and matchable terms of such third party offer. If NIKE fails or declines to better tha material, measurable and matchable terms of such third party offer within such 15-day period, UNIVERSITY may theraftoer consummmate an agreement with such third paryt on the terms of the offerd made to UNIVERSITY.
DMBEAY wrote:
Get that Nike doesn't just "pay" athletes, they "invest" in athletes. Take gambles, and mostly lose on those gambles, ergo, it is important to defend their contracts, and even more so when an athlete who may have a decade of stardom before him jumps ship in a rinky dink way. (If that's what happened).
Except Nike didn't "invest" much at all in Berian. Before his breakout season, he was just a talented McDonald's worker who couldn't even last in a college program. Nike very likely "invested" the bare minimum one-year deal in Berian and probably signed him to a boiler plate agreement for entry-level athletes. Their minimal investment in Berian came back to bite them when he became a star practically overnight and his contract expired. Now that he has other suitors they want to lock him down long-term and are playing hardball.
We've received a statement from Merhawi Keflezighi on the dispute. It reads.
"Nike has filed a lawsuit for declaratory relief and for injunctive relief regarding an expired contract. The dispute regards interpretation of contract language."
The same type of "contract" Will Leer signed. Will has never been paid a stipend from Nike, just equipment and a contract IF he makes the team which he never has. It isn't "right of first refusal" it is Nike's "option". Poor millenials want to pretend they run for Nike so bad, they sign these things!
That's where adidas is pretty great as a company - they knew Farah wanted to leave and wanted to work with Salazar and they didn't impede and let him go.. they did what was best for the athlete. They know they are bigger than one runner. They have sold more Boost produce without Farah than with Farah. There is always better and greater talent out in the market.
contract says:
... it will enter into a new contract with UNIVERSITY on terms no less favorable to UNIVERSITY than the material, measurable and matchable terms of such third party offer....
^THIS is what is subject to interpretation in the contract. None of them are specific.
Gjfuyhhgggvg wrote:
rojo wrote:So hopefully everyone reads our article as we now have some info. A few comments to some posts that were made while we wrote the article.
This is a great point.
Actually it's a horrible point this is not an employment contract this is a sponsorship agreement two different things
Based on the documents, me thinks Boris is going to lose.
Can't imagine Hawi advising him to ignore, or not honor, or not respond to communication with a sponsor. ..."Former," in his mind, or whatever.
I'd be shocked if Nike's communication with Hawi for client, and to Boris/client, was not by the book legal.
I mean, they aren't paying their pricey lawyers to be stupid.
Based on the documents, it seems like Boris chose to "just blow it off," and it will blow over.
Additionally, Nike could bring suit against Hawi -- if Hawi advised him to illegally ignore his contract. Could that come out in "discovery?" Hawi's a great guy, a real sweetheart, but he could have screwed up here and be vulnerable.
John Legere is being a little quick on the trigger as a CEO of a large company, rotely offering to help an athlete that may have massively screwed up "fair and square," in a contract with another large company. If I'm TMobile's board...I'm wagging a finger at this one in the least.
Just because "you're the little guy," doesn't mean you get to disobey laws and agreements.
If that were the case, I'd own the road.
I like Boris, EVERYBODY likes if not Loves Boris (and his story.)
Doesn't mean he didn't screw the pooch here.
The proper response is probably sadness. Sad story.
Looks like there are at least two interesting issues in this case.
The first is a legal question: does the communication by the athlete to Nike of the NB offer amount to an offer to extend the Nike deal. My guess is yes, but it will depend on the contract's language. If it is an offer, then Nike's acceptance forms a new contract, and Nike can probably enforce it by seeking an injunction against the athlete (meaning a judicial order saying he can't run for NB, not necessarily that he has to run for Nike).
The second is a factual question: are the terms of Nike's acceptance (saying, yea, ok, we'll match that offer) materially similar enough to NB's offer so that the acceptance is valid. This is probably where the lawsuit will get hung up if the terms of Nike's renewed contract are not the same as NB's offer.
FWIW, it's unlikely California law controls this case. More likely Oregon law, or some other state's that is corporation friendly. It depends on what the contract says (something called a "choice of law provision").
Do you guys not understand?
Adidas had no opportunity to match because Nike didn't give Mo an official offer until after the right to match expired.
Even though Mo was training at Nike throughout this period...yep of course they had no offer.
another clerk wrote:
The second is a factual question: are the terms of Nike's acceptance (saying, yea, ok, we'll match that offer) materially similar enough to NB's offer so that the acceptance is valid. This is probably where the lawsuit will get hung up if the terms of Nike's renewed contract are not the same as NB's offer.
Here is a problem point for Nike. Confidential of the material terms. Nike's cannot be shared with anyone like NB, or the public is how I read this. Consistent with applicable law most likely would mean a legal action.
21. CONFIDENTIALITY.
UNIVERSITY shall not (nor shall it permit or cause its employees, agents or representatives to) disclose the financial or other material terms of this Agreement, the marketing plans of NIKE, or other confidential material or information disclosed to UNIVERSITY (including information disclosed during audit), to any third party, except as UNIVERSITY deems consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to the Arizona Public Records statutes.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!