Holy cow!! Nike just served Boris Berian at the Hoka One One Meet - They are suing him for breach of contract

Pacty Mate wrote:

I'm doubtful Nike would go after BB if there wasn't an airtight case against a breach on his part. Folks, Track & Field entered the professional age a few years back. Top athletes like BB are being offered sizeable contracts. This is a good thing and we should applaud the few companies that are providing these contracts.

Posted the Nike Internet Community Coordinator.

I'm not sure what this "professional age" you are describing is when most of the sports "professional" athletes would earn more as a barista.

If you mean, "a sport dominated by Nike with the support of USATF/IAAF" then yeah.

Nike mission wrote:

If he'd stuck to the contract stipulations he could only compete unattached for those 6 months?

Nike doesn't get 6 months to endless try to match other contracts. Nike made a their 'match' under Nike's terms. NB made their offer under NB's terms.

Nike likely matched the money amount, but not the terms of guaranteed money, or money made for performances.

Non-Compete wrote:

Nike mission wrote:

If he'd stuck to the contract stipulations he could only compete unattached for those 6 months?

Nike doesn't get 6 months to endless try to match other contracts. Nike made a their 'match' under Nike's terms. NB made their offer under NB's terms.

Nike likely matched the money amount, but not the terms of guaranteed money, or money made for performances.

I subscribe to this theory. The other compelling issue already mentioned - what was Berian supposed to run in between 1/1/2016 - 6/30/2016? The intriguing 180 days.

There is just not enough information available yet to make an informed decision; don't arbitrarily make Nike the bad guy just yet.

Take a look at Hawi's web site of athletes. Cleary he is not savvy to the game of contracts.He would not exist as an agent if was not for his brother.Boris does not have a contract experience, nor does his coach. NB only knows what Hawi told them, no problem.

What should Hawi do? Jump on a plane to Beaverton and get this resolved asap.His legal expertise is limited clearly, get a local Portland lawyer who knows contract law and has dealt with Nike before.

Lesson for other athletes? Be savvy, do your homework on agents,look at their roster ask the shoe companies who does a good job, ask coach's who they like working with. Don't settle for a nice person or reduced commission this is a professional relationship that has the balance of your athletic career in their hands.

Sure thing, Nike Internet Communications shill.

That's semantics. Whether he received a physical check or was wired $, he was compensated. He apparently accepted this compensation or Nike would not have made the claim in their plea.

I'm generally pro-athlete, but not reflexively so. In this case it appears that BB is in the wrong.

I agree with what a previous poster said--I don't think the courts can make him run for Nike, but I also think Nike can make him NOT run for a competitor.

Seems like a classic lose-lose proposition.

The last point I'd make, not being a lawyer, but having negotiated a lot of contracts as a business-person, is that the ROFR is a one-sided condition in Nike's favor. But, you can't, therefore, just take it out of the agreement (as some posters suggest). If BB wanted to take it out before the initial deal was signed, he likely would have gotten significantly less cash from Nike. So, he benefited by having that provision in his deal. He can't just ignore it now that it's inconvenient.

Why did BB's agent send the contract over to Nike if he had no intention of taking it? Did he think Nike wouldn't match it? Was he trying to get more out of New Balance? I would hope he told New Balance about the clause (or New Balance would have known about it, since it is common place in majority of sponsorship contracts, including their own). Seems like BB and his agent wanted away from Nike and when Nike matched the offer, they were left backpedaling and hoped that not signing any offer would for the remained of the 180 days would allow him to sign wherever he wished. Nike claims that BB is receiving gear and/or money either from New Balance directly or the track club, which is also a violation. I hope they can create and back date some receipts, prove he paid for his own travel, hotels, entry fees, etc., otherwise I'd say Nike can win this case handily and we will see BB rocking nikes at the trials when he finishes up the track and off the team. He then will bash nike to interviewers, using the suit as an excuse and find himself in even more trouble.

OtherSports wrote:

Why did BB's agent send the contract over to Nike if he had no intention of taking it?.

Go read the ASU Nike contract. The terms of the contract are considered confidential unless, like ASU being a public entity, the contract must be available to the public. An agent won't send one companies confidential contract to their competitor company.

Non-Compete wrote:

Nike mission wrote:

If he'd stuck to the contract stipulations he could only compete unattached for those 6 months?

Nike doesn't get 6 months to endless try to match other contracts.

I guess they wanted Boris unattached for 6 months if the wasn't going to wear a swoosh.

It wouldn't be the first time soft penalties for end were bundled into a contract like that. It also wouldn't be the first time one party decided the relationship wasn't over and sent money to give the appearance of an existing contract.

Hopefully it wasn't the athlete's agent that mucked this one up and it is Nike being the totally consistent T&F bully. There are still too many questions.

You are assuming that the ROFR clause in the contract is legal. It may not be, depending on the venue and how the court interprets it. Without seeing the specific contract language, it's impossible to put forward a conclusion. Just because something is in a signed contract doesn't make it valid in the eyes of the law.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Non-Compete wrote:

Nike doesn't get 6 months to endless try to match other contracts.

I guess they wanted Boris unattached for 6 months if the wasn't going to wear a swoosh.

It wouldn't be the first time soft penalties for end were bundled into a contract like that. It also wouldn't be the first time one party decided the relationship wasn't over and sent money to give the appearance of an existing contract.

Hopefully it wasn't the athlete's agent that mucked this one up and it is Nike being the totally consistent T&F bully. There are still too many questions.

This is all about: Nike's opinion of a match vs. NB's opinion of a match.

There is so much legalese in these types of contracts, most of it subject to interpretation, that it is impossible to understand what is implied. A judge will not side with Nike if the contract is overly buried in legal jargon.

BTW, to those who claim Nike's attorneys would write rock solid contracts, guess again. Attorney's make their money by writing and, over time, rewriting agreement terms. They make money by litigating whatever the result may be: lawyers eat first. If they wrote a "perfect" contract, and never litigated, they would eat a lot less.

Why send confidential info? wrote:

OtherSports wrote:

Why did BB's agent send the contract over to Nike if he had no intention of taking it?.

Go read the ASU Nike contract. The terms of the contract are considered confidential unless, like ASU being a public entity, the contract must be available to the public. An agent won't send one companies confidential contract to their competitor company.

You missed my point. The contract offer was and had to be sent to Nike. He was to send any offer he was going to accept to Nike and Nike had 10 days to match or allow him to accept the other offer. Nike matched it, which per the language of the lawsuit, created a new binding contract. His best argument at this point is that Nike's "matching" contract, was not actually matching. If it was he is screwed. I also bet once the trail of a McDonald's worker with no money was able to travel to indoor meets and pay for all his gear and entry fees, it will be tied to New Balance giving/paying the bills.

His agent gave him bad advice thinking Nike wouldn't match the contract and then when they did by not saying hey buddy Nike matched, we have to sign with them. It sucks because BB is the one who is getting screwed for his agents mistakes. He should not have submitted any offers to Nike to be reviewed, competed unattached, lived off a loan from his agent to cover the 180 days of expenses, and on day 181 signed with whoever he wanted for a amount that also covered the loan balance owed (i.e. 70k for the remained of 2016 plus 70k a year for x years)

What you missed is that the Nike [ASU] contract stated the contract is confidential. That means it cannot be shared with others. The ASU contract is available because contracts with public entities must be available to the public. Yet, even though Nike knows that the ASU contract must be made public they still shove their confidentiality agreement in their.

Nike does this with contracts in every sport. Major league sports teams do this with every contract for restricted free agents. A contract offer is also different than a signed contract. BB claims he signed no contract, which I am guessing is accurate. Per his Nike agreement he couldn't sign a contract with New Balance until 10 days after submission to Nike have expired without a match. So we are talking about a contract offer, not a legally binding contract. He is free to use that contract to get the best deal out of each and every shoe company as leverage to get the best deal possible.

BB's agent submitted a contract to be reviewed and had Nike not matched, he would have been free to sign with New Balance. Nike said sorry BB, we are matching even though you don't want us to sponsor you. He should have gotten a better deal from New Balance that Nike wouldn't have matched or just not submitted any contract and let the 180 days expire. I have no clue if he could have ran races in any shoes or whatever, but my guess is that he could not take free gear or support from any club/sponsor other than Nike for those 180 days. He messed up and I highly doubt it is his fault. It stinks that Nike called his bluff on this, but if they don't do it to the athletes with "smaller" contracts how can they do it to the Kevin Durant's of the world, when every shoe company on the planet will offer him something.

Where people are wrong, including Ken Goe pulling from Letsrun.com message board, is that Berian is not a "feel good story."

I, for one, don't care about his story. He is not personable, he is not charismatic, is all tatted-up, too much of a recluse.

He is also a high risk of not making the Olympic team. I can see him going out in 49.20 in the Trials Final, blowing up at 700m and placing 5th.

You feel that way because you are a racist prick.

OtherSports wrote:

Nike does this with contracts in every sport.

Who knew that Nike was able to void their competitor's confidentiality clauses.

Confidential is confidential. Nike, and their shills, like you, need to grasp this simple legal concept.

You need some definition help;

confidentiality — classified, concealed, hidden, not for publication, not to be communicated, not to be disslosed, not to be quoted, not to be spoken of, privacy, protected, restricted, revealed in confidence, secrecy, secret, spoken in confidence, told in confidence, top-secret, unmentionable, unrevealed

Why send confidential info? wrote:

OtherSports wrote:

Nike does this with contracts in every sport.

Who knew that Nike was able to void their competitor's confidentiality clauses.

Confidential is confidential. Nike, and their shills, like you, need to grasp this simple legal concept.

You need some definition help;

confidentiality — classified, concealed, hidden, not for publication, not to be communicated, not to be disslosed, not to be quoted, not to be spoken of, privacy, protected, restricted, revealed in confidence, secrecy, secret, spoken in confidence, told in confidence, top-secret, unmentionable, unrevealed

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/confidentiality

First of all, we haven't seen New Balance's contract, therefore we do not know if there is such clause.

Secondly, not all contracts have confidentiality clauses, otherwise we wouldn't have known about contracts of other athletes.

Third, a contract is not a contract until signed by all parties. I know for a fact New Balance puts this same clause in their contracts with their athletes. Their athletes have good representation that understand this and do not lead them astray, like BB was. BB is the victim here and he should turn around and sue his agent after this is worked out.

Why send confidential info? wrote:

What you missed is that the Nike [ASU] contract stated the contract is confidential. That means it cannot be shared with others. The ASU contract is available because contracts with public entities must be available to the public. Yet, even though Nike knows that the ASU contract must be made public they still shove their confidentiality agreement in their.

The offer by NB isn't presented to Nike in the form of a formal contract which would not be legal anyway with a ROFR, it is most likely presented as an offer sheet which Nike can choose to match the terms of or not.

A judge will decide on the legalities. There isn't a prayer that anyone on this board can make that judgement without seeing the original contract language, the offer sheet and Nike's response to the offer sheet.

Chances are BB and/or his agent was well aware Nike thought they had matched the deal.

OtherSports wrote:

but if they don't do it to the athletes with "smaller" contracts how can they do it to the Kevin Durant's of the world, when every shoe company on the planet will offer him something.

A Kevin Durant could keep the case going for years potentially finding novel things that get Nike into more legal trouble..

They do it to smaller budget athletes because they can and there's almost no risk of it coming out badly for them.