Potential Hiccup in Tatis' Major League Promotion Lawsuit Could land in Arbitration Hurdle
Tatis Takes on Big League Advance
The legal battle between San Diego Padres' star, Fernando Tatis Jr., and Big League Advance Fund and Big League Advantage (BLA) is heating up, with potential hurdles looming on the horizon. The former is challenging the legitimacy of his player investment contract, which may see the case shifted to arbitration.
In his latest court filing, the complaint asserts that Tatis' deal with BLA should be deemed null and void under California law. Penned by attorneys Alexander H. Winnick and colleagues, the complaint takes aim at BLA for allegedly offering predatorial financial services without a license.
The controversy stems from a 2017 contract signed by Tatis, then an eighteen-year-old Dominican athlete still learning English, who agreed to give BLA 10% of his future baseball earnings in exchange for a $2 million advance during his minor league days. After four years, Tatis inked a mammoth $340 million, fourteen-year contract with the Padres. Tatis now objects to the deal, arguing that he will pay over 1,700% of the initial advance to BLA.
Tatis bases his argument on California's Financing Law, insisting that BLA lacks the necessary license to issue loans and exploits vulnerable athletes by offering them lump-sum advances at the cost of substantial portions of their earnings. Tatis strongly opposes BLA's characterization of its deals as investments, maintaining that they are, in fact, income-share agreements—a classification that requires a license under California law.
These arrangements, Tatis charges, are problematic because BLA seeks an astronomical 90% interest rate per annum—far exceeding California’s legal cap of 10%. In the upcoming weeks, BLA will respond to the complaint and attempt to sway the court to dismiss the case. They'll likely argue that the agreement Tatis signed was not a loan but an investment, providing capital to supplement his minor-league earnings.
The suit also alleges that BLA adopts a rushed signing process that exploits young athletes' inexperience and lack of legal counsel. BLA, however, will likely counter that Tatis, as an adult, was fully aware of the agreement's implications, and the failure to secure adequate legal assistance was primarily his responsibility.
Notably, the lawsuit hints at the issue of arbitration, which might prove crucial. An attorney accustomed to player investment contracts revealed that BLA contracts often include arbitration clauses. This could lead to a crucial dispute over whether Tatis' arguments should first be addressed through arbitration before any court involvement.
Tatis, at 26 years old, is a two-time All-Star with a batting average of .267, 15 home runs, and an OPS of .822 this season.
Related Story
BLA Suits Franmil Reyes Over Unpaid Earnings Stake
Related Insights:
- Predatory Lending Allegations: California has a strict stance on predatory lending, and Tatis' complaint claims that BLA's business model violates these laws. If successful, this could lead to regulation changes or legal action targeting income-share agreements within the sports financing industry.
- Impact on Athlete Financial Empowerment: A positive outcome for Tatis could set a precedent for increasing protections and fairness for athletes who might otherwise be taken advantage of by such contracts.
- Public Injunctive Relief: Tatis is seeking injunctive relief not only for himself but also to protect other athletes from similar contracts. This indicates the potential for systemic change in the sports financing domain governed by California law.
The legal battle between Fernando Tatis Jr., a Major League Baseball (MLB) player, and Big League Advance Fund (BLA) involves an analysis of the legitimacy of Tatis' player investment contract, specifically focusing on whether it should be deemed null and void under California law due to BLA's alleged offering of predatory financial services without a license.
Furthermore, Tatis' lawsuit against BLA could have significant implications for the sports industry, especially in baseball, as it focuses on the scrutiny of income-share agreements, which may require a license under California law and raise concerns about predatory lending practices.
