Oakland (Special to NFLNewsbyZennie62.com) – When considering NIL deals, always check out the company or person because it’s clear Gervon Dexter did not. Who’s Gervon Dexter? He’s the Chicago Bears’ second year defensive tackle, drafted from Florida State in the second round of the 2023 NFL Draft.
And what are NIL deals?
As most of America knows, especially anyone with a teenager who’s a good high school or college athlete, “Name, Image, and Likeness” deals or “NIL deals” are all the rage. An NIL deal is where an organization gives money to a college or in some states high school athletes and in turn uses that person’s name and image and likeness to create product endorsement campaigns. Generally by asking the athlete to make social media content.
But that should not mean your kid should be on the hook to pay an organization part of his or her future earnings, but that’s what BLA or Big League Advantage was trying to do with Gervon Dexter.
Indeed, Big League Advantage is rather upfront about its intentions on its website:
Big League Advantage, LLC (BLA) provides athletes with the resources they need to help make their dream a reality. Players receive capital – not loans – and a player keeps the funds whether or not he ever makes it to the next level. For players who make it to the next level, we share in their success. We make our investment decisions and identify prospective players based on innovative analytics developed by our team.
Obviously, the Bears’ Dexter (and it seems his parents) were drawn by the near half-million investment and did not think about the words “For players who make it to the next level, we share in their success.”
Here’s the full story from Sports Litigation Alert, edited for form and SEO.
Sports Litigation Alert Explains The Gervon Dexter vs. Big League Advantage Case
In the spring after his sophomore year of eligibility, Gervon Dexter entered into an agreement with Big League Advantage whereby he would receive $436,485, in exchange for the performance of certain NIL-related services during his collegiate career, and payment of 15% of his lifetime NFL earnings, if any, after his collegiate career.
The Big League Advantage agreement, which more closely resembles a predatory lending contract than one for name, image and likeness, contained a mandatory arbitration provision and was governed by the laws of the State of Delaware which, critically, has neither the Uniform Athlete Agent Act nor NIL regulations.
After signing the Big League Advantage agreement and accepting the $436,485, Dexter, upon being drafted in the 2nd Round by the Chicago Bears in the subsequent NFL draft, sought to invalidate the agreement, while retaining the monies paid as consideration under the agreement. Based on Dexter’s second-round contract alone, Big League Advantage would be guaranteed $554,341.80, and potentially receive up to $1,008,559.80; a 27% and 131% return on investment, respectively.
Accordingly, on Sept. 1, 2023, Dexter brought an action in the Northern District of Florida Federal court seeking a declaration that the agreement was violative of both Florida’s version of the Uniform Athlete Agent Act (“UAAA”), codified under Fla. St. § 468.451-457, and Florida’s NIL Act, codified under Fla. St. § 1006.74, and thus void.
In response, on Oct. 23, 2023, Big League filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, wherein Big League argued that the dispute was improperly before the Federal court, given the arbitration provision, which they assert should be evaluated under Delaware law.
Notably, Big League Advantage’s response fails to examine the applicability of Delaware law to the gravamen of the Complaint: whether the agreement violated the principles of the UAAA or NIL regulations.
Ostensibly, this was not mere oversight. Indeed, the acknowledgment that there exists no body of statutory law in Delaware to protect collegiate athletes from predatory exploitation might compel the Court to side with Dexter, in the interest of equity and public policy. Particularly in light of the fact that this is a case of first impression and, thus, potentially precedent-setting. Indeed, the Court’s ruling could not only invalidate the Dexter agreement but would potentially be deleterious to Big League Advantage’s entire business model.
On Oct. 27, 2023, Dexter’s counsel filed their opposition memorandum to Big League Advantage’’s motion to compel arbitration, predictably, framing the issue as one of equity and public policy.
They asserted that Dexter was “seeking relief under statutes that were drafted by the Florida Legislature with the sole intent of protecting people just like him”, to prevent Dexter from being exploited under an agreement they characterized as unconscionable, and thus unenforceable as a matter of Florida public policy.
While where the court lands on this potentially precedent-setting issue is yet to be determined, what is certain is that the patchwork of inconsistent regulations being observed by various academic institutions and states has given rise to loopholes allowing more sophisticated parties in the space to arbitrage in ways that undermine the overarching purpose of NIL: to create greater equity on behalf of collegiate athletes.
Post Sports Litgation’s Explanation: Congress Must Stop This Before It Starts
The bottom line is this idea of trying to take a kid’s projected earnings after giving a so-called investment is simply not right or fair to the young athlete. First, it’s not really an NIL Deal, but a contract to steal money. The idea of an NIL deal is simple: pay the athlete for using their name, image, and likeness on shoes, shirts, in commercials, etc. This approach by Big League Advantage says we give you money, you do not pay it back, but if you make it big we get part of what you earn forever. That should be an illegal tax, to start with.
But rather than arguing about that, Congress should make it not legal at all. Big League Advantage should be ashamed of itself for trying to use college and high school athletes.
Big League Advantage should shut down in my opinion.