Zion in Litigation over Marketing Contract

[flyingdutchdevil]

Seems to be independent of Duke. Given that high school superstars have a high probability of being very good NBA players- the idea that players families can't start the process of exploring endorsement options for their kids- when anything could happen- seems ridiculous to me. It is also highly unlikely that a $5000 transfer of money for who knows what purpose- had any influence on Zion's decisions to do anything.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if Williamson was paid; I'd be very surprised if Duke paid Williamson.

adidas + no track record of Duke paying players + Duke already had RJ and Cam on board = I don't buy it

[JTH]

Maybe Wiseman didn't get it all. The Athletic's story has it this way:

A filing last week in a South Carolina federal court raises an intriguing question for the new world of college sports that most likely will begin on July 1. How will schools and the NCAA handle athletes who can command endorsement deals while still in high school?
In a case pitting former elite recruit Brian Bowen — who was waived by the Pacers last month — against Adidas, an attorney for Adidas filed a response to a set of questions that included this admission: “Rivers may have transferred $3,000 per month to the Williamson family for an unspecified period of time.”
“Rivers” is Chris Rivers, the former head of the Adidas grassroots basketball program. “The Williamson family” is the family of New Orleans Pelicans star Zion Williamson.



$3000 per month for an unspecified time is a lot more than it seems like Wiseman was talking about. And this isn't an allegation. Forget about the "may have" language. This is an admission by Adidas that their guy was paying the Williamsons that kind of money. I don't know why they would admit that if they didn't have to -- i.e. that it's true, and the other side can prove it's true. I don't think the NCAA is going to go back and open this up again and penalize Duke, but I also don't think we should pretend this is nothing.

And whether it's "independent of Duke" or not, if this is true, Zion was ineligible.

I will wait a while before concluding that Adida's statement is proof that the Williams family received payments from the former Adida's agent. Adida's may not actually know what Rivers did with the money. This would not be the first time that an agent kept money or directed it for purposes other than originally intended. The statement may actually be as accurate as Adida's can make. They may know that money was available for that purpose, but not know for certain how it was used. Only how it "could" have been used.

I would not be surprised one way or the other. I'm just saying that until we get more information, I am not going to read more into their statement than is there.

[uh_no]

Well I am sure it will all be revealed. How this impacts his eligibility, I do not know. It all seems a bit silly unless Duke was somehow involved with the payoff. If the Williamson family was able to benefit from their son's ability in the short term- a career that could be hampered or ended by an ACL tear (see Harry Giles)- I am not sure why this is ethically wrong.

Because they attested to not doing that exact thing?

[Billy Dat]

This Steve Wiseman N&O article describes more Duke players being named in the Daniel Cutler testimony
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/...251198629.html

The most damning new stuff is related to Frank Jackson who looks like he had Cutler buying plane tickets for he and his girlfriend. Looks like Duke may be safe, in part, because we are 4 years past the alleged transgression.

This is how this stuff works. The sneaker companies funnel money and product through runners and other layers to give everyone involved plausible deniability. In this case, even with Duke being a Nike school, Adidas is still working the player hard in the hopes that he'll rep Adidas down the road.

Looks like Frank was most recently wearing some Nikes
https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detai...oto/1232548571

[chrishoke]

I will wait a while before concluding that Adida's statement is proof that the Williams family received payments from the former Adida's agent. Adida's may not actually know what Rivers did with the money. This would not be the first time that an agent kept money or directed it for purposes other than originally intended. The statement may actually be as accurate as Adida's can make. They may know that money was available for that purpose, but not know for certain how it was used. Only how it "could" have been used.

I would not be surprised one way or the other. I'm just saying that until we get more information, I am not going to read more into their statement than is there.

See this new article from Steve Wiseman. Not good. "Bank records show payments from ex-Adidas exec to Zion Williamson’s mom and stepfather" https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/...251473183.html

[budwom]

See this new article from Steve Wiseman. Not good. "Bank records show payments from ex-Adidas exec to Zion Williamson’s mom and stepfather" https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/...251473183.html

I suppose the silver lining is that the money didn't come from Nike.

[LasVegas]

See this new article from Steve Wiseman. Not good. "Bank records show payments from ex-Adidas exec to Zion Williamson’s mom and stepfather" https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/...251473183.html

Why don’t these people use cash? Do they not care or are they just stupid?

[duke79]

See this new article from Steve Wiseman. Not good. "Bank records show payments from ex-Adidas exec to Zion Williamson’s mom and stepfather" https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/...251473183.html

Obviously, I have no clue IF this is actually true, but if it is, the "Adidas person" either didn't believe that what they were doing was against the NCAA rules OR they were incredibly stupid in using wire transfers that could easily be traced to make these payments. Not that I advocate this, but shouldn't you be making the payments in "cash" to avoid a direct link?

Also, it is somewhat concerning about the allegations involving Frank Jackson.

[proelitedota]

I suppose the silver lining is that the money didn't come from Nike.

The other silver lining is that we don't have a ff / title banner at risk of being taken down.

As for Frank Jackson, it is pretty evident that some of these guys don't care about the consequences of their actions and how it reflects on the institution.

[chrishoke]

The other silver lining is that we don't have a ff / title banner at risk of being taken down.

As for Frank Jackson, it is pretty evident that some of these guys don't care about the consequences of their actions and how it reflects on the institution.

That team won the ACC Championship.

[jacone21]

Is it bad that I just can't really care about this stuff? There was a time when these kinds of things would bother me terribly because of how they might reflect on Duke. Those days are gone. With transfers in and transfers out, and one and dones, and roster turnover and rebuilding, and NIL money, and TV money, and shoe money, and beer money, and promos playing instead of the band, because money... well you get the picture. Does it even matter anymore?

[MarkD83]

Is it bad that I just can't really care about this stuff? There was a time when these kinds of things would bother me terribly because of how they might reflect on Duke. Those days are gone. With transfers in and transfers out, and one and dones, and roster turnover and rebuilding, and NIL money, and TV money, and shoe money, and beer money, and promos playing instead of the band, because money... well you get the picture. Does it even matter anymore?

I was about to say the same thing. What would bother me is if there was a direct "bribe" from a member of the Duke staff to a player, such as the case at Arizona (if I have my facts straight).
I am almost ready to applaud that a 3rd party gave money to a player's family as a way to stick it to the NCAA.

[chrishoke]

Is it bad that I just can't really care about this stuff? There was a time when these kinds of things would bother me terribly because of how they might reflect on Duke. Those days are gone. With transfers in and transfers out, and one and dones, and roster turnover and rebuilding, and NIL money, and TV money, and shoe money, and beer money, and promos playing instead of the band, because money... well you get the picture. Does it even matter anymore?

I bet you we paid to say that.

[Nugget]

Wiseman's N&O story linked above is behind a paywall, but I'm guessing this publicly-available version from an Oregon newspaper is the same:

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/...tepfather.html

"Bank records filed in federal court show Adidas executive Chris Rivers made payments from his Oregon-based company to former Duke star Zion Williamson’s family between 2016 and 2019, including payments to Williamson’s stepfather’s furniture store account. ... The News & Observer reported last week the detailed testimony in depositions and documents about payments to Williamson’s family as well as a different Adidas rep buying plane tickets for former Duke player Frank Jackson while he was playing for the Blue Devils in 2016.

The documents obtained Monday included copies of bank records uncovered via a subpoena filed by Bowen’s attorneys. They show wire transfers from Rivers’ company, In Your Eye Sports, to a joint bank account in the name of Williamson’s mother, Sharonda Anderson, and her husband, Lee Anderson (Williamson’s stepfather) in 2016 and 2017. The payments listed in the bank documents were for $1,000 on Dec. 21, 2016, $500 on Jan. 30, 2017, $2,500 on Feb. 24, 2017, and $1,000 on March 22, 2017. Anderson ran the Adidas-sponsored S.C. Supreme summer-league team in 2017 and payments from Adidas to him for team expenses are permitted under NCAA rules. But the payments from Rivers’ company to Williamson’s family appear to violate those rules, which would have made Williamson ineligible during his one season playing for Duke …

PAYMENTS TO ZION’S STEPFATHER’S FURNITURE ACCOUNT

Colin Ram, Bowen’s attorney also alleges, and bank account records show, Rivers made payments to the Ashley Furniture Homestores account that Williamson’s stepfather opened on Sept. 5, 2016. … According to the motion filed by Bowen’s attorney: “In a letter to (Bowen’s) counsel from Synchrony Bank, the consumer financing company confirmed that at least two of the payments made to Zion’s stepfather’s Ashley Furniture account came from the Bank of the West account ending in –835 controlled by In Your Eye Sports, Inc.” While the payment amounts are not shown, the documents from Synchrony Bank, which operates Ashley Furniture’s customer accounts, show payments were made in 2017 from a Bank of the West account, which is tied to Rivers, on Aug. 10 and Sept. 12. A third payment to the account was made on Jan. 3, 2019. But the name of the bank where the money came from was redacted.

OTHER ALLEGED PAYMENTS TO ZION’S FAMILY
Earlier this year, Bowen’s attorneys filed a series of questions with the court for Adidas to answer. Known as interrogatories, these questions sought details of payments by Adidas to a host of recruits, including [Dennis Smith, Williamson, Billy Preston and Silvio De Sousa]. Kansas, which is an Adidas-sponsored school, also recruited Williamson. William Taft, an Adidas lawyer, in a letter to one of Bowen’s attorneys filed with the court last month, said the shoe company “is aware of the following documents suggesting that certain fund transfers to Mr. Williamson or his family may have occurred.”
Taft in the letter went on to detail nine payments that totaled $5,474, starting with a $404 payment on Nov. 14, 2016, and ending with an $800 payment on Sept. 12, 2017. The largest payment was $1,107 on Feb. 14, 2017. Taft also wrote, “Rivers may have transferred $3,000 per month to the Williamson family for an unspecified period of time” and “Rivers may have transferred $1,000 to the Williamson family.” “Adidas does not know the specific purpose of these transfers,” Taft wrote. Starting with a $404 payment on Nov. 14, 2016, a list of nine payments are detailed with the last being an $800 payment on Sept. 12, 2017, according to the letter. The largest payment was $1,107 on Feb. 14, 2017, the letter states.

FORMER MARKETING AGENT FILES ANOTHER MOTION
Evidence of these payments filed as part of the Bowen case are also now part of the case file in a dispute between Williamson and his former marketing agent, Gina Ford. Ford signed Williamson in April 2019 with Florida-based Prime Sports Marketing, but Williamson broke the contract the following month to sign with his current agent, CAA. Ford claimed Williamson owes her $100 million for breaking the contract. A federal judge in a Greensboro court ruled earlier this year that the contract between Ford and Williamson is void because Ford violated North Carolina’s Uniform Athlete-Agent Act due to her, among other things, not being registered with the state. Ford’s attorneys argued that Williamson shouldn’t have been protected by that state law because he had already accepted payments that should have ruled him ineligible under NCAA rules. In a motion filed last week in Greensboro, Ford’s attorneys asked federal judge Loretta C. Biggs to revisit her decision, citing the evidence of payments to Williamson’s family presented in the Bowen case.

As these allegations have been presented about Williamson’s family receiving payments over the last two years, Duke has always pointed to the NCAA Clearinghouse declaring Williamson eligible in 2018. Duke athletic director Kevin White, in statements released by the school, said Duke and the NCAA conducted enhanced background checks into the family’s finances to ensure no violations of NCAA amateurism rules had occurred.

Should the NCAA open an infractions case and rule that Williamson did indeed violate rules before and during his Duke career, it could rule the school has to vacate wins and serve other penalties for using an ineligible player even if the school had no knowledge of the violations."

Some observations:

1. I think none of this is likely to change the North Carolina federal judge's ruling in Gina Ford's lawsuit -- even if Zion "should have been" ruled ineligible, he wasn't. So, he was in any event a "student-athlete" as defined by the UAA. I doubt this has any impact on the resolution of the Florida lawsuit Ford brought against Zion (which should remain disposed of in deference to the first-filed North Carolina case and also there is still the issue -- not addressed by the Florida appellate court -- whether Zion was subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida). I suppose Ford's lawyers will try to use this in her suit against CAA, but the same rationale for the North Carolina decision should apply to that claim also.

2. The newly-disclosed payments of $5,000 from the account associated with the Adidas rep to Zion's parents appears to be in addition to the previously disclosed payments of $5,474 in odd amounts between $404 and $1,107 between Nov. 2016-Sept. 2017. My own supposition is those previously-disclosed payments look more like true “reimbursement” amounts for travel expenses related to the sponsorship of Zion’s AAU team, whereas these payments are more difficult to explain.

3. The major ambiguity I see is in Wiseman's assertion that "Anderson ran the Adidas-sponsored S.C. Supreme summer-league team in 2017 and payments from Adidas to him for team expenses are permitted under NCAA rules. But the [newly disclosed $5,000] payments from Rivers’ company to Williamson’s family appear to violate those rules, which would have made Williamson ineligible during his one season playing for Duke."

4. As I understand it, there is a very large gray area around whether a shoe company that sponsors an AAU team can pay for more than just reimbursement of "team expenses." At least according to the widespread reporting several years ago about Marvin Bagley's father (from Nike) and Josh Jackson's mother (from Under Armour), among others, receiving undifferentiated "sponsorship" payments from shoe companies that were not tied directly to reimbursement of team expenses, that appeared to arguably straddle the line of permissible -- even though everyone understood how fishy it was.

5. The revelation that the Adidas rep made payments into a furniture store account opened by Zion's stepfather within a week of the account being opened is very damning. It's hard to see how that can possibly be related to sponsorship of the AAU team and really does look like laundering payments simply to avoid detection. Also, it greatly undermines the claims about the thoroughness of Duke's eligibility evaluation (and the NCAA Clearinghouse's).

6. I'm struck by how small these amounts appear to be compared to what appears to be the accepted fact that Adidas paid Bowen $100,000.

[budwom]

The other silver lining is that we don't have a ff / title banner at risk of being taken down.

As for Frank Jackson, it is pretty evident that some of these guys don't care about the consequences of their actions and how it reflects on the institution.

agreed. I guess that's what happens when you have a lot of six month relationships, the attachment to Duke is limited.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Thanks for laying this out. I read the article and was struck by 1) the relationship between the step-father that was running the AAU team, and 2) the amount of the payments. If someone were to throw $5000 or $10000 my way, I'm not going to say that was nothing. Then again, we're seeing other families regularly get six figure payments. This must have been a smaller portion of a payment from Rivers to the Williamson family if it was to pay them off. Or it all could have been reimbursement for AAU expenses (still very fishy IMO).

The simplest explanation is usually the best: this was a smaller piece of a bigger payment that was all for naught. Zion is with Team Jordan these days. Thanks for playing, Adidas.

[proelitedota]

That team won the ACC Championship.

one of like 21.

[cato]

As for Frank Jackson.

I won’t go so far as to ask who Frank Jackson is, but I did have to look up which team he played on. Looks like it was the Tatum/Kennard team that won the ACC and then wilted in the NCAA against an inspired SC team. At any rate, I sure hope no ACC banners are at stake. I’m not sure where we are in terms of enforcement of these types things.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The simplest explanation is usually the best: this was a smaller piece of a bigger payment that was all for naught. Zion is with Team Jordan these days. Thanks for playing, Adidas.

Well...

What I'm reading in less Duke-centric media is the even simpler explanation is that Adidas paid $X.XX and Nike clearly paid more.

Not advocating that perspective, but I can see the logic.

[Bluedog]

Well...

What I'm reading in less Duke-centric media is the even simpler explanation is that Adidas paid $X.XX and Nike clearly paid more.

Not advocating that perspective, but I can see the logic.

That's what Michael Avenatti claimed (I think...).

It seems like all this shoe company to high schooler money is a TERRIBLE client acquisition strategy and doesn't end up garnering good will in their endorsement decision-making process.

I agree that I am much more understanding if it's a third party where the institution had no involvement or knowledge of said payment, than if the payment originated from someone at the university. With NIL upcoming, it's basically going to be allowed anyways...

I have no idea the authenticity of the bank records, but I think I recall fraudulent Zion driver's license before that the marketing team was trying to use as evidence. So, impossible to know at this point.