Feldman wrote:
And I'm assuming all you people who rip him for not knowing the contract details hired an attorney to review your employment agreement for your $40k a year office job you took after college?
And? If they got fired or held to that contract it wouldn't matter if they reviewed it or not. Contracts aren't only enforceable if you read them, ya know?
I dunno, I think that if I sign an endorsement contract with any company I'd like to know, at minimum, the length of time of the contract (minimum/maximum enforceable by either party) and the amount of money I'd be likely to make (minimum/maximum under various conditions).
On the other hand, T&F athletes are paid so little that you have to sympathize with a bunch of people who are just trying to make a living. Seems pretty cruel to enforce a $15k/yr contract on someone worth ten times more than that.
What exactly is a damning acquisition?
"I accepted a contract with the largest and most powerful athletic brand in the world, and after 8 years of paychecks, gear support, and influence, I suddenly had the epiphany that I did not agree with this company and that enough was enough"
dorododoodr wrote:
Don't be moronic. Of course union athletes are bound by contracts! The DIFFERENCE being they are designed to protect the ATHLETES.
Nike's contracts protect Nike only. Get with the times.
USAMN wrote:Yep. It's shocking. And whoever is screaming "they need to unionize" all union athletes are bound by contracts...exactly like Leer was.
No true the NFL players had a fit that they gave Goodell all the appeal power when he started exercising it.
They trade $$ to give him that power and go burned.
Feldman wrote:
And I'm assuming all you people who rip him for not knowing the contract details hired an attorney to review your employment agreement for your $40k a year office job you took after college?
No I didn't because I understood my contract. If you don't understand what you're signing don't sign it.
Leer needs to shut up. Berian had a legitimate legal claim against Nike, Leer has only himself to blame. Anyone comparing his situation to Berian's should stop because it takes away from the legal shit Berian got run through. People hear Leer's story and they say what an entitled moron. You know there's enough uniformed people out there who will read Leer's story and think Berian situation is the same and think he's just another entitled idiot.
Let's be honest. The ROI on track athletes is nothing. People know Russell Wilson and Dan Marino. Go ask your parents what they think about Marielle Hall and Leonard Korir making the 10k teams.
I'll wait.
The NFL players criticizing the NBA players for the crazy contracts they're getting right now is hiliarious. The NBA players were smart in their last negotiations with owners and are now taking that to the bank. The NFL players have historically not been smart.
Same could be said with track athletes signing these reduction clauses. Symmonds was smart when he left Nike this last time. I gurantee he's making way more with New Balance right now than he would have with Nike. Leer made a bad decision and you can't blame Nike for that.
The odd decision that stands out in comparing situations like Leer/Nike with NBA players or other leagues is that if an athlete does not perform the option holder usually declines option years. Kendall Marshall had his two option years declined by the Phoenix Suns because he performed very poorly. Solomon Hill had his one remaining option year declined by the Indiana Pacers because he was not performing to expectations. Hill's situation worked out for himself after he had a small spike in production at the end of the season. Marshall is a fringe player living from contract to contract.
Someone in Leer's situation who played in the NBA would have had his option years declined because he was not a productive athlete. Sure, Nike had every right to exercise their options, but why? Leer was running slow races and not getting any placings of note. Retaining a poor performing Leer does not come across as a business decision and actually seems to be based on emotions coming from decision makers at Nike.
King of Facts:
I agree with you! Just wondering what the "irreparable harm" was that NIKE was going to suffer according to the Berian lawsuit?
NBA UFA wrote:
The odd decision that stands out in comparing situations like Leer/Nike with NBA players or other leagues is that if an athlete does not perform the option holder usually declines option years. Kendall Marshall had his two option years declined by the Phoenix Suns because he performed very poorly. Solomon Hill had his one remaining option year declined by the Indiana Pacers because he was not performing to expectations. Hill's situation worked out for himself after he had a small spike in production at the end of the season. Marshall is a fringe player living from contract to contract.
Someone in Leer's situation who played in the NBA would have had his option years declined because he was not a productive athlete. Sure, Nike had every right to exercise their options, but why? Leer was running slow races and not getting any placings of note. Retaining a poor performing Leer does not come across as a business decision and actually seems to be based on emotions coming from decision makers at Nike.
Because other leagues don't have contracts with reductions. For Leer he had reductions in his contract that Nike excercised to make his contract essentially nothing but Nike. So Nike could keep him as a Nike athlete for almost nothing. An NBA team can't reduce the players salary and then option to keep them at the lowered rate.
Be careful what you agree to.
And people say I'm a dummy 🙃
Concussion Syndrome wrote:
The NFL players criticizing the NBA players for the crazy contracts they're getting right now is hiliarious. The NBA players were smart in their last negotiations with owners and are now taking that to the bank. The NFL players have historically not been smart.
Same could be said with track athletes signing these reduction clauses. Symmonds was smart when he left Nike this last time. I gurantee he's making way more with New Balance right now than he would have with Nike. Leer made a bad decision and you can't blame Nike for that.
It's sad that NBA, NFL, etc... athletes are getting $$$ millions per year and track athletes have to scrape by and accept restrictive sponsorship contracts. Oh well, it is what it is.
It is sad to see people bashing Will Leer. Nike could care less about athletes. They only care about the bottom line which is making money. Same thing with USATF, evident by them accepting the Nike deal.
How many of the bashers here are Nike PR flaks? Nike employees? Crappy runners who don't have the talent or work ethic that Will Leer has? People should support our athletes unless you're shills from Nike who are paid to defend Nike.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Because other leagues don't have contracts with reductions. For Leer he had reductions in his contract that Nike excercised to make his contract essentially nothing but Nike. So Nike could keep him as a Nike athlete for almost nothing. An NBA team can't reduce the players salary and then option to keep them at the lowered rate.
Be careful what you agree to.
Yeah in other leagues you don't get reduced, you get straight up cut. Given the fact that NIKE clearly has supported injured athletes in the past and the record of most post-Nike Athletes, I would say NIke has been very smart and savvy with the cut's they've made.
Goucher, Leer, Symmonds have done little. Meb the obvious exception
I was listening to sports talk radio show talking about NBA contracts. The host was an NFL player. He did something unheard by Track and Field athletes...he actually took the responsibility for voting for an owner friendly agreement. He said "it's our own fault we aren't getting the money NBA players are"..it was refreshing in light the elite runners whining
King of Facts wrote:
Let's be honest. The ROI on track athletes is nothing. People know Russell Wilson and Dan Marino. Go ask your parents what they think about Marielle Hall and Leonard Korir making the 10k teams.
I'll wait.
How about Jeff Byers or the hundreds of other NFL players whose names they don't know making the $450,000 minimum salary?
This is a website scrubbed clean by moderators.
What you read has been edited.
It's a scam.
Soleant Green is people.
IChoseD2 wrote:
You place no blame on the agent? That's why you have an agent. That's why you pay an agent.
His ex-agent sounds like a total chump. Based on this situation, definitely no one should ever sign with him.
how much longer does this ironic huge beard thing have until it runs its course?
Huhhhhhhh wrote:
What exactly is a damning acquisition?
AOL Time Warner?
The agent gets a cut to represent the athlete. Clearly, the agent took the cut and then abandoned his responsibility.
Most agents will do this (take money and run), but some will do it quicker and better like this case.
New Pros should research the agents, first and foremost, before they start looking at contracts.