doot doot wrote:
Maybe. Maybe not. But Berian is the athlete. His agent seems borderline incompetent. Maybe he got bad advice.
Or the agent believes the contract was not a real match. Less money, worse terms, and fewer perks with the Nike contract "match."
We've read through the lawsuit and have an article on the lawsuit here:
According to Nike wrote:
doot doot wrote:Maybe. Maybe not. But Berian is the athlete. His agent seems borderline incompetent. Maybe he got bad advice.
Or the agent **believes** the contract was not a real match. Less money, worse terms, and fewer perks with the Nike contract "match."
Yup. That's why there's a lawsuit. Athletes bounce around sponsors all the time but Nike is simply choosing to pick on the "little guy" this one exact time?
The sense that I get is that procedures were not followed in the negotiations. That's the agent's job.
From Berian's twitter account: @borisgump800
"Today, I got served at the Hoka Classic, @nike is going to sue me for breach of a contract that expired on 12/31/15. What shall I do?"
https://twitter.com/borisgump800/status/733843900012449793
Boris, as small business owners liker yourself, we'll say the key is not to be intimidated. We've got your back. We'll be happy to crowd-source your lawyers fees. We want all of this out in the open.
If anyone has any details on this, please email us at
Update: We've read through the lawsuit and have an article on the lawsuit here:
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.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:
He lives in California. Right of first refusal and non-compete clauses in employment contracts are practically unenforceable in California. They are only included to bully employees through the threat of litigation and consequent time and money costs.
This is a great point.
According to Nike wrote:
Or the agent believes the contract was not a real match. Less money, worse terms, and fewer perks with the Nike contract "match."
Assuming the right to match is legal and spelled out, yes, it may all end up being over a definition of what is equal. If part of the NBalance deal was coaching by Carlos, can Nike offer one of their coaches and say that's the same?
It amazes me that people think Berian got bad adice. It's industry norms to have these agreements in there apparently.
doot doot wrote:
According to Nike wrote:Or the agent **believes** the contract was not a real match. Less money, worse terms, and fewer perks with the Nike contract "match."
Yup. That's why there's a lawsuit. Athletes bounce around sponsors all the time but Nike is simply choosing to pick on the "little guy" this one exact time?
The sense that I get is that procedures were not followed in the negotiations. That's the agent's job.
Yes, and the agent's job is to check the overall financial aspects, including the terms. Offering the same amount of money as another contract is not a match unless the terms are a match. For example, the matching contract could state "you must run faster than X or we'll void your contract, while the matched contract states "you must run faster than X or we reserve the right to reduce payments by Y%." The matching terms are not as good as the contract being matched.
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.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:He lives in California. Right of first refusal and non-compete clauses in employment contracts are practically unenforceable in California. They are only included to bully employees through the threat of litigation and consequent time and money costs.
This is a great point.
According to Nike wrote:
Or the agent believes the contract was not a real match. Less money, worse terms, and fewer perks with the Nike contract "match."
Assuming the right to match is legal and spelled out, yes, it may all end up being over a definition of what is equal. If part of the NBalance deal was coaching by Carlos, can Nike offer one of their coaches and say that's the same?
It amazes me that people think Berian got bad adice. It's industry norms to have these agreements in there apparently.
Personally, I think the only bad advice Berian got was to jump ship from Nike. When did Berian start training with Handler? Who was his coach before?
Will the terms of Berian's contract, the offer from New Balance, and Nike's counter-offer be make available to the public through this lawsuit? How soon could we see them?
I just got a good text from a friend.
A friend wrote:
Anyone see the irony in the fact that Borris is getting sued by Nike for not following the right of 1st refusal....yet when Mo moved to Portland he was under adidas contract, and they simply let him wait and wear adidas stuff at nike for 3 months before making an official offer the moment adidas right of refusal expired...
The text raises a good point and piggybacks on why those type of provisions might be unenforceable.
Think of it this way. Berian is basiaclly being punished for finding a contract he was willing to sign and not just waiting out 180 days. Berian signs with Nike, runs great. He feels like they lowball him so he tells them to go take a hike.
He finds a deal with NB. He could just wait until June to sign it but decides he wants to sign it now so he shows it to Nike. "Oh yeah, we'll match" they say. Miffed at their lowball offer, he's like "No thanks. I'll wait until 180 days are up."
I can see why certain states bar stuff like that. YOu are punishing him for trying to get employed instead of just waiting 180 days.
doot doot wrote:
If Nike "owns" the sport, it's their duty to maintain that position. This sends a clear, deterrent message.
Elite athletes come and go from the sport under Nike's terms.
This bodes well for the sport.
It reads like BB's agent didn't follow the current contract T&Cs. That's on the agent.
doot doot wrote:
Will the terms of Berian's contract, the offer from New Balance, and Nike's counter-offer be make available to the public through this lawsuit? How soon could we see them?
Nike and NB won't want their contracts release for public viewing. They will both legally prevent their public release. Also, it very unlikely Nike has seen the NB contract. Nike assumes their matching contract is a match, but Nike would be creating their match using a standard Nike contract. So, there is where the term difference will occur. The two contracts are unlikely to be a true matching offer. The agent knows what the differences are, and chose NB as the better deal because Nike's match wasn't a true match.
rojo wrote:
I just got a good text from a friend.
A friend wrote:Anyone see the irony in the fact that Borris is getting sued by Nike for not following the right of 1st refusal....yet when Mo moved to Portland he was under adidas contract, and they simply let him wait and wear adidas stuff at nike for 3 months before making an official offer the moment adidas right of refusal expired...
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.)
It's the industry's norms, i.e. right of first refusal that is getting Berian sued. If there were no right of first refusal clause, then no lawsuit would be possible. Just because the clause is an industry norm doesn't make it fair. It's completely one-sided in favor of the sponsor. In the movie business, the "industry norm" for actors used to be studio contracts, where actors could only work for the studio that had them under contract, severely limiting their employment opportunities. This was completely unfair and one-sided in favor of the studios, yet was the "industry norm" at the time.
Let's Run's speculation at the end of their article on what Nike may or may not have offered as a "match," etc., is irresponsible speculation -- most likely to continue their witch hunt against Nike in some way.
It must be interesting for dimwitted conservatives finding themselves acting like reactionary liberals.
There's a reason we have contracts, there's a reason we have courts.
If you sign a contract -- READ IT, UNDERSTAND IT, and then HONOR IT.
It's that simple.
It is fairly simple, Hawi and Boris would look at both contracts, if they are different at all in the terms...then Nike will lose or drop the suit. There is most likely a different in reduction clauses between NB and Nike.
My guess is Cap assumes they (Nike) lose or won't win the suit, but wants to drag this athlete through some stress right before the championships. And he sends one of his guys down to HOKA (Starks, Ceaser, Mosher) to make sure this is done at a track meet to "send a message to everyone not to F'in mess with us" and use Boris as an example.
We are talking about a person and group of guys that threatens to kill people at major meets. And this is stuff we KNOW of, imagine what else goes on behind the curtain?
Cap's Mafia wrote:My guess is Cap assumes they (Nike) lose or won't win the suit, but wants to drag this athlete through some stress right before the championships. And he sends one of his guys down to HOKA (Starks, Ceaser, Mosher) to make sure this is done at a track meet to "send a message to everyone not to F'in mess with us" and use Boris as an example.
If there's any doubt about this, consider the fact that you can serve someone by certified mail in federal court. Cheaper and more convenient. But they chose to serve him at a meet to make a point.
Zat0pek wrote:
Cap's Mafia wrote:My guess is Cap assumes they (Nike) lose or won't win the suit, but wants to drag this athlete through some stress right before the championships. And he sends one of his guys down to HOKA (Starks, Ceaser, Mosher) to make sure this is done at a track meet to "send a message to everyone not to F'in mess with us" and use Boris as an example.If there's any doubt about this, consider the fact that you can serve someone by certified mail in federal court. Cheaper and more convenient. But they chose to serve him at a meet to make a point.
And he chose to broadcast this news out on Twitter to make a point.
If Berian was a friend of yours, what would you say to him if he told you he was going to announce such a thing on social media. He looks like a dang fool, and it more than likely backs up any claim Nike has that he refused to respond to prior attempts.
doot doot wrote:
new low even for Nike wrote:The thing here is that there is NO OTHER company that would ever put an athlete in this position.
I have Nike shorts that I'm literally embarrassed to wear around people who follow the sport. Going to throw them out today. Maybe I'll crap on the first and post the pic on Imgur.
No one has more interest in this issue than Nike does. If Nike "owns" the sport, it's their duty to maintain that position. This sends a clear, deterrent message.
And .. just, wow to that second bit. Bunch of fvcking cry baby toddlers misguided by their biases/emotions.
Brand selection between near-identical products (eg shorts) is by definition based on bias.
My current bias is to be embarrassed to wear Nike, crap on them, take a photo and throw them out.
Zat0pek wrote:
Cap's Mafia wrote:My guess is Cap assumes they (Nike) lose or won't win the suit, but wants to drag this athlete through some stress right before the championships. And he sends one of his guys down to HOKA (Starks, Ceaser, Mosher) to make sure this is done at a track meet to "send a message to everyone not to F'in mess with us" and use Boris as an example.If there's any doubt about this, consider the fact that you can serve someone by certified mail in federal court. Cheaper and more convenient. But they chose to serve him at a meet to make a point.
So they spent more money in order to do at a meet what they could have by registered mail?
Sounds like one more in their list of childish moves at meets (Lopez, Steve...)
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.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:He lives in California. Right of first refusal and non-compete clauses in employment contracts are practically unenforceable in California. They are only included to bully employees through the threat of litigation and consequent time and money costs.
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