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.

[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...er-armour.html