Official Thread to Discuss Boris Berian's Contract

I'm so tired of athletes lying on Twitter etc. BB said that Nike's trying to stop him from running. BS. They just don't want him to run in NB gear until their dispute is settled.

Man up BB. Nike matched the offer. If you really dispute that, resolve it. Don't stick your head in the sand and then blame Nike for attempting to enforce its rights.

johnny dangerously wrote:

I'm so tired of athletes lying on Twitter etc. BB said that Nike's trying to stop him from running. BS. They just don't want him to run in NB gear until their dispute is settled.

Man up BB. Nike matched the offer. If you really dispute that, resolve it. Don't stick your head in the sand and then blame Nike for attempting to enforce its rights.

Thank you.

The situation is simple and as straight forward as this post and my last.

The emotional idiots of LRC who hate cos they can't land a yoga babe in Nike frees or something...clearly don't understand the good faith requirement in

Oregon State Law. Boris signed an agreement with Nike in good faith, that agreement allowed Nike the right of first refusal...which Nike notified Mawi they attended to Match, and only wanted reassurances that there were no hidden reduction clauses in NB contract, and if so they would still match and eliminate their (Nikes) reduction clauses. Mawi then express that Boris had expressed an interest not to continue on with Nike, and he would convey, non-the-less Nikes offer to match, to Boris.

Boris then decided to be all high school about not just remaining with his club, but violating the good faith spirit of his Nike contract and has tried to slither out of it so he can go NB. Believe me, his club and NB execs have surely been brainwashing him to screw Nike and get out of that good faith obligation.

Boris screwed up, because he sadly is not too smart. And not he is most likely going to pay.

Meanwhile, a bunch of nike hating children on LRC are playing below amateur lawyer misstating the facts and changing the meaning of he communications between Mawi and Nike, and Nike and Mawi.

Nike clearly made an Investment in Boris, and believe in him as a rising start.

Pretty nice, lucrative and respectful position for a former Hamburger flipper to be in.

The lynchpin here is that Boris's club and influences around him influenced him to screw Nike.

Well, Nike is pretty darned experienced at this contracts.

Boris has self-sabotaged himself.

Boris should take the high road, honor his first contract, where nike, where his club stuff without NB logos, show that as Max Siegel points out these companies need to work together like Nascar sponsors do.

Nike is in very firm footing here.

You missed the key part where Berian's camp told Nike there were no reductions and Nike still sent a contract with reduction clauses. But other than that key piece of information you nailed it.

Exactly! I don't see how Nike matched NB's offer for the basic reason that Nike expressed its intent that BB's contract contain reduction clauses and NB expressed (albeit implicitly rather than overtly) its intent that BB's NB contract would not contain reduction clauses Nike demonstrated its intent to include reduction clauses in two ways: 1) submitting a long form contract that contained reduction clauses AFTER it received NB's term sheet containing no reduction terms,;2) arguing in its TRO papers that, in Nike's view, it is industry standard for contracts to contain reduction clauses. NB, likewise demonstrated its intent not to include reduction clauses : 1) providing a term sheet that did not mention reduction provisions ;2) submitting an affidavit stating that NB did not intend to include reduction clauses because it is NOT NB's business practice to include them. The intent of the parties can be derived from their business practices and, in Nike's case, their actions during the negotiations.

If this were true, Berian would officially be a new balance athlete by now. why is he still honoring the 180 day period if Nike failed to match the offer?

Kiprop dope wrote:

Just guessing, but Nike probably has more experience in "standard" endorsement contracts with athletes...than all the readers of LRC since its' inception...and...and...and...y'know like all the competing companies combined.

I generally agree with this. I find it amusing that the CEO of Oiselle is arguing that that reduction clauses aren't standard because they don't use them.

Oiselle is a pimple on the arse of Nike. What they do in no way creates a standard. The only ones that could make that claim, IMO, are Nike, Adidas and maybe Under Armor.

New Balance, Saucony, Oiselle, etc. don't create standards. They're deviating from the standard because they can't otherwise compete.

Out of abundance of caution, NB hoped to run out the 180 day clock whereby BB would not sign with anyone during the 180 period , thereby allowing him to sign with NB free and clear after the 180 days. Also, i gather his agent was probably trying to negotiate a better deal for him during the 180 days.

jimmy bobby wrote:

Kiprop dope wrote:

Just guessing, but Nike probably has more experience in "standard" endorsement contracts with athletes...than all the readers of LRC since its' inception...and...and...and...y'know like all the competing companies combined.

I generally agree with this. I find it amusing that the CEO of Oiselle is arguing that that reduction clauses aren't standard because they don't use them.

Oiselle is a pimple on the arse of Nike. What they do in no way creates a standard. The only ones that could make that claim, IMO, are Nike, Adidas and maybe Under Armor.

New Balance, Saucony, Oiselle, etc. don't create standards. They're deviating from the standard because they can't otherwise compete.

Only the industry creates the industry standard. In no way are Saucony, NB, Oiselle beholden to 'Nike' standards.

If some companies have no reduction clauses and some have reduction clauses then there is NO INDUSTRY STANDARD when it comes to reduction clauses.

It seems the only company who put "people" first is Hoka One One.

N. Clark wrote:

Out of abundance of caution, NB hoped to run out the 180 day clock whereby BB would not sign with anyone during the 180 period , thereby allowing him to sign with NB free and clear after the 180 days. Also, i gather his agent was probably trying to negotiate a better deal for him during the 180 days.

This only makes sense to me if BB and his agent changed their mind suddenly that the NB contract wasn't lucrative enough. If NB was waiting it out, there would be no terms presented to Nike to match and this is all moot.

Berian wants the security of no reductions which seems smart, but if he is that risk averse, why go without a contract when he has a perfectly valid offer from new balance?

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

N. Clark wrote:

Out of abundance of caution, NB hoped to run out the 180 day clock whereby BB would not sign with anyone during the 180 period , thereby allowing him to sign with NB free and clear after the 180 days. Also, i gather his agent was probably trying to negotiate a better deal for him during the 180 days.

This only makes sense to me if BB and his agent changed their mind suddenly that the NB contract wasn't lucrative enough. If NB was waiting it out, there would be no terms presented to Nike to match and this is all moot.

Berian wants the security of no reductions which seems smart, but if he is that risk averse, why go without a contract when he has a perfectly valid offer from new balance?

At the end of the day its all a silly little pissing match. Boris will not impact shoes sales one bit. Yea we readers on this board like to chirp about it and yes this case has gotten national press but bottom line having Boris as an athlete will not make or break any company.

The smoking gun that all fail to acknowledge, the guy holding the gun is Boris agent, he has made gross errors in judgment. Contacts and multiples offers going back and forth are not new to the shoe companies , agents or athletes.

Pre trials there is always a flurry of activity especially for high probability athletes to make the team and have a shot at a medal.To put an athlete in the position that Boris is now is beyond words.

Nike could NOW follow up with what they stated as their original intent: match the NB offer with no reductions. But do they really want a reluctant Boris on a 3-year contract now? Nike would have 3 years of Sad Boris and then he would leave for another sponsor.

You are 100% right. The club people Boris is around are amateurs with contracts. Bottom line the agent blew it, plain and simple, contract miss read and a horrible assumption made. Boris is not a contract expert, this is his first one ever he has signed. Agent didn't do his homework, plain and simple.

This way beyond Max, its a IAAF issue of allowing sponsorships flexibility and re-writing of whats allowed.Max and company made their bed with Nike.

Regardless of the legal outcome, I don't see Nike 'winning' this time around. I don't see an upside, particularly as they head into the Trials. I love track in Eugene, but there is obviously some Eugene/Nike/USATF fatigue right now. Many are getting tired of Nike's control over the sport (USATF). Nike vs. Boris only seems to help the anti-Nike crowd. Will those athletes making the transition from college to pro be less likely to sign with Nike after this case (regardless of who is in the right legally)? Or will the 'bright lights' of Nike continue to rule all?

nike is not the standard wrote:

jimmy bobby wrote:

I generally agree with this. I find it amusing that the CEO of Oiselle is arguing that that reduction clauses aren't standard because they don't use them.

Oiselle is a pimple on the arse of Nike. What they do in no way creates a standard. The only ones that could make that claim, IMO, are Nike, Adidas and maybe Under Armor.

New Balance, Saucony, Oiselle, etc. don't create standards. They're deviating from the standard because they can't otherwise compete.

Only the industry creates the industry standard. In no way are Saucony, NB, Oiselle beholden to 'Nike' standards.

If some companies have no reduction clauses and some have reduction clauses then there is NO INDUSTRY STANDARD when it comes to reduction clauses.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Nike has a dominant market share by sales:

The other guys don't even show up on this chart.

The definition of standard isn't that every single participant acts the same way. It's based on what the norms are for the leaders based on their influence in the market.

For example, iOS and Android are the standard mobile operating systems in the US. No one cares about Windows Phone, Blackberry, Symbian, etc. Developers write apps for iOS and Android, because they are the standard--they drive all of the activity and economic value.

New Balance is equivalent to Symbian--no one cares what they do. They have zero influence on the industry standard.

johnny dangerously wrote:

I'm so tired of athletes lying on Twitter etc. BB said that Nike's trying to stop him from running. BS. They just don't want him to run in NB gear until their dispute is settled.

Man up BB. Nike matched the offer. If you really dispute that, resolve it. Don't stick your head in the sand and then blame Nike for attempting to enforce its rights.

Thank you.

The situation is simple and as straight forward as this post and my last.

The emotional idiots of LRC who hate cos they can't land a yoga babe in Nike frees or something...clearly don't understand the good faith requirement in

Oregon State Law. Boris signed an agreement with Nike in good faith, that agreement allowed Nike the right of first refusal...which Nike notified Mawi they attended to Match, and only wanted reassurances that there were no hidden reduction clauses in NB contract, and if so they would still match and eliminate their (Nikes) reduction clauses. Mawi then express that Boris had expressed an interest not to continue on with Nike, and he would convey, non-the-less Nikes offer to match, to Boris.

Boris then decided to be all high school about not just remaining with his club, but violating the good faith spirit of his Nike contract and has tried to slither out of it so he can go NB. Believe me, his club and NB execs have surely been brainwashing him to screw Nike and get out of that good faith obligation.

Boris screwed up, because he sadly is not too smart. And not he is most likely going to pay.

Meanwhile, a bunch of nike hating children on LRC are playing below amateur lawyer misstating the facts and changing the meaning of he communications between Mawi and Nike, and Nike and Mawi.

Nike clearly made an Investment in Boris, and believe in him as a rising start.

Pretty nice, lucrative and respectful position for a former Hamburger flipper to be in.

The lynchpin here is that Boris's club and influences around him influenced him to screw Nike.

Well, Nike is pretty darned experienced at this contracts.

Boris has self-sabotaged himself.

Boris should take the high road, honor his first contract, where nike, where his club stuff without NB logos, show that as Max Siegel points out these companies need to work together like Nascar sponsors do.

Nike is on very firm footing here.

jimmy bobby wrote:

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Nike has a dominant market share by sales:

http://fortune.com/2015/06/05/adidas-footwear-fall/

The other guys don't even show up on this chart.

It doesn't matter if Nike has 99% market share. The relevant question is whether reductions are "standard" for shoe companies OTHER than Nike. If every other shoe company doesn't use reductions, even if they collectively constitute a very, very small share of the athlete sponsorship market, then Nike isn't justified in assuming that Berian's other contract had reductions.

NB's Contract wrote:You really think the Nike lawyers wouldn't give certain information about the contract to Capriotti; all off the record, of course?

Yes. I really think that. This isn't Better Call Saul. The consequences of intentionally disclosing protected competitive information to a "competitive decisionmaker" can be very severe. When I'm operating under a protective order, I don't even allow documents to print to a printer that's out of my field of visions, and cleaning staff isn't allowed in my office.

800 dude wrote:

NB's Contract wrote:You really think the Nike lawyers wouldn't give certain information about the contract to Capriotti; all off the record, of course?

Yes. I really think that. This isn't Better Call Saul. The consequences of intentionally disclosing protected competitive information to a "competitive decisionmaker" can be very severe. When I'm operating under a protective order, I don't even allow documents to print to a printer that's out of my field of visions, and cleaning staff isn't allowed in my office.

You will never know about what is said off the record to Capriotti by his corporate attorneys. It can be said in general enough terms for Capriotti to know what he should change without ever mentioning the NB contract.