Oiselle says Tori Franklin broke her Oiselle contract to compete for Nike at USAs

Kvothe wrote:

F. oiselle wrote:

You didn’t see any actual numbers. The tweet that she deleted basically said she was just getting reimbursements from Oiselle and you can’t live off that.

If this is the case, I don't fault her for breaking contract with Oiselle. A pro athlete should be making enough to live on. However, nike is known for offering crappy contracts with all sorts of clauses, stipulations, bonuses, and reductions. See the Boris Berian thing from a few years ago. Nike would have to be the only offer on the table or leaps and bounds ahead of anyone else before anyone should sign with them.

Nike had a right of first refusal in the contract with Berian IIRC.

No it was not okay to break the contract. Oiselle made her an offer when no other company did. If the contract was for $1 million per year for a year and she broke it for $2M would it then not be okay?

My guess is that it would hard to pin this on Nike, but the agent and Tori are another story.

I take issue with your last point. According to the post by the Oiselle CEO they do 1 year contracts with the idea that the athlete has a break out year and gets a big contract also they were willing to end the contract early albeit after the national champs. That tells me they are okay with her cashing in, but Oiselle wants the publicity she would bring as a national champion.

f 2.2* wrote:

Poppin bottles wrote:

Ironically, Mo became better than Galen.

more medals, yes

better, no

waitin' on Chicago

but back on topic

it is my belief that Oiselle is a spin-cycle opportunist

it's always the other person that's out to harm the little birdies

Folks, I think I should start a new feature on LetsRun.com - "The dumbest messageboard post of the month" - and I think this would have to be the winner.

You don't think Mo Farah is better than Galen Rupp?

According to tilastapaja, Farah leads the all-time head to head matchups 21-1. Farah has better PRs at 1500, 3000/2 mile (Using 2 mile), 5000 and half marathon. And you think Rupp is better?

Hounddogharrier wrote:

Definitely makes me root against her. I’m glad she lost. Zero class.

I just read the blog post. I have to say I agree.

The only thing I don't get about the whole blog by Sally is why didn't she mention the agents name. I think agents need to be held accountable.

Agents act on behalf of the athletes, which means they do the negotiating but in the end it is the athlete making the decision. Yes some agents are aggressive with their clients, but at the end of the day, the responsibility lays with the athlete. Neither the agent nor Nike put a gun to her head and forced her to break one contract and sign another. Oiselle should sue her for recovery of whatever they paid her, which probably isn’t much, but will send a message. Otherwise this will just keep happening.

rojo wrote:

Hounddogharrier wrote:

Definitely makes me root against her. I’m glad she lost. Zero class.

I just read the blog post. I have to say I agree.

The only thing I don't get about the whole blog by Sally is why didn't she mention the agents name. I think agents need to be held accountable.

Ok, I'll mention it: Lamont Dagen of Take Notice Sports Management

"Make The Unknown Known, And The Known Recognizable"

takenoticesports.com

Will the real Robert Johnson please stand up wrote:

Oiselle should sue her for recovery of whatever they paid her, which probably isn’t much, but will send a message. Otherwise this will just keep happening.

Agree. I understand that Sally is probably Seattle-nice and non-confrontational, but as she explained in her blog, her small company cannot afford to keep keep giving athletes sponsorships, even if it is only clothing and travel expenses, if the athletes are not held to any sort of commitment, and Oiselle does not get any exposure on TV at the USA meet. Oiselle might as well just throw their money in the trash if they don't make some legal moves here. It might not take much; either the alleged weaseling athlete can pay with their newfound riches, or the new sponsor will be happy to buy her out of the contract.

Hounddogharrier wrote:

Definitely makes me root against her. I’m glad she lost. Zero class.

Says a person who has had most things handed to them in life and never had to scrape by like a newbie pro athlete in a niche sport and event.

Easy for keyboaord warriors on here to talk about ethics and integrity, and act like they'd NEVER consider a move that would get them paid and provide some stability. Lol sure.

You guys eat this stuff up.

A company claims it's taking the "high road" by making a public statement saying a former athlete has a lack of ethics and integrity. That company doesn't know what the high road means.

Just because they are idiots that can't write a fair contract doesn't mean they get a pass. You clowns probably supported the banks selling toxic assets during the housing crisis.

If this means they will stop sponsoring up and coming athletes I say good. Tori didn't need them to get to where she is today.

rojo wrote:

Hounddogharrier wrote:

Definitely makes me root against her. I’m glad she lost. Zero class.

I just read the blog post. I have to say I agree.

The only thing I don't get about the whole blog by Sally is why didn't she mention the agents name. I think agents need to be held accountable.

Why is Sally airing her dirty laundry in a freaking blog post? Pretty low class and unprofessional.

I get she’s mad but it makes her look petty snd small

I never realized Oiselle had signed a woman of color to a contract. Who knew?

Yet they sponsored an bandit who takes selfies.

Maybe look at that first

Oiselle Clowns wrote:

Just because they are idiots that can't write a fair contract doesn't mean they get a pass.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I've read it 3 times and it isn't even remotely coherent. What is a fair contract? Is that different from an unfair contract?

Who is getting a pass... Oiselle? What are they getting a pass from? Weren't they screwed in this situation? Thanks for helping me out on this. You god-damn illiterate moran.

Oiselle Clowns wrote:

If this means they will stop sponsoring up and coming athletes I say good. Tori didn't need them to get to where she is today.

Wha... what??? She didn't?? Then why did she seek and then enter into a partnership with them? That was really short-sighted of her to pursue a sponsorship deal when she didn't need it. I hope you are in close communication with Tori to let her know that she also doesn't need Nike's help. You're a true hero.

Blowjoes wrote:

rojo wrote:

I just read the blog post. I have to say I agree.

The only thing I don't get about the whole blog by Sally is why didn't she mention the agents name. I think agents need to be held accountable.

Why is Sally airing her dirty laundry in a freaking blog post? Pretty low class and unprofessional.

I get she’s mad but it makes her look petty snd small

And racist... I doubt she'd write something like that if it was one of her white princesses doing the same thing.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Scorpion_runner wrote:

If her contract with Oiselle was BS, then I don't blame her. A person has to make a living. What I'm hearing is that her contract was not that good.

Plus Nike is on the hunt right now, because Adidas has most of the best athletes on the track:

tori bowie

Wade V Kniekirk

Noah Lyles

Kendra Harrison

Manning

Nelvis

David Rudisha

Almaz Ayana

Shaunie Miller

Ajee Wilson

Lipsey

I take everything that I said back. I just read what Oiselle offered. They were willing go over and beyond based on their financial ability, and that they were going to extinguish her contract after USAs, so that she could join Nike.

Why wouldn't you inform yourself before commenting in the first place? Seriously?

"We're flocked"

Oiselle Clowns wrote:

Just because they are idiots that can't write a fair contract doesn't mean they get a pass. You clowns probably supported the banks selling toxic assets during the housing crisis.

This is one of the more legendary dumb posts I've seen on letsrun.

You don't even have a concept of what a contract is, also, please refrain from ever commenting on financial issues again.

rojo wrote:

f 2.2* wrote:

more medals, yes

better, no

waitin' on Chicago

but back on topic

it is my belief that Oiselle is a spin-cycle opportunist

it's always the other person that's out to harm the little birdies

Folks, I think I should start a new feature on LetsRun.com - "The dumbest messageboard post of the month" - and I think this would have to be the winner.

You don't think Mo Farah is better than Galen Rupp?

According to tilastapaja, Farah leads the all-time head to head matchups 21-1. Farah has better PRs at 1500, 3000/2 mile (Using 2 mile), 5000 and half marathon. And you think Rupp is better?

I would say a post where a business owner publicly humiliates a customer is dumber.

but yes, in my opinion, Rupp is the better athlete

you seem to be confusing the terms better performance marks and better athlete

Luv2Run wrote:

My guess is that it would hard to pin this on Nike, but the agent and Tori are another story.

Nike must be indemnifying her, so it's really the same thing. In any event, this looks to be a pretty straightforward case of tortious interference with contract on Nike's part. Obviously nothing's straightforward when it actually comes to litigation, but I expect that this is a case I'd be willing to take.

A little contracts for ya wrote:

Forcing her to wear oiselle would be a pretty extraordinary remedy for the court to give. Specific performance is rarely doled out.

The court wouldn't be ordering specific performance; it would just enjoin her from competing while wearing anything else. It would still be her choice whether she wants to run. Courts will frequently find injunctive relief appropriate in circumstances like this because it's nearly impossible to figure out what damages would be.

The problem, from Oiselle's perspective, is that once an athlete makes a break like this, it's too late to unscramble the egg. You get zero marketing value from an athlete that you forced to wear your stuff. The reason Nike went after Berian wasn't because they were going to get any value out of him; it was to send a message to the rest of the T&F community. Oiselle, on the other hand, doesn't want to send that message. Just the opposite; they want to be able to sponsor athletes knowing that if they're successful they'll leave, while still getting to wish them well and take credit for launching their careers.