Official Thread to Discuss Boris Berian's Contract

asfsdagds wrote:

asakhbasdhvutf wrote:

LOL ... sure, Nike would love to get a hold of ALL the NB contracts for their review. This will happen when Nike yields all of their contracts to NB for NB's review. In others words, it will never happen.

Fine, then just one! All you need is a single counterexample and Nike's argument fails.

Nike's contracts have strong non-disclosure requirements built into them.

So basically - less than a random kid fresh out of law school. Good to know.

Webb had no reductions in his Nike contract.

That's one Nike contract to prove they aren't standard.

Ahem, Webb and others from the past are WHY Nike now has onerous reductions.

All the speculation here about presence or absence of reduction clauses in athletics endorsement contracts ignores the role of discovery in litigation. In the discovery process, Berian is almost certainly going to be able to obtain a lot of information about Nike’s contracts, as well as competitor contracts Nike has been able to obtain. Non-disclosure provisions in the contracts, no matter how strong, concern voluntary disclosure by one or both parties to a contract, and will not control the litigation discovery process. Nike will not be allowed to hide behind contract non-disclosure clauses after Nike itself made reduction clauses in those same contracts highly relevant.

The basic scope of discoverable information under federal court rules is quite broad as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as:

FRCP 26

(b)(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Statue court rules are very similar but may not include the express qualifiers about proportionality, etc. If there had previously been any doubt about the relevance of reduction provisions in other endorsement contracts, Nike has eliminated the doubt by basing its argument on those reduction provisions being ubiquitous. As a result, all athletics endorsement contracts as well as all athletics endorsement offer letters in Nike’s possession or control are relevant to both Nike’s claims as well as Berian’s likely defenses. Almost certainly disclosure of the contracts will be subject to a protective order which can alter what must be produced and the conditions under which the information may be used. For example, a protective order might limit the extent of the contracts which must be produced, might make the contracts for attorneys’ eyes only, and/or might allow redaction, e.g., to remove personally identifiable information.

If the Berian case were ever to go to trial or even if a motion for summary judgment were filed, some of that information would almost certainly be made public, but otherwise it will likely be kept confidential by court order. Still, Berian’s defense would have access to it and it can significantly affect settlement discussions.

good points. Anyone else think this is going to be settled? Plus imagine the bad PR if the top 800m runner were denied to run for his country in Rio by court order! The twitter running universe would go crazy. Even worse for PR, the story would be even bigger than it is now. It'd be a big time news story.

The random kid fresh out of law school is unemployable for the foreseeable future and $125k in debt.

Love Symmond's tweet about Beast TC having no reduction clauses. Uh, Nick, outside of you, what will the other athletes be reduced from?

Does Katie Mackey's contract say "if you fail again, repeatedly, to make a USA team, we're gonna reduce you...?"

Nike has reduction clauses because they sign big contracts for the biggest stars with the biggest potential. At some point does Nike not have the right to reduce Mary Cain's multi year contract if she doesn't perform to the expectations of her agreement? Sorry folks, this is how life works in the real world and not the Fantasy Land Beast TC world.

If you're contracted to lay shingles on 15 roofs over a two month period, but you only complete six jobs, well guess what??

Anyway, I ran for a major competitor and I had a reduction clause. NB has reduction clauses too.

Without the Letsrun Hates Nike spin, it sounds like from the documents I've read that Nike acted in good faith and simply wanted to match the NB even if it meant no educations for BB, but NB and BB were trying to play if fast and loose. I'm not falling for it.

Gaffers wrote:

Sorry folks, this is how life works in the real world and not the Fantasy Land Beast TC world. .

In the real world if Nike makes mint on an athlete the athlete gets a pittance. That is how the real business world works: one-sided in the company's favor.

I am intrigued at the travel allotment. Only $5,000 would seem to indicate he will be paying out of pocket some serious money if he spends any time in Europe. Which he will.

Symmonds makes 500k a year from Brooks just base salary

It is no surprise someone like Berian would receive decent scratch irregardless if it is $125,000 or $75,000 base salary.

What is really intriguing is the details of a struggling pro's contract.

Choose from:

Nicole Bush

Rochelle Kanuho

Sean "Quigs" Quigley

Colleen Quigley

Any Oiselle woman other than Kara

Ben True

Fellnagel

Anna Willard

Renee Metevier Bailley

Anyone from Zap Fitness (Ryan Warrenburg?)

This thread ain't a thread until Moe's Tavern chimes in big time...

I thought they paid way more for Olympic gold and, especially, world records. Maybe because he's lower profile and only just emerging? I wouldn't imagine Puma paying Usain Bolt anything less than high six figures. The same with Adidas for David Rudisha. At least it's a living wage because I heard MLS players make much, much, less.

messi wrote:

irregardless

CRINGE

It seems to me that Nike has done everything required from their end in the process, at least based on the limited information that is public at this point. The LetsRun article mentions that in a January 22 letter (from Nike to Berian), Nike had requested Berian "to confirm whether reductions or any other material terms were excluded from written terms" of the New Balance term sheet provided to Nike. In the same letter, Nike expressed its intention to match all material terms of the New Balance contract. To me, this demonstrates that Nike intended to match any reduction clauses (or lack thereof) in the New Balance contract.

Do we know of any response to this request from Berian's group? If Nike was properly informed of a lack of any reduction clauses in the New Balance contract, then it would appear that they clearly have not matched the terms of the contract. However, if no such information was provided to Nike by Berian, it would seem to me that he is in the wrong and in violation of Nike's right of first refusal.

Just my $.02

It kind of seem that Berian's camp was interested in getting out of the Nike contract rather than negotiating in good faith.

so you just finished your first year and are eager to pretend you learned something in Civ Pro.?

Up Side wrote:

Gaffers wrote:

Sorry folks, this is how life works in the real world and not the Fantasy Land Beast TC world. .

In the real world if Nike makes mint on an athlete the athlete gets a pittance. That is how the real business world works: one-sided in the company's favor.

So don't sign a bad contract.

Or better yet get a job in the real world where you have ZERO protects. These pampered elites have no perspective on reality.