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

Getting high wrote:

$3500???? And that rich entitled woman writes a blog about it to smear Tori??? Shame on you Bergeson!!!

Where it the proof on this? And I was told they gave her a bonus for her AR. How much was the bonus?

latvian orthodox wrote:

Amerikano wrote:

I side with an athlete who is making no money, but setting ARs and winning national titles than a CEO who's using her image and achievements for their advantage without wanting to pay her proper. That's why.

So you think you should be able to break contracts with no recourse?

This isn't the 1700s. No company has a right to indentured servitude. Fair pay for fair value.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Why doesn't Oiselle just photoshop out the Nike logo from Tori's pictures and replace it with the Oiselle logo, as it did on a picture of Kate Grace four years ago? Sally didn't seem terribly troubled by legal and ethical considerations in that case; in fact, she seemed quite self-satisfied at the time.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20786957/usatf-reprimands-oiselle-for-altering-nike-logo-in-photo/

In the case at hand, I'd want to know a lot more about the facts (including, obviously, specific contractual language) before issuing an opinion about the legal or ethical issues involved. I'd also be inclined to counsel caution to a CEO who might be tempted to air her negative views about a particular athlete's ethics in such a matter.

Yeah, this.

Why are we assuming the contract is completely silent with regard to early termination or even default? If the contract contains light penalties for Tori to terminate, and she opts to exercise her right under the contract and break it, what's the problem?

Also, Oiselle is well aware that they're getting far more value out of this post than they would have had she remained under contract.

Tori Franklin has a right to make a living wrote:

latvian orthodox wrote:

So you think you should be able to break contracts with no recourse?

This isn't the 1700s. No company has a right to indentured servitude. Fair pay for fair value.

You didn't answer the question and nothing I have said contradicts your post.

This what she wrote on Instagram

So it seems she got $3500.00 to date under the contract - she is returning that. She got some undisclosed bonus which she says she is not giving back.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Getting high wrote:

$3500???? And that rich entitled woman writes a blog about it to smear Tori??? Shame on you Bergeson!!!

Where it the proof on this? And I was told they gave her a bonus for her AR. How much was the bonus?

Oiselle smear post says the contract was a " gear and travel" one, not an income contract. So the $3500 figure of reimbursements Tori says she got for costs she incurred is consistent with that. The contract as described by Oiselle didn't even pay her a regular income.

And I don't see what your point about the bonus is. It's moot and cannot be used to make Tori stay especially seeing as how Tori is not being paid anything close to a living wage or even minimum wage.

latvian orthodox wrote:

Tori Franklin has a right to make a living wrote:

This isn't the 1700s. No company has a right to indentured servitude. Fair pay for fair value.

You didn't answer the question and nothing I have said contradicts your post.

For bloody hell, absolutely she should break the contract if we are looking at $3500 versus a living wage income.

Tori Franklin has a right to make a living wrote:

latvian orthodox wrote:

You didn't answer the question and nothing I have said contradicts your post.

For bloody hell, absolutely she should break the contract if we are looking at $3500 versus a living wage income.

Two posts and you haven't answered the question.

Hint: I didn't ask whether she should break the contract, I asked if people should be able to break contracts without recourse, which is what the original post from Amerikano suggested.

I'll answer your question. In this situation itself, no I don't think there should be a recourse for Tori voiding the contract. Reason #1 Public Perception - This would likely be the biggest risk for Sally and co in suing an athlete over a contract that did not pay an income. Throw race into the equation and you are looking at a PR nightmare waiting to happen

Reason #2 Cost of Litigation - This contract was peanuts to begin with, so taking her to court does not make financial sense

Reason #3 Outcome - Even if she does take her to court, what is her possible gain from this? Damages? Injunction? And at what value is any of this actually going to amount to vs the cost and risk

I won't say all contracts aren't enforceable, but I will say that this one can just be let go. Recourse is not always a good idea.

latvian orthodox wrote:

Hint: I didn't ask whether she should break the contract, I asked if people should be able to break contracts without recourse, which is what the original post from Amerikano suggested.

What does the contract say about the recourse? She should be able to break the contract in accordance with the terms of the contract.

kanye north wrote:

latvian orthodox wrote:

Hint: I didn't ask whether she should break the contract, I asked if people should be able to break contracts without recourse, which is what the original post from Amerikano suggested.

What does the contract say about the recourse? She should be able to break the contract in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Agreed.

Those aren't reasons why it shouldn't be enforceable - those are reasons why it may not be wise to pursue enforcement. Your original comment was that you didn't "think it is right to enforce a contract", and that is what I disagreed with. Have a good one.

latvian orthodox wrote:

Two posts and you haven't answered the question.

You are asking a rhetorical question, mate.

$3500 versus a living wage income.

Any legal penalty is trivial. Oiselle knows this and instead decided to bash Tori Franklin in a blog post.

Tori Franklin has a right to make a living wrote:

latvian orthodox wrote:

Two posts and you haven't answered the question.

You are asking a rhetorical question, mate.

$3500 versus a living wage income.

Any legal penalty is trivial. Oiselle knows this and instead decided to bash Tori Franklin in a blog post.

A: Tori Franklin has a right to make a living

B: Oiselle has a right to be mad about Tori Franklin breaching her contract

Both of these statements can be true. Sponsoring an athlete is not the same as a 9-5 job, unless you provide huge amounts of marketability (which Tori did, relatively speaking, though that was not exactly expected when they agreed to the contract), it isn't always worth a living wage. The amount of actual "work" (showing up at events, wearing their gear, a few hashtag-laced tweets promoting stuff, etc.) being done for the sponsor is negligible. You aren't going to pay some B-level athlete (and a 14.03 triple jumper as Franklin was prior to this year would qualify as such) a living wage because they aren't going to provide that much exposure. It isn't Oiselle's fault Franklin exploded and they didn't have the means to compensate her appropriately (though if that bonus she kept was any real amount of money it would suggest they tried to help out, especially if her contract had no performance-based bonus stipulations). That doesn't mean the contract shouldn't be honored or otherwise ended in some mutually agreed upon way.

I understand taking the money and running, but people act like Oiselle has no reason to be upset. Again, I think Oiselle's anger is more directed at Nike pressuring her to jump ship early than at Tori herself, who has obviously given them a great return on their contract already.

Then again, there is probably no point in arguing with the Nike trolls on this.

Was Oiselle able to deduct the $3,500.00 expenses reimbursed to Tori as an expense on the corporate tax return?

If so, this makes it more egregious because then Tori basically got a bunch of extra Oiselle crap that was laying around.

Why are people acting like she was an employee? She had an endorsement deal. There is no minimum wage or two weeks notice.

She sure is not a woman of integrity.

A source close to Oiselle told LetsRun.com that the American record bonus that Tori took and says she will not give back was worth $5,000.

This whole thing is interesting. Some are saying it's immoral she broke the contract. Others are saying what Oiselle had her doing is indentured servitude and is immoral.

I don't think what Oiselle did to her is immoral at all or indentured servitude. No athlete has a right to make a living at sport. Tori I presume has or at least had a real job. She was making nothing from track and field. Oiselle said "hey we'll give you some travel and gear and help out with your expenses for the next year so you can keep competing, but sign a contract committing to us for a year. " She did.

She got really good. They said "Hey we don't have to do this but we're going to give you $5000 for breaking the American record as we want this to be fair." She took the money.

Then Nike came in and said, "Hey we'll pay you $XX to jump for us, but you need to compete at USAs and get our of your Oiselle Contract".

Now this is where everyone's view of contracts come in. Some are viewing a contract as a "sacred oath" as one poster said. Others are viewing it as a procedural thing that can be broken and what are the conseuquences. The consequences of breaking this and a lot of contracts are pretty low as often the cost of litigating are much higher. You take a reputational hit if anything. Next time they should probably put in some liquidation clause so athletes can't take the money and then run to someone else when the grass is greener.

If the stakes were different say Nike came in and signed Usain Bolt to a higher contract in the middle of his Puma deal, you could bet there would be lawsuits. But most of the time people are going to honor that sort of contract and a party like Nike won't be as brazen to breach it. Here she was getting travel and gear and took $5000 and Nike probably figured "who cares? nothing will happen if we breach it. Her agent at the very least figured that."