BORIS IS FREE!!!! Nike has dropped its lawsuit against Boris Berian

Nike Egos wrote:

So, Nike sponsors Nike athletes only meets? It doesn't work that way for most meets. There are other sponsors, like TV--biggest sponsor of the Olympics--, and non-Nike merchandise.

I believe that the post you are referring to implies the question > Nike will invite other runners to its meets but will they invite BB?

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

Wouldn't no reductions and no first refusal mean smaller contracts? These options are worth money to Nike and the athletes presumably want to brag about a big contract.

Hopefully less draconian reductions though. Some of those Nike had proposed were pretty bad (though some were completely reasonable).

No to smaller contracts. The options are for Nike assuming they will lose money if certain conditions are not met. The problem with the structuring of Nike's reductions is they can result in almost zero pay.

Imagine working as an employee for a company full-time under Nike's terms. If you miss X deadline you will get docked 25% of you salary. If your work is deemed to not be in the top 10% of coworkers doing your type of work you will get docked another 25%. If you are caught coming back late from lunch you will get docked 5% each time.

Would you sign such a work agreement?

equalopertunitymeetinvitations wrote:

Nike Egos wrote:

So, Nike sponsors Nike athletes only meets? It doesn't work that way for most meets. There are other sponsors, like TV--biggest sponsor of the Olympics--, and non-Nike merchandise.

I believe that the post you are referring to implies the question > Nike will invite other runners to its meets but will they invite BB?

How many meets does Nike have 100% control over? One?

I know you only probably get like 15-minute breaks at a time, so I'll keep it simple.

I wasn't talking about the case. It really had nothing to do with Nike v. Berian. I was address the idea that Hawi is somehow a good agent.

His actions while not illegal are hardly ethical behavior. Of course the same agent went begging on the internet when his client made at least $45K the first few months of this year. No surprise.

Also, Hawi shouldn't be playing lawyer. Most likely it is illegal to hold yourself as attorney when he couldn't pass the bar.

Foda pooda wrote:

Also, Hawi shouldn't be playing lawyer. Most likely it is illegal to hold yourself as attorney when he couldn't pass the bar.

Hawi won. He can play lawyer, and he can play it better than you can.

awesome. glad to hear it!

beat the Nike attorney$$$$ wrote:

argr34t wrote:

Hawi's athletes might think they are getting a legal expert, as Hawi has his JD from UCLA. It does not appear that he has passed any bar exam, though.

He beat the high priced Nike legal team. Pretty good for a JD who hasn't passed the bar exam. It proves that passing the bar does not a great lawyer make.

If Hawi had done his job, there never would have been the case in the first place. Even though you could say that Boris won, how much money did he end up in paying lawyer's fees? How much has the distraction affected his training? How much money has he lost by being unsponsored?

jjjjjj wrote:

awesome. glad to hear it!

I'm sure all those wrongly convicted of crimes or political prisoners are happy to see that a less than intelligent runner who stands to make 6-figures is free from the shackles of....making 6-figures.

it's a good thing no one pays attention to track and field because the #freeboris thing is a dumb.

The funny thing is Boris isn't "teh FREE!!".

If he manages to make the Olympic team ( which I'm pulling for) he will be right back in a Nike Uniform. This is why Nike is a billion dollar company and Boris is a step removed from asking if I want fries..

(Although I'm sure Symmonds, with nothing better to do, will try to get in his ear to not sign the USATF agreement and skip the Olympics)

asdfgh wrote:

If Hawi had done his job, there never would have been the case in the first place

IF NIKE HAD DONE ITS JOB, there never would have been the case in the first place.

Capriotti lost, deal with it Nike employee.

Not the Case wrote:

Wow! Just, wow! You are a super attorney, bar none. How is it possible for the $1000/hr attorneys Nike hired to miss something that, now that you mention it, is so obvious? .

I'm quite sure Nike attorneys knew this and realized like any sensible person it was immaterial to the case. Being unethical isn't against the law.

Stick to trying to figure out the end of Dateline, slap shot

Fooda pooooda wrote:

I'm quite sure Nike attorneys knew this ... . Being unethical isn't against the law.

Yes, the Nike attorneys were unethical. Couldn't crush Hawi and his lowly JD as they were hired to do by Capriotti.

Not the Case wrote:

Wow! Just, wow! You are a super attorney, bar none. How is it possible for the $1000/hr attorneys Nike hired to miss something that, now that you mention it, is so obvious? Contact Nike IMMEDIATELY and tell them you will take over the case; you have a way to crush Berian into dust. You should be payed royally for saving Nike.

beat the Nike attorney$$$$ wrote:

He beat the high priced Nike legal team.

I'd like to object to the myth of the invincible big company with its high-priced lawyers.

First, in a lot of litigation, the quality of your lawyer makes only a marginal difference in the outcome of the case. Federal judges are smart. They're going to read the caselaw and look at the facts carefully. In fairly simple cases like Berian's, you shouldn't get steamrolled by an expensive legal team, so long as your lawyer is moderately competent.

Having an expensive (large) firm is mostly helpful when the litigation is especially large and complex. Larger firms have experience managing all of the moving parts in those kinds of cases. You also need to have a good team, and smaller firms don't often have enough lawyers to handle such cases without pulling too many people off of other projects. And even if the smaller firm has very skilled lawyers for partners, there's often a bigger drop off in associate quality, which matters in large cases because junior lawyers won't have people looking over their shoulders to prevent mistakes. But as I noted above, this contract dispute isn't a big, complicated case. It's something that a single lawyer could easily handle.

Second, just because a company is big and wealthy doesn't mean that its lawyers are expensive. Nike, like all big companies, uses a range of firms for legal services. Big expensive firms are only for high stakes matters. In this case, for instance, Nike was represented by a regional, mid-sized firm with profits per partner of $585,000.

800 dude wrote:

In this case, for instance, Nike was represented by a regional, mid-sized firm with profits per partner of $585,000.

I would call a firm with per partner profit of $500k+ per year high-priced. There are certainly more firms that enrich their partners much more than that, but it is not a firm that someone like Berian could afford.

How much in legal fees might Nike have lost in this case?

Legal fees wrote:

How much in legal fees might Nike have lost in this case?

They get to deduct all costs because fees paid to consultants and contractors are 100% deductible. The entities receiving the fees pay the taxes based on how they pay the fee out to employees and partners/owners.

Business deductions wrote:

Legal fees wrote:

How much in legal fees might Nike have lost in this case?

They get to deduct all costs because fees paid to consultants and contractors are 100% deductible. The entities receiving the fees pay the taxes based on how they pay the fee out to employees and partners/owners.

Boris also gets to deduct the legal fees too.

rojo wrote:

It's interesting to note that Ken Goe, whom many on her criticize for being pro Alberto/Nike/Rupp (which I think is unfair as he's a great journalist, being from Portland it's good that he has some accesss to the group as Rupp hardly talks to ayone) wrote an aritcle before Nike had dropped the suit where he said,

"I don't understand now, and haven't understood since this began, why Nike wants to force Berian to stay in the fold if he doesn't want to be there."

http://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/index.ssf/2016/06/thursday_morning_news_notes_an_8.html#incart_most_shared-trackandfield

Yes, not sure if people are aware that Brooks contract with Amy Cragg allowed them to match any contract, but chose not to and let her run for Nike and train with Shalane since that was her desire. One couldn't fault Brooks for wanting to hold onto Cragg since she was hitting her peak and they could capitalize on their investment when she wasn't at the level she is now. However, unlike Nike, they weren't interested in holding on to someone who wanted to be somewhere else.

Nike job wrote:

asdfgh wrote:

If Hawi had done his job, there never would have been the case in the first place

IF NIKE HAD DONE ITS JOB, there never would have been the case in the first place.

Capriotti lost, deal with it Nike employee.

Wow, I won't even buy Nike products and you call me a Nike employee. Blame on one side or the other is not mutually exclusive. By faulting Hawi, I wasn't defending Nike.