NotGood wrote:
This whole thing does seem like one big advertisement for how bad Nike's T&F contracts are for athletes. I figure there's got to be a strategy beyond Boris here....but i sure dont see it.
Nike is doing themselves no favors by airing the dirty contractual laundry like this. It will be more difficult for them to sign athletes in the future. Buyer [athlete] beware.
From the top rope wrote:
Amateur hour from all sides of this. Could have easily been avoided with halfway decent communication. Probably some petty personal stuff factoring in here.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I alternated between "You have got to be kidding!" and "I sure hope this isn't how all running contracts are handled."
It sure looks to me as if either side could have won had it called in a grown up or two. Certainly Nike didn't do a good job of marketing, where you talk to your clients, find out what they want and then help them get it.
I'm sure Berian's very unusual circumstances didn't help. This all happened so quickly for him. He was only signed with Nike for a few months before he had start thinking about his next contract. And because he was coming to camp from McDonalds, not college, he wasn't getting a lot help making the transition from amateur to professional.
I'm no law-talking guy but if NB's offer was a term sheet but not a full contract, then how can Nike's full contract be a "match" to the same business transaction? Why wouldn't they just respond with an identical term sheet? (which could leave off reductions, if they wanted to be sneaky) Seems like Nike screwed this up. Also seems like Berian screwed up by not getting a real contract offer.
lawsplain it to me wrote:
I'm no law-talking guy but if NB's offer was a term sheet but not a full contract, then how can Nike's full contract be a "match" to the same business transaction? Why wouldn't they just respond with an identical term sheet? (which could leave off reductions, if they wanted to be sneaky) Seems like Nike screwed this up. Also seems like Berian screwed up by not getting a real contract offer.
That's what happened. Then Nike followed up with a long-form contract that included reductions.
Right, and I'm asking how that is even the same business transaction. If they're not the same transaction, then the concept of a "match" is meaningless.
lawsplain it to me wrote:
Right, and I'm asking how that is even the same business transaction. If they're not the same transaction, then the concept of a "match" is meaningless.
Nike wasn't even able to somewhat match the terms of prior contract with Berian. The reductions the added were, onerous to say the least. Bait and switch is a term a prior poster used. That is exactly what it seems to be. I cannot image an athlete signing a short-term agreement with Nike knowing they would forced to signed their next contract with them with the sudden appearance of a dozen, or more, reduction clauses. Their only option is to remain unsponsored for half a year. Who wants that Nike noose around their neck?
For people saying it's as simple as Berian saying: "I don't want to be sponsored by Nike" It is also as simple as "Nike wanted Berian to be sponsored by them."
If the burden of proof is for Nike to show that they matched the offer, I think it is a very case for them to make. They would not be in court and we would not be discussing it if Nike thought they could make a blatantly lesser offer and have it hold up as a matching contract.
Nike is also the only side that stands to lose anything in this ruling. If the judge sides with Nike, both sides essentially win.
Deep down, I'm not buying that Berian has this much dislike for Nike shoes. He was trying to be Robin Hood for the Big Bear TC by securing them the New Balance sponsorship, which would mean greater resources for his coaches, teammates, and agent.
If he struck a deal with Nike, he is greatly reducing his marketing relationship with his team, which is another reason why track and field is so whackadoo. All athletes should think of themselves as independent contractors. The Nike deal was a fantastic one for Berian, and he likely would have received an even greater pay day after Rio.
Bait and Switch wrote:
lawsplain it to me wrote:Right, and I'm asking how that is even the same business transaction. If they're not the same transaction, then the concept of a "match" is meaningless.
Nike wasn't even able to somewhat match the terms of prior contract with Berian. The reductions the added were, onerous to say the least. Bait and switch is a term a prior poster used. That is exactly what it seems to be. I cannot image an athlete signing a short-term agreement with Nike knowing they would forced to signed their next contract with them with the sudden appearance of a dozen, or more, reduction clauses. Their only option is to remain unsponsored for half a year. Who wants that Nike noose around their neck?
It's as if Berian presented the offer of "an apple, with details specified elsewhere" and Nike came back with a "this apple right here, with a worm inside". To me these aren't even the same transaction. One is a real contract offer, the other isn't.