Any shoe contract experts out there?

[geeveebee]

What would the ramifications be if Zion went to Coach K and said, "Look coach, I really want to play and the doctors have cleared me 100%. However, I'm a little spooked about Nikes right now. I'd really like to wear these Addidas tonight?" Just curious.

[Pghdukie]

Cover up the Swoosh, and use a magic marker to put Addidas logo on. Easily done. And has been done in the past.

[Pghdukie]

In this case, cover up Addidas logo and magic marker a swoosh.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Cover up the Swoosh, and use a magic marker to put Addidas logo on. Easily done. And has been done in the past.

That's what I thought, but someone on DBR lit that idea on fire with some legal jargon last week......maybe they'll chime back in. Interesting conversation...

[Hancock 4 Duke]

I'd assume there is almost certainly a clause in their contract that addresses gear failure. I doubt it would allow the use of another brand for whomever experiences the failure (Zion) but I couldn't begin to assume what the clause may be.

[moonpie23]

anyone can bring legal actions against anyone for any reason at any time.........


it's important to understand that mister money has a lot to do with this.

[SupaDave]

anyone can bring legal actions against anyone for any reason at any time.....


it's important to understand that mister money has a lot to do with this.

You can - but doesn't mean that you should. There can be harsh repercussions for frivolous lawsuits.

[Hancock 4 Duke]

anyone can bring legal actions against anyone for any reason at any time.....


it's important to understand that mister money has a lot to do with this.

Yes but there'd presumably be a clause in the contract regarding the situation that happened. The contract would likely be nullified before anyone would sue anybody else.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

anyone can bring legal actions against anyone for any reason at any time.....
.

I did not interpret the original question here as asking about anyone suing anyone.....I think it was more along the lines of is there a way Zion could wear Adidas and make it look like a Nike - that Nike would go along with? I mean, Nike is paying for the Swoosh to be seen. (Shoe autopsies are relatively rare.)

Perhaps given this situation, such a move would be impossible to keep under raps.....and while I've no answer for the question, I do believe that is the question, not about getting sued.

[rtnorthrup]

It's a really interesting legal question. Duke has a contract with Nike that has a "sole provider" provision in it, from what I can gather reading all the articles. Zion is not a party to that contract; in fact, the contract was executed prior to Zion's enrollment I imagine. Therefore, I think you would have to look to Zion's letter of intent or scholarship agreement with Duke. If he signed something with Duke saying that he agrees to be bound by the Nike contract, I don't think he has legal grounds to change at this point. If there is no agreement in place, whereby Zion has agreed to be bound by the Duke-Nike contract, things would get interesting. Conceivably, Duke would be in violation of their Nike agreement if they allowed Zion to take the court in another companies shoe, so they would have to prevent him from playing unless they could negotiate an arrangement with Nike. If Duke prevented Zion from playing because he wouldn't wear Nike, and they have no contractual provisions to stand on, Zion would clearly have a cause of action against Duke.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

It's a really interesting legal question. Duke has a contract with Nike that has a "sole provider" provision in it, from what I can gather reading all the articles. Zion is not a party to that contract; in fact, the contract was executed prior to Zion's enrollment I imagine. Therefore, I think you would have to look to Zion's letter of intent or scholarship agreement with Duke. If he signed something with Duke saying that he agrees to be bound by the Nike contract, I don't think he has legal grounds to change at this point. If there is no agreement in place, whereby Zion has agreed to be bound by the Duke-Nike contract, things would get interesting. Conceivably, Duke would be in violation of their Nike agreement if they allowed Zion to take the court in another companies shoe, so they would have to prevent him from playing unless they could negotiate an arrangement with Nike. If Duke prevented Zion from playing because he wouldn't wear Nike, and they have no contractual provisions to stand on, Zion would clearly have a cause of action against Duke.

Sheesh, I don't think anyone is even asking that.

[gus]

Who thinks there's any realistic scenario where, after Zion wants to play with a different shoes for safety reasons that a) the coaching staff says no and b) Nike sues over it?

Or put another way -- Who really thinks Nike would sue over an 18 year-old, who nearly suffered a season ending and potentially career impairing knee injury because of a shoe failure, for not continuing to wear their shoes? That would be a PR nightmare. I think the worst they do is quietly ask Duke not to make a big deal of it and not feature whatever shoe he actually wears.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Who thinks there's any realistic scenario where, after Zion wants to play with a different shoes for safety reasons that a) the coaching staff says no and b) Nike sues over it?

Or put another way -- Who really thinks Nike would sue over an 18 year-old, who nearly suffered a season ending and potentially career impairing knee injury because of a shoe failure, for not continuing to wear their shoes? That would be a PR nightmare. I think the worst they do is quietly ask Duke not to make a big deal of it and not feature whatever shoe he actually wears.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER.......and I think the OP was asking if that kind of arrangement can happen.

[Rich]

It's a really interesting legal question. Duke has a contract with Nike that has a "sole provider" provision in it, from what I can gather reading all the articles. Zion is not a party to that contract; in fact, the contract was executed prior to Zion's enrollment I imagine. Therefore, I think you would have to look to Zion's letter of intent or scholarship agreement with Duke. If he signed something with Duke saying that he agrees to be bound by the Nike contract, I don't think he has legal grounds to change at this point. If there is no agreement in place, whereby Zion has agreed to be bound by the Duke-Nike contract, things would get interesting. Conceivably, Duke would be in violation of their Nike agreement if they allowed Zion to take the court in another companies shoe, so they would have to prevent him from playing unless they could negotiate an arrangement with Nike. If Duke prevented Zion from playing because he wouldn't wear Nike, and they have no contractual provisions to stand on, Zion would clearly have a cause of action against Duke.

Zion suing Duke over this would be the icing on the cake...and naming Coach K as a co-defendant! Talk about bizarro world!

[dukelifer]

Zion suing Duke over this would be the icing on the cake...and naming Coach K as a co-defendant! Talk about bizarro world!
I would be surprised if Zion was not allowed to purchase his own shoes- but perhaps someone knows. That would be a very interesting twist in an already crazy story.

[moonpie23]

my point was, anytime there is an "agreement", the parties involved have their own interests to look after.......if it's really important to have your side protected, then you enter into a "contract", and anytime you have to protect your "side", then you have to get lawyers involved.

The agreement is only worth what you're willing to do to enforce it. Nike obviously has a contract that states all the players have to wear their brand. How important is it to them to enforce that?


i wasn't really referring to anyone suing anyone...

[uh_no]

It's a really interesting legal question. Duke has a contract with Nike that has a "sole provider" provision in it, from what I can gather reading all the articles. Zion is not a party to that contract; in fact, the contract was executed prior to Zion's enrollment I imagine. Therefore, I think you would have to look to Zion's letter of intent or scholarship agreement with Duke. If he signed something with Duke saying that he agrees to be bound by the Nike contract, I don't think he has legal grounds to change at this point. If there is no agreement in place, whereby Zion has agreed to be bound by the Duke-Nike contract, things would get interesting. Conceivably, Duke would be in violation of their Nike agreement if they allowed Zion to take the court in another companies shoe, so they would have to prevent him from playing unless they could negotiate an arrangement with Nike. If Duke prevented Zion from playing because he wouldn't wear Nike, and they have no contractual provisions to stand on, Zion would clearly have a cause of action against Duke.

ehhh...this kind of think comes up all the time in professional cycling....teams just cover up the logos and such, sometimes "rebadge" the stuff and call it a day. It's not in the best interest of the company in question to make a huge deal out of the fact that they don't make a product that their partner is happy with.

In this case, given Zion's visibility, it's in the best interest of both parties to ensure he has a shoe he is comfortable with, even if that means Nike buys an adidas shoe, and stitches their logo on it, saying they "special made" him a shoe to suit his needs.

It would be like if Trek didn't make a bike the right size for lance armstrong....they'd toss him on a re-branded competitor....most people wouldn't know or care what was going on in the background.

If this were J-rob (sorry j-rob!) nobody would care and a piece of masking tape over the logo would be fine most likely.

[golfinesquire]

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER....and I think the OP was asking if that kind of arrangement can happen.

Nike would come down on them like a ton of bricks. The precedent this would set would kill the contracts these companies have with the schools. What's to stop someone else from saying he saw what happened to Zion and now he wants to play in a different shoe. In the cost benefit analysis, I would bet suing wins.

[BeachBlueDevil]

I don't think Nike or Adidas are the answer for Zion. The only answer is the BIG BALLER BRAND. :rolleyes:

[dukelifer]

What would the ramifications be if Zion went to Coach K and said, "Look coach, I really want to play and the doctors have cleared me 100%. However, I'm a little spooked about Nikes right now. I'd really like to wear these Addidas tonight?" Just curious.

Not expert enough to read this- but there are some example contracts on this page

https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/feature/ncaa-deals-nike-adidas-under-armour.html

[rtnorthrup]

ehhh...this kind of think comes up all the time in professional cycling...teams just cover up the logos and such, sometimes "rebadge" the stuff and call it a day. It's not in the best interest of the company in question to make a huge deal out of the fact that they don't make a product that their partner is happy with.

In this case, given Zion's visibility, it's in the best interest of both parties to ensure he has a shoe he is comfortable with, even if that means Nike buys an adidas shoe, and stitches their logo on it, saying they "special made" him a shoe to suit his needs.

It would be like if Trek didn't make a bike the right size for lance armstrong...they'd toss him on a re-branded competitor...most people wouldn't know or care what was going on in the background.

If this were J-rob (sorry j-rob!) nobody would care and a piece of masking tape over the logo would be fine most likely.

There is 0.00% chance of this ever happening to someone with the Zion's public visibility.

[Acymetric]

There is 0.00% chance of this ever happening to someone with the Zion's public visibility.

Why would you say that?

[golfinesquire]

There is 0.00% chance of this ever happening to someone with the Zion's public visibility.

Nike buying an Adidas shoe and stitching its own logo on it would be the trademark infringement case of the century.

[brevity]

Duke has a contract with Nike that has a "sole provider" provision in it, from what I can gather reading all the articles.

Lawyers. Did they have to do this piecemeal? Are there also separate provisions that Nike would provide the laces, the collar, the eyelets, and the tongue?

[rtnorthrup]

Why would you say that?

1. Nike's stock lost 1% of its value just because people saw Zion's shoe break, if people found out that they re-branded an Adidas shoe imagine the fallout.
2. Nike's public reputation for re-branding an Adidas shoe would be off the charts bad
3. Adidas would sue the crap out of Nike.
4. There is no way Nike could get away with this and nobody catch it.

[devilseven]

On the front page, I just saw the photo of Zion's shoes that he wore at the Syracuse game. I certainly am not a shoe expert, but I do not see the Nike swoosh anywhere on these shoes. Are these shoes a Nike brand?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

On the front page, I just saw the photo of Zion's shoes that he wore at the Syracuse game. I certainly am not a shoe expert, but I do not see the Nike swoosh anywhere on these shoes. Are these shoes a Nike brand?

They were widely reported to be Nike PG 2.5 (a Paul George shoe). George even publicly asked Nike what went wrong.....so with no other reporting to the contrary, I would say yes, Nikes. Then again, if they were disguised Adidas or what have you, I think that would be kept hush hush...(Just had to go all Grassy Knoll here...)

[Hancock 4 Duke]

Nike would come down on them like a ton of bricks. The precedent this would set would kill the contracts these companies have with the schools. What's to stop someone else from saying he saw what happened to Zion and now he wants to play in a different shoe. In the cost benefit analysis, I would bet suing wins.

Exactly. I think people are underestimating the required pettiness that these huge companies have to enforce to keep from setting a damning legal precedent. If Zion were to wear anything other than Nike, it would require an alteration of the contract. There are no "under-the-table" kind of deals that could be made unless the contract is changed to allow him to wear another brand. It's the same reason that companies like Apple sue these little mom-and-pop stores for counterfeiting. If they don't, they stand the risk of another, much larger firm doing the same thing and getting away with it while actually cutting into some of Apple's profit. If Zion were to wear a different brand of shoe without Nike's approval, they would absolutely sue, otherwise it opens the door for any player to wear any shoe regardless of their school's contract; it's a slippery slope.

Now, what do I think will happen? Nothing. I think it'll be chalked up as an outlier of an accident and Zion will continue to wear Nike shoes to keep the situation from being unnecessarily complicated. However, if he does decide to switch brands while at Duke, it wouldn't have happened without the approval from Nike and an alteration of the contract between Duke and Nike.

[mkirsh]

On the front page, I just saw the photo of Zion's shoes that he wore at the Syracuse game. I certainly am not a shoe expert, but I do not see the Nike swoosh anywhere on these shoes. Are these shoes a Nike brand?

They are Nikes (Kobe's). You can see the swoosh in light gray low on the outside of his left foot.

[devilseven]

They are Nikes (Kobe's). You can see the swoosh in light gray low on the outside of his left foot.

Yes, with magnification, I see it now. Thanks

[killerleft]

ehhh...this kind of think comes up all the time in professional cycling...teams just cover up the logos and such, sometimes "rebadge" the stuff and call it a day. It's not in the best interest of the company in question to make a huge deal out of the fact that they don't make a product that their partner is happy with.

In this case, given Zion's visibility, it's in the best interest of both parties to ensure he has a shoe he is comfortable with, even if that means Nike buys an adidas shoe, and stitches their logo on it, saying they "special made" him a shoe to suit his needs.

It would be like if Trek didn't make a bike the right size for lance armstrong...they'd toss him on a re-branded competitor...most people wouldn't know or care what was going on in the background.

If this were J-rob (sorry j-rob!) nobody would care and a piece of masking tape over the logo would be fine most likely.

I keep hearing the "rebadging" solution put out there. How would Adidas feel about having their shoe rebadged? Would they have a right to expect some cash from Nike, Duke, or Zion? Surely someone would notice the shoe was theirs if Zion was wearing it. Could they refuse to let Zion wear the shoe, if it came down to that? How do the cycling folks deal with this issue?

I certainly see that Adidas could reap a windfall of positive publicity from the AdiNikeZion shoe. "ANZion dunks again!".:)

[uh_no]

I keep hearing the "rebadging" solution put out there. How would Adidas feel about having their shoe rebadged? Would they have a right to expect some cash from Nike, Duke, or Zion? Surely someone would notice the shoe was theirs if Zion was wearing it. Could they refuse to let Zion wear the shoe, if it came down to that? How do the cycling folks deal with this issue?

I certainly see that Adidas could reap a windfall of positive publicity from the AdiNikeZion shoe. "ANZion dunks again!".:)

At least in cycling, the companies love it. Some other company is paying money to put a competitors equipment on the bike because they couldn't make a satisfactory equivalent? That's about as free marketing as you can get.

[sagegrouse]

I keep hearing the "rebadging" solution put out there. How would Adidas feel about having their shoe rebadged? Would they have a right to expect some cash from Nike, Duke, or Zion? Surely someone would notice the shoe was theirs if Zion was wearing it. Could they refuse to let Zion wear the shoe, if it came down to that? How do the cycling folks deal with this issue?

I certainly see that Adidas could reap a windfall of positive publicity from the AdiNikeZion shoe. "ANZion dunks again!".:)

Nike knows more about sneakers than anyone. It can easily make multiple custom-made shoes that meet Zion's particular needs. While there may be patent issues in the shoe biz, I believe Nike (or Adidas or Puma) can legally make shoes to any kind of reasonable spec.

When golfers change club sponsors, that doesn't mean they are using clubs "off-the-shelf." As I understand it, the club manufacturer will make any kind of clubs the player needs, including matching some specs of their prior clubs. This is not "rebadging."

[ACCfaninVirginia]

It's a really interesting legal question. Duke has a contract with Nike that has a "sole provider" provision in it, from what I can gather reading all the articles. Zion is not a party to that contract; in fact, the contract was executed prior to Zion's enrollment I imagine. Therefore, I think you would have to look to Zion's letter of intent or scholarship agreement with Duke. If he signed something with Duke saying that he agrees to be bound by the Nike contract, I don't think he has legal grounds to change at this point. If there is no agreement in place, whereby Zion has agreed to be bound by the Duke-Nike contract, things would get interesting. Conceivably, Duke would be in violation of their Nike agreement if they allowed Zion to take the court in another companies shoe, so they would have to prevent him from playing unless they could negotiate an arrangement with Nike. If Duke prevented Zion from playing because he wouldn't wear Nike, and they have no contractual provisions to stand on, Zion would clearly have a cause of action against Duke.

Last thing Nike wants is more publicity on this shoe failure. If Zion wears another brand and just covers the logo, Nike likely stays silent. But Nike has always been the big bidder for show contracts - Zionprobably wants to stay on good terms with Nike, and Nike has probably already shipped an ample supply of extra strength shoes to Duke of every style in the Nike family.

[DU82]

And every camera in the arena will he focused on Zion’s sneakers when he comes back. No way they could rebrand any other shoe.

[DangerDevil]

They were widely reported to be Nike PG 2.5 (a Paul George shoe). George even publicly asked Nike what went wrong...so with no other reporting to the contrary, I would say yes, Nikes. Then again, if they were disguised Adidas or what have you, I think that would be kept hush hush...(Just had to go all Grassy Knoll here...)

The PG 2.5 was the shoe Zion was wearing when he got hurt during the UNC game, I think the other post asked about what he was wearing on the sidelines for the next game (Syracuse).

Not quite the same thing but our buddy MJ and fellow Dream Teamers Magic Johnson and Charles Barkley draped American Flags over their shoulders to hide the Reebok logo on their Team USA warmups on the 92 Olympic medal podium.

I also can’t find any current examples and I acknowledge that it is much lower profile but I believe numerous kickers used to wear different brand shoes on their kicking foot and “blacked out” the logo.