I've read Nike's complaint. Nike alleges that it and BB entered into a contract that afforded Nike the exclusive right to negotiate a new agreement with BB during the 60 days prior to the expiration of the existing contract (Dec. 31, 2015). For a period of 180 days after the expiration of the existing contract, Nike alleges that BB was required to submit to Nike any contract offered to him by a new sponsor that he desired to accept. Thereafter, Nike had 10 business days to "accept" and match the competing contract or decline to do so.
On Jan. 20, 2016, BB's agent allegedly emailed Nike and advised that New Balance had offered BB a contract that he wanted to accept. According to Nike, this triggered its right to accept and match the New Balance offer. On Jan. 22, 2016, Nike alleges that it responded and accepted or matched the New Balance offer. According to Nike, this meant that it and BB were bound to a new contract on the same terms as those offered by New Balance.
Nike's complaint goes on to state that, in mid-February, BB's agent sent another email in which he advised that BB wasn't interested in a contract with Nike, but that BB was willing to present Nike with a "revised offer" of some sort. Nike alleges that it responded to this communication by stating that it believed it and BB were bound by the contract Nike contends was formed by its "acceptance" of the terms offered by New Balance on or about Jan. 22. Nike also alleges that since Feb, it has tried to communicate with BB and/or his agent, but that those efforts were rebuffed.
Nike does not demand monetary damages from BB. Rather, Nike seeks a declaratory judgment that it and BB had a binding contract as of Jan. 22, 2016 and an injunction prohibiting BB from entering into any contractual relationship with a Nike competitor and from endorsing or promoting a Nike competitor.
Those are the facts so far, according to Nike.