We've seen McDonalds suing for making their coffee too hot.
We've seen McDonalds suing for making their coffee too hot.
If Nike had left him alone I'd know that he had signed with some other brand, I may or may not have known it was New Balance, and I'd have forgotten after the Olympics. Now I know Boris is with New Balance because this issue is all I'm hearing about. Nike giving New Balance great, free publicity here.
Boris is NOT yet with New Balance.
In reading the response from his attorneys, he has not yet signed that contract. As far as I can tell, he is competing in his Big Bear TC gear, which as I understandind it was allowed in the prior Nike contract, was in the offer from New Balance and, if they really were going to match, would have to be in the new Nike offer. The fact that Big Bear TC choses to utilize NB gear is, at is core, not a real issue.
Boris will sign his contract on June 30 or thereabouts, after the 180 day waiting period, and will officially be a New Balance athlete, without legal repercussions from Nike at that point, just in time for the trials. I am also guessing, out of the goodness of their heart, NB will pay him a "signing bonus" that represents the first half of his 2016 salary (if they aren't just paying him already even though he hasn't signed.
Hopefully, he will get to compete in his totally awesome Nike gear in Rio.
themanontherun wrote:If Nike had left him alone I'd know that he had signed with some other brand, I may or may not have known it was New Balance, and I'd have forgotten after the Olympics. Now I know Boris is with New Balance because this issue is all I'm hearing about. Nike giving New Balance great, free publicity here.
It's not about publicity. It's about making an example of Berian and deterring NB from sponsoring athletes that Nike wants.
Also, given the personalities of the players, it may be that Capriotti's ego is so involved that proving his toughness may be more important to him than avoiding bad publicity for Nike.
Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.
Ever heard of google?
It's a Sicilian message. wrote:
It's not about publicity. It's about making an example of Berian and deterring NB from sponsoring athletes that Nike wants.
Also, given the personalities of the players, it may be that Capriotti's ego is so involved that proving his toughness may be more important to him than avoiding bad publicity for Nike.
It's about publicity to New Balance. To them, this couldn't have worked out better. Berian is the one that is supposedly in the wrong, not New Balance. Its not going to deter NB from doing anything differently, except maybe from overpaying their athletes, according to the responses of other T&F pros.
800 dude wrote:
Nike's case is even weaker on the question of injunctive relief (whether they can stop Berian from competing in NB). I would not be surprised to see a very strongly worded decision siding with Berian on the TRO.
You are wrong on that one. Nike got a TRO:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/nike-granted-temporary-restraining-order-lawsuit-boris-berian/I would recommend people try and avoid going to federal court at all costs for contractural disputes. I'ts very expensive, plus rulings can go against you.
His team was choosing that path by trying to let the 6 months expire. But now that Berian is in it, he's seeing it's not for the feint hearted.
wejo wrote:
800 dude wrote:Nike's case is even weaker on the question of injunctive relief (whether they can stop Berian from competing in NB). I would not be surprised to see a very strongly worded decision siding with Berian on the TRO.
You are wrong on that one. Nike got a TRO:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/nike-granted-temporary-restraining-order-lawsuit-boris-berian/I would recommend people try and avoid going to federal court at all costs for contractural disputes. I'ts very expensive, plus rulings can go against you.
His team was choosing that path by trying to let the 6 months expire. But now that Berian is in it, he's seeing it's not for the feint hearted.
A TRO and a preliminary injunction are not the same thing. A TRO maintains the status quo for up to 14 days until a full hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction. In this case, since Berian isn't racing in the next 14 days, his lawyers may have agreed to a TRO since it doesn't really affect Berian. The fact that a TRO was issued doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the merits or the ultimate outcome.
At the PI hearing, the judge will have to address likelihood of success on the merits, which will be a much more significant indicator of what the ultimate outcome may be.
Gladwell 💕 Salazar ...
I have to join other commentators on this thread and earlier ones in thinking that so publicly suing Berian was a mistake by Nike. I'm sure this issue hasn't gone beyond the very small track fan community yet, but with the WSJ article, and Gladwell being a kind of TED talk guru, it could. And the decision to pursue a legal attack on Berian is bad for the brand in two ways. One, since Berian is a classic underdog story, from fast food worker to Olympic hopeful, Nike is easily portrayed as a corporate bully. You can say that Nike likes the image of being staffed by Mafioso-like hitmen to impress professional runners and agents that they are not to be trifled with, but this is not a good public image for stylish running gear. Nike's whole pitch now is as a high tech product aiding individual sacrifice and hard work, running free to achieve potential--not ugly disdain for running aspiration, squashing a regular guy to show their power. How long before Nike "Free" becomes a joke among even casual runners?
Second, if the lawsuit should affect Berian's Olympic hopes, or if Berian makes the team and still is faced with the lawsuit, that's a lot of bad attention for Nike in the U.S. It could easily be portrayed by crusading journalists, usually uninterested in track, as the story of a global corporation, (one previously accused of using Asian sweatshops) going out of their way to destroy one of the few U.S. chances at a mid-distance Olympic medal. I myself would feel that way, and Nike would lose my $500 a year of business.
Of course, one hobby-jogger's boycott doesn't make Nike tremble, and maybe the whole thing will just disappear into the courts while sending the intended message to the tiny elite running community. But it seems to me the Internet has really changed the way these messages can spread. I think Nike is risking some damage to the brand during an Olympic year, which would lose them a lot more money than they gained in intimidating athletes and their competitors to prove a point.
Star wrote:
Could this backfire for Nike?
As a company with a lot of money they have a lot to lose and little to gain.
Boris wearing a New Balance doesn't hurt Nike much at all.
But imaging suing Nike for damages if Boris is not allowed to run the Trials and goes on to run the world lead or something like that.
They could get sued for a lot of money and get very bad press.
I doubt they would lose but why is worth the risk?
It's not about Boris. It's about every other Nike athlete who might be tempted to sign with another company. Nike wants to scare them to maintain its dominant position. Win or lose, it's done that. How many athletes have the resources/stamina/interest to fight Nike on cases like this?
If you were a Nike athlete, wouldn't you just conclude that the easiest avenue is to just accept the Nike match? Why would you jeopardize your career in an Olympic year like Boris has when Nike would be paying you as much as you made elsewhere?
wejo wrote:
I would recommend people try and avoid going to federal court at all costs for contractural disputes. I'ts very expensive, plus rulings can go against you.
Nike would be the ones forcing this into federal court. They filed the suit.
konami code wrote:It's not about Boris. It's about every other Nike athlete who might be tempted to sign with another company. Nike wants to scare them to maintain its dominant position. Win or lose, it's done that. How many athletes have the resources/stamina/interest to fight Nike on cases like this?
If you were a Nike athlete, wouldn't you just conclude that the easiest avenue is to just accept the Nike match? Why would you jeopardize your career in an Olympic year like Boris has when Nike would be paying you as much as you made elsewhere?
If this case goes the distance, Boris could easily spend the $125,000 he is set to make just to pay his attorneys. To Nike, the legal fees are nothing, but not many T&F athletes can afford to litigate, not to mention the stress and distraction of litigation.
konami code wrote:
Why would you jeopardize your career in an Olympic year like Boris has when Nike would be paying you as much as you made elsewhere?
But Nike is no longer paying you as much if you don't meet their performance requirements which include posing in Nike gear, and showing face at Nike approved meets? You could be top three in the US in you event, forgo the posings and showing of face, and end up with a huge pay cut.
must perform wrote:
But Nike is no longer paying you as much if you don't meet their performance requirements which include posing in Nike gear, and showing face at Nike approved meets? You could be top three in the US in you event, forgo the posings and showing of face, and end up with a huge pay cut.
NB runners have to pose/do appearances too, though I don't know if the requirements are 100% the same between the companies. Nonetheless, your choices are:
1) re-sign with Nike on similar terms as NB, and in an Olympic year have no other distractions but posing, training, and meets, vs:
2) take a somewhat better long term deal with New Balance, but have to manage litigation on top of training, etc., and you can't get paid/run in NB gear/etc while the litigation is ongoing, and you may be on the hook for damages/fees/expenses.
It's easy to see why Nike wants everyone to choose option 1. They're making option 2 as unattractive as possible not just for Boris but for everyone else.
Star wrote:
We've seen McDonalds suing for making their coffee too hot.
You should actually look into that case. It's not the example of our litigious culture you believe it to be.
the big question is whether New Balance's contract contains a no reductions clause? If it doesn't, then Nike's suit has merit. If it does contain a no reductions clause, then that's a material difference between the two contracts and Nike has NOT matched NB's offer.
Nike might be trying to disrupt Berian's training and racing, but they are giving him a massive infusion of hate. And we all know how that works in the 800.
Nation of Clueless wrote:
Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.
Get out of your little bubble, and go experience the world. Holy crap.
Who is he?
pikerpie wrote:
Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.
Ever heard of google?
I've heard of Google Gladwell, but not Malcolm Google.