The Facts

Ukrainian college player Maksym Shulga signed an exclusive representation agreement with Sigma Srl in September 2022, covering NIL opportunities through August 31, 2024. After playing at VCU during the 2023-2024 season, Shulga asked Sigma to explore transfer options for 2024-2025.

Sigma successfully negotiated a Letter of Intent with Friends of Nova (connected to Villanova University) offering $900,000 in NIL compensation. Shulga signed the LOI on May 9, 2024. However, in late May 2024, Shulga reversed course and stayed at VCU, reportedly accepting “a more significant NIL offer” that he negotiated without Sigma’s knowledge or participation.

The Holding

Arbitrator Benny Lo ruled that Shulga breached Article 2 of the Agreement, which granted Sigma representation rights “on a worldwide exclusive basis” and precluded Shulga “from conferring the same appointment to third parties and/or agents and/or representatives.”

Key determinations:

1. Broad interpretation of exclusivity: The exclusivity clause prohibited Shulga from negotiating NIL deals personally or through others during the contract term. The arbitrator rejected any narrow interpretation that would allow self-representation, finding such a reading would “render the exclusivity provision meaningless or allow for its circumvention through formalistic distinctions.”
2. Breach timing: Negotiations during the agreement term constituted breach, even if the VCU contract was signed after August 31, 2024. The arbitrator cited BAT 1231/18, noting “negotiations during the term of a representation agreement can amount to a breach of exclusivity even though the player contract is concluded after the expiry of the representation agreement.”
3. Damages measure: Applying BAT 252/12, the arbitrator awarded Sigma 20% commission on the minimum value Shulga would have earned under VCU’s NIL deal, which was $180,000 based on evidence that the VCU offer exceeded the $900,000 Villanova LOI.

Significant Language

The award contains critical reasoning on exclusivity clauses:

“If article 2 is interpreted to permit the Player to represent himself in his commercial dealings, it would render the exclusivity provision meaningless or allow for its circumvention through formalistic distinctions… the second sentence of article 2 does not limit the broad exclusivity provision in the first sentence, but rather provide for a separate and specific obligation not to appoint other people to represent the Player.”

This broad construction means athletes cannot evade exclusive representation agreements simply by claiming they negotiated deals themselves rather than through competing agents.

Practical Takeaways

For Agents:

1. Draft clear exclusivity language: Explicitly state that exclusivity prevents the athlete from negotiating personally or through others. Consider adding language like “whether directly or indirectly, personally or through third parties.”
2. Document your work: Sigma’s meticulous records of negotiations, emails, and the signed Villanova LOI were crucial in proving damages. Maintain detailed paper trails of all opportunities pursued.

For Athletes:

1. Exclusivity means exclusivity: This ruling makes clear you cannot negotiate deals yourself during an exclusive representation period, even if you don’t hire a competing agent.
2. Timing matters: Even negotiations that occur during the representation term can trigger liability, regardless of when contracts are actually signed.

Heather McPhee, who has served as the NFLPA’s associate general counsel since 2009, filed the complaint on December 18, 2025 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., seeking at least $10 million in damages. The lawsuit names former NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell Jr., current general counsel Tom DePaso, and NFL Players Inc. president Matt Curtin as defendants.

The Central Allegations: Covering Up Misconduct

McPhee’s lawsuit centers on two explosive issues that unfolded within the NFLPA over the past year, both of which she claims exposed serious failures by union leadership to protect player interests.

The OneTeam Partners Incentive Plan

McPhee raised concerns about a senior executive incentive plan proposed by OneTeam Partners, which would have paid millions in bonuses to board members affiliated with the NFLPA, including Howell and MLBPA Executive Director Tony Clark. She questioned whether these payments violated labor laws governing conflicts of interest and fiduciary duties, concerns she says she first raised internally in November 2024.

According to the complaint, McPhee’s allegations sparked an FBI investigation into the NFLPA, MLBPA, and OneTeam Partners, their $2 billion licensing company. Rather than supporting her concerns, McPhee alleges union leaders targeted her to conceal their own misconduct.

Hiding the Collusion Grievance Ruling

Perhaps even more damaging to the union’s credibility are allegations that NFLPA leadership concealed from players an arbitrator’s January 2025 ruling that found evidence NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and several owners openly discussed ways to limit guaranteed contracts for star quarterbacks.

The ruling stemmed from a collusion grievance filed after Deshaun Watson signed a fully guaranteed $230 million contract with the Cleveland Browns ahead of the 2022 season, after which league executives allegedly encouraged team owners to reduce guaranteed money in subsequent player contracts.

While the arbitrator couldn’t prove by clear preponderance that teams followed through, the union’s decision to sign a confidentiality agreement with the NFL keeping the decision from all union members for six months appeared to violate the collective bargaining agreement and raised concerns about violating the NFLPA’s duty of fair representation.

McPhee’s lawsuit argues players were directly harmed by this secrecy. “Players who were free agents in March 2025 could have leveraged the decision in negotiations for more favorable terms. The NFLPA denied them that opportunity,” the complaint states.

When McPhee objected to keeping players in the dark, she alleges Howell told the NFLPA’s executive committee that she wasn’t on “their team.”

The Retaliation: Administrative Leave as Silencing Tactic

McPhee was placed on paid administrative leave in August 2025, ostensibly for workplace misconduct including allegations of failing to follow supervisors’ directions, bullying colleagues, and disrupting the work environment.

But McPhee tells a different story. She alleges she was placed on leave specifically to prevent her from testifying before a federal grand jury investigating the NFLPA and MLBPA. The timing is notable. She says her removal came after union leaders learned she was prepared to serve as a witness about what she deemed criminal misconduct by Howell and others.

According to the lawsuit, once her cooperation with investigators became known, she was systematically frozen out. She was removed from meetings, cut off from communication with the board and players, and ultimately sidelined entirely.

The Legal Claims

The complaint asserts four counts:

1. Obstruction of Justice – Alleging defendants conspired to prevent her from cooperating with federal criminal investigators.
2. Sex Discrimination – Claiming she was treated differently than male colleagues due to her gender.
3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Arguing the defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous.
4. Breach of Contract – Asserting violations of her employment agreement.

The Broader Context: A Union in Crisis

This lawsuit lands against the backdrop of widespread turmoil at the NFLPA. Lloyd Howell resigned as executive director on July 17, 2025, after a tumultuous month that included reporting about union funds being spent on strip club visits and the collusion grievance cover-up.

The revelations about the concealed arbitration decision were particularly damaging, as they suggested the union prioritized its relationship with the NFL over its duty to inform and advocate for players. For a labor organization, few accusations cut deeper than the claim it betrayed its own members’ interests.

The OneTeam Partners investigation adds another dimension, raising questions about whether union leaders were more focused on their personal financial interests than their fiduciary obligations to players.

Why This Matters

McPhee’s case is significant for several reasons:

Duty of Fair Representation: If proven, the allegations about hiding the collusion arbitration decision would represent a serious breach of one of a union’s most fundamental obligations, which is the duty to fairly represent all members. Free agents negotiating contracts in early 2025 were denied potentially powerful leverage in their negotiations.

Obstruction of Justice: The claim that union leaders tried to prevent cooperation with a federal criminal investigation is extraordinarily serious. If McPhee was indeed sidelined to keep her from testifying, it suggests consciousness of guilt about underlying misconduct.

Internal Accountability: The lawsuit highlights the challenge of accountability within member organizations. When leadership fails, who protects the members? McPhee’s allegations suggest the NFLPA’s internal governance structures failed to address her concerns, leaving litigation as her only recourse.

Transparency vs. Secrecy: The confidentiality agreement with the NFL over the collusion ruling raises fundamental questions about when, if ever, it’s appropriate for a union to keep potentially valuable information from its members, even temporarily.

Whistleblower Retaliation: If McPhee’s allegations are accurate, the case would represent a textbook example of retaliation against an internal whistleblower by using employment actions to silence someone who raised concerns about wrongdoing.

What Happens Next

The defendants will have an opportunity to respond, either by filing a motion to dismiss or by answering the allegations paragraph by paragraph. Given the seriousness of the accusations and the detail in the complaint, expect vigorous opposition from the NFLPA.

Discovery could prove particularly revealing, potentially exposing internal communications about the OneTeam arrangement, the collusion arbitration decision, and the decision to place McPhee on leave. Email and text message exchanges among union leadership could be especially illuminating.

The parallel federal criminal investigation adds another layer of complexity. Depending on its scope and timing, that investigation could affect the pace and handling of the civil lawsuit.

The underlying dispute arose from an “Alliance Agreement” between Premier Athlete Advisors LLC and EnterSports MGT LLC, two agencies that combined their football management operations in May 2019 to create a comprehensive NFL sports agency with a 50-50 split of costs and revenues.

After Premier terminated the agreement in August 2022, claiming EnterSports owed $37,748.19 for player-related expenses and revenues, the parties disputed where their disagreement should be resolved.

While both parties agreed that arbitration was required, they disagreed on the venue. Premier argued for private arbitration in Charlotte per their contract, while EnterSports contended the NFLPA had jurisdiction over the fee-sharing dispute.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that the Alliance Agreement’s arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, covering “any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement,” and that Charlotte, North Carolina was the proper venue.

The court emphasized that NFLPA Regulations govern individual Contract Advisors, not business entities. Certification is granted “only to individuals and not any firm, corporation, partnership or other business entity.”

Since the dispute involved two LLCs and Premier was co-owned by Matthew Flatow, who isn’t NFLPA-certified, the court ruled the NFLPA Regulations didn’t govern this particular business dispute.

EnterSports argued that Premier waived its arbitration rights by previously filing an NFLPA grievance, but the court rejected this claim, noting the Agreement’s waiver provision required any waiver to be “explicitly set forth in writing and signed by the Party”.

The court distinguished between prior grievances filed as disputes between two Contract Advisors and the current dispute between two limited liability corporations.

While NFLPA regulations govern certified agents in their individual capacities, contractual disputes between sports management companies remain subject to private arbitration agreements unless the parties voluntarily agree to have the dispute adjudicated through the NFLPA grievance process and the NFLPA accepts jurisdiction.

For agencies structuring partnership agreements, this decision underscores the importance of clear arbitration clauses and reinforces that well-drafted business contracts will be enforced according to their terms, even in the specialized world of NFL representation.

Anyhow, the MLBPA’s action against Murray stems from his alleged conduct during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic negotiations, when the league and union were locked in discussions over a shortened season, player compensation, and related matters. The MLBPA claimed that Murray acted as an informant for MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred and senior officials, sharing sensitive information and assisting in strategies that undermined the players’ bargaining positions.

Evidence presented in a 71-page disciplinary letter and a 5-page memo to player leadership includes text messages and emails where Murray advised against conceding to union proposals, such as one instance where he urged Manfred not to give in on language regarding October games, stating that the deal could be completed without it. In another exchange with MLB chief communications officer Pat Courtney, Murray expressed frustration with the players, reportedly writing “F the players” and emphasizing the need to direct their anger toward union leadership. He also suggested media leaks to sympathetic reporters and provided draft proposals to aid the league’s efforts in reducing player pay amid the crisis.

Under the terms of a settlement reached before an arbitration hearing, Murray has agreed to a 4-year decertification as an agent, during which he is prohibited from negotiating player contracts or earning fees from them, along with a $100,000 fine. However, the agreement includes limited exceptions, permitting him to manage marketing affairs for players and advise 4 specific clients (Anthony Volpe, Austin Wells, Jett Williams, and Jack Leiter) on contract terms without direct negotiation or financial gain. Should Murray seek recertification after the ban period, he must pay an additional $150,000 fine.

Wasserman and CAA tied for the most first-round picks in the 2025 NBA Draft, each with six selections.

First Round Pairings

1. Cooper Flagg – Agent: CAA (Austin Brown)
2. Dylan Harper – Agent: WME Basketball (Bill Duffy, Drew Gross)
3. VJ Edgecombe – Agent: Wasserman (Thad Foucher, Jason Ranne, Joe Smith)
4. Kon Knueppel – Agent: Priority Sports (Mark Bartelstein)
5. Ace Bailey – Agent: Young Money APAA Sports; LifeStyle Sports; GSE Worldwide (Adie von Gontard, Omar Cooper, Daniel Green)
6. Tre Johnson – Agent: WME Basketball (Bill Duffy, Justin Haynes)
7. Jeremiah Fears – Agent: Lift Sports Management (Mike Miller, Donnie McGrath)
8. Egor Demin – Agent: BDAI (Nikola Filipovich)
9. Collin Murray-Boyles – Agent: Wasserman (Aaron Klevan, Joe Smith)
10. Khaman Maluach – Agent: Klutch (Rich Paul, Josh Hairston)
11. Cedric Coward – Agent: Life Sports Agency (Todd Ramasar)
12. Noa Essengue – Agent: Lift Sports Management (Yann Balikouzou)
13. Derik Queen – Agent: WME Basketball (Bill Duffy, Justin Haynes)
14. Carter Bryant – Agent: Wasserman (Joe Smith, Thad Foucher)
15. Thomas Sorber – Agent: WME Basketball (Bill Duffy, Drew Gross)
16. Hansen Yanh – Agent: Klutch (Rich Paul)
17. Joan Beringer – Agent: Wasserman (Jelani Floyd)
18. Walter Clayton Jr. – Agent: Klutch (Rich Paul, Calvin Andrews)
19. Nolan Traore – Agent: Wasserman (Jelani Floyd)
20. Kasparas Jakucionis – Agent: Wasserman (Tadas Bulotas, Aaron Klevan)
21. Will Riley – Agent: Klutch (Rich Paul, Josh Hairston)
22. Drake Powell – Agent: CAA (Ty Sullivan, Steven Heumann)
23. Asa Newell – Agent: Excel (Jeff Schwartz, James Dunleavy, Max Lipsett)
24. Nique Clifford – Agent: Life Sports (Todd Ramasar, Michael Simonetta)
25. Jase Richardson – Agent: CAA (Dave Spahn, Aaron Mintz)
26. Ben Saraf – Agent: CAA (Austin Brown, Steven Heumann, Nadav Moore)
27. Danny Wolf – Agent: CAA (Austin Brown, Max Saidman, Steven Heumann)
28. Hugo Gonzalez – Agent: ProMondo Sports (Matthew Bollero)
29. Liam McNeeley – Agent: CAA (Aaron Mintz, Dave Spahn)
30. Yanic Konan Niederhauser – Agent: Excel (Jared Mucha, Javon Phillips, Mike Lindeman)

From Hollywood to the Gridiron

Patrick Whitesell’s journey from representing A-list Hollywood talent like Matt Damon, Denzel Washington, and Ben Affleck to leading NFL player representation might seem like an unlikely transition. However, Whitesell sees striking parallels between the entertainment industry of the late 2000s and today’s football landscape. Just as he and Ari Emanuel transformed talent representation when they formed WME, Whitesell believes NFL players are on the cusp of a similar revolution in power and earning potential.

The Conflict That Created an Opportunity

The creation of WIN Sports Group wasn’t born from entrepreneurial ambition alone—it was necessitated by conflict-of-interest rules that have been reshaping the sports representation industry. When Silver Lake’s Egon Durban acquired a 7.5% stake in the Las Vegas Raiders in December 2024, it triggered NFL and NFLPA regulations prohibiting team owners from maintaining business ties with player representation entities.

Since Silver Lake became the majority owner of Endeavor through a privatization deal in March 2025, WME Sports was forced to divest its football division. Whitesell stepped in to acquire the business for undisclosed terms, ensuring continuity for both agents and clients.

The new agency launched with all the key personnel from WME Sports, including football leaders Brian Ayrault, Ben Renzin, and Joel Segal. High-profile clients made the transition as well, including Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow, Minnesota Vikings wide receiver Justin Jefferson, and San Francisco 49ers defensive end Nick Bosa.

The Broader Breakup of WME Sports

WIN Sports Group’s formation is part of a larger restructuring of WME’s sports representation business driven by these same conflict-of-interest concerns. The baseball division faces similar pressures due to Silver Lake’s ownership of Diamond Baseball Holdings, which controls 43 Minor League Baseball teams. According to Front Office Sports, WME is now looking to sell its baseball representation business to comply with MLB Players Association rules that prohibit agents from having direct or indirect ownership of MLB or MiLB teams.

This isn’t the first time these conflicts have surfaced. Three years ago, the MLBPA threatened to decertify WME agents when Endeavor began acquiring MiLB teams. That issue was temporarily resolved when Endeavor sold the franchises to Silver Lake in 2022 for $280 million, but Silver Lake’s subsequent acquisition of Endeavor has reignited the concerns.

Unlike the football division, where Whitesell saw opportunity, sources indicate he has no interest in acquiring WME’s baseball representation business, leaving that division’s future uncertain.

A New Vision for Football Representation

WIN Sports Group enters a competitive but fragmented NFL representation market, including established players like Rosenhaus Sports Representation, CAA, and Athletes First. Whitesell believes this lack of consolidation presents an opportunity, particularly given his unique background bridging entertainment and sports.

His approach focuses on the macro trends transforming football, starting with economics. Whitesell projects the NFL salary cap will rise nearly 40% by 2030 to $390 million per team, driven by media rights revenue. Beyond traditional contracts, he sees vast opportunities for players to build businesses and brands far beyond their playing careers.

“Whether it’s just building out content companies like a lot of people have wanted to do; whether it’s getting ownership, or consumer products; whether it’s having relationships with private equity or Silicon Valley tech companies, venture capital, real estate; wherever they want to sit … I think we’re uniquely positioned to connect all that,” Whitesell said.

His Silver Lake-backed investment platform’s first major bet—an investment in Peyton Manning’s Omaha Productions—exemplifies this cross-industry approach. Manning’s production company represents what Whitesell calls “the gold standard for an NFL player building new businesses off relationships and earnings from a playing career.”

Looking Forward

The creation of WIN Sports Group represents more than just a business transaction—it signals a potential shift in how football talent representation operates. With the NFL’s growing cultural dominance, expanding international presence, and rising salary caps, Whitesell believes we’re entering an era where more players will “transcend” like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Patrick Mahomes have done.

“You can see what’s going to come: You’re going to see more Peyton Mannings, Patrick Mahomes, Tom Bradys … people who have kind of transcended, and built their personalities outside of football and built businesses … I think that’s going to come in droves now. And that’s what we’re positioning this company for,” he said.

The NFLPA has completed its review and found WIN Sports Group to be in compliance with conflict-of-interest rules, clearing the way for operations. As the agency begins this new chapter with dozens of clients already on board, including three first-round picks from the 2025 draft, it will serve as a test case for whether Whitesell’s vision of football players as multimedia moguls can become reality.

The breakup of WME Sports may have been driven by regulatory necessity, but it has created opportunities for new approaches to athlete representation. WIN Sports Group’s success will depend on whether Whitesell can apply his entertainment industry expertise to unlock the full potential of NFL talent in an increasingly connected and lucrative sports landscape.

The saga began in late 2016 when NFL wide receiver Kenny Golladay signed a standard representation agreement (SRA) and an endorsement and marketing agreement with Jason Bernstein and his firm, Clarity Sports. These contracts, filed with the NFLPA as required, made Bernstein and Clarity Sports Golladay’s exclusive representatives. However, on January 29, 2019, Golladay terminated both agreements, a move that stunned Bernstein, especially after learning just days earlier of an autograph-signing event in Chicago that he had no role in arranging. As the court noted, “Bernstein became aware of the event, but only because he saw a Facebook post from one of the three [Memorabilia Defendants] promoting it.” Suspicion soon pointed to Todd France and CAA Sports, with Golladay signing with France immediately after the termination.

Bernstein filed a grievance against France under the NFLPA Regulations Governing Contract Advisors, alleging France initiated contact with Golladay and orchestrated the signing event to lure him away. An initial arbitration in November and December 2019, conducted by Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan, favored France, but this outcome was overturned by the Third Circuit in 2022. The appeals court found the award was “procured by fraud,” stating, “It turns out that France did indeed have crucial evidence that should have been available to Bernstein ….” Discovery in a parallel case, Clarity Sports Int’l LLC v. Redland Sports, revealed damning evidence: “CAA Sports produced an email from Silver to France attaching a contract for the event for Golladay’s signature, plus another email from France to Golladay attaching the same contract and asking him to sign and return it.”

A second arbitration followed in 2023, with Bernstein prevailing. On December 28, 2023, the arbitrator issued an award against France, ordering $135,846.47 in costs, $225,000 in compensatory damages, and $450,000 in punitive damages, totaling $810,846.47. The arbitrator found France’s actions “willful and flagrant,” in “bad faith,” and “outside the bounds of lawful behavior,” justifying the punitive award at twice the compensatory amount. France’s request for attorney’s fees was denied.

France fought back, filing a complaint and petition on March 21, 2024, in the Eastern District of Virginia to vacate or modify the award. He alleged arbitrator misconduct under § 10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for refusing pertinent evidence, excess of authority under § 10(a)(4), violations of the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA), and issues under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and common law. After the case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the court addressed these claims.

The court first tackled Bernstein’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding France’s LMRA claims. Bernstein argued the LMRA, which governs contracts between employers and labor organizations, didn’t apply, as neither he nor France were signatories to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court agreed, noting, “France is conflating the NFLPA Regulations Governing Contract Advisors with the actual collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.” This dismissed the LMRA claims, highlighting that disputes between agents don’t fall under this statute.

Next, the court evaluated France’s challenge to the arbitrator’s use of collateral estoppel. France argued the arbitrator unfairly relied on the Third Circuit’s fraud finding, denying him a chance to present new evidence. However, the court upheld the arbitrator’s discretion, citing precedent: “Arbitration awards are generally presumed valid, review is ‘extremely deferential,’ and vacatur is appropriate only in ‘exceedingly narrow’ circumstances.” The arbitrator had allowed briefing and considered prior hearings, the Third Circuit’s ruling, and submitted evidence, making the process fair.

Finally, France contested the $450,000 punitive damages award, claiming the arbitrator exceeded his authority under FAA § 10(a)(4). He pointed to a prior arbitration (Wasielewski et al. v. Simms & Recchion, NFLPA 18-CA-3) where the same arbitrator said the Regulations “make no provision for punitive damages.” The court rejected this, noting the NFLPA Regulations are silent on punitive damages, and the Third Circuit has no presumption against them. The arbitrator’s decision wasn’t irrational, as he allowed briefing, held hearings, and addressed the unique fraud in this case.

For sports agents, this case is a wake-up call. Interference with a rival’s client can lead to severe consequences—here, over $800,000 in total liability. The court’s deference to arbitration underscores the binding nature of NFLPA processes. Transparency and strict compliance with Regulations are critical to avoid “willful and flagrant” violations that trigger punitive damages. As the court concluded, France’s motions to vacate and for limited discovery were denied, and the award stands.

Notes:

• CAA Sports led with seven players selected.
• Athletes was next with six players each selected in the first round.
• Klutch Sports Group followed closely with five players, with Nicole Lynn securing three of those selections for Klutch.
• Excel Sports Management had three players off the board, WME had three players selected and Rosenhaus Sports had two players taken.
• Top overall pick Cam Ward is not working with a certified agent.

Round 1

1. Cam Ward – Calvin Ward (father)
2. Travis Hunter – Adie von Gontard, Peter von Gontard, Ray Haija of Young Money APAA Sports
3. Abdul Carter – Drew Rosenhaus, Robert Bailey, Jason Rosenhaus of Rosenhaus Sports
4. Will Campbell – Erik Burkhardt, Forrest Lamp of Roc Nation Sports
5. Mason Graham – Ryan Matha, Ryan Tollner of Excel Sports Management
6. Ashton Jeanty – Henry Organ, Alex Beglinger, Toney Scott of Disruptive Sports
7. Armand Membou – Ben Renzin, Joel Segal of WME Sports
8. Tetairoa McMillan – Zeke Sandhu of Klutch Sports Group
9. Kelvin Banks Jr. – David Mulugheta, Andrew Kessler of Athletes First
10. Colston Loveland – Joel Segal, Brian Ayrault of WME Sports
11. Mykel Williams – Ed Berry, Tory Dandy of CAA Sports
12. Tyler Booker – Nicole Lynn of Klutch Sports Group
13. Kenneth Grant – Andre Odom of Athletes First
14. Tyler Warren – James Ivler, Daniel Scardigno, Jonathan Perzley, Brian Mackler of SPORTSTARS
15. Jalon Walker – Trevon Smith, David Mulugheta of Athletes First
16. Walter Nolen – Todd France of Athletes First
17. Shemar Stewart – Zac Hiller of LAA Sports & Entertainment
18. Grey Zabel – Chase Callahan, Ryan Tollner of Excel Sports Management
19. Emeka Egbuka – Joel Segal of WME Sports
20. Jahdae Barron – David Mulugheta of Athletes First
21. Derrick Harmon – Patrick Collins, Tory Dandy, Ed Berry, RJ Gosner of CAA Sports
22. Omarion Hampton – Lukman Abdulai, Tory Dandy of CAA Sports
23. Matthew Golden – Ed Berry, Tory Dandy of CAA Sports
24. Donovan Jackson – Kyle McCarthy of Athletes First
25. Jaxson Dart – RJ Gonser, Jim Denton of CAA Sports
26. James Pearce Jr. – Tory Dandy, Brandon Abdala of CAA Sports
27. Malaki Starks – Nicole Lynn of Klutch Sports Group
28. Tyleik Williams – Kelton Crenshaw of Klutch Sports Group
29. Josh Conerly Jr. – Collin Roberts, Ryan Tollner, Chase Callahan of Excel Sports Management
30. Maxwell Hairston – Ed Berry, Patrick Collins of CAA Sports
31. Jihaad Campbell – Nicole Lynn of Klutch Sports Group
32. Josh Simmons – Drew Rosenhaus, Robert Bailey of Rosenhaus Sports

Background of the Dispute

According to court documents filed on April 20, 2025, HSM claims it took a chance on Beasley when it signed him as a client on November 27, 2023. At that time, Beasley reportedly entered into two agreements with HSM:

1. A Standard Player Agent Contract (SPAC) for on-court representation; and
2. A separate Player Marketing Agreement granting HSM exclusive marketing rights for a four-year term.

The marketing agreement included a substantial advance of $650,000 provided to Beasley by HSM, who purportedly believed it could generate significant marketing opportunities for the player. Many in the industry know that these “marketing guarantees” often bear no resemblance to what is actually expected to be recouped by the agent through true marketing deals and is instead intended to induce the player to sign a SPAC.

The Alleged Breach

HSM alleges that after helping Beasley secure a one-year, $6 million contract with the Detroit Pistons (more than doubling his previous salary with the Milwaukee Bucks), Beasley abruptly terminated the relationship on February 26, 2025, just 15 months into the four-year agreement.

What makes this case particularly interesting is HSM’s claim that Beasley not only terminated their representation but also allegedly hired Brian Jungreis of Seros Partners to serve as his on-court agent and marketing representative, which HSM claims to be a direct violation of the exclusivity provisions in his agreement with HSM. I expect the NBPA to chime in as to the enforceability of such a provision.

The Liquidated Damages Provision

The marketing agreement contained a liquidated damages clause that requires Beasley to pay HSM $1 million if the agreement is terminated for any reason prior to the end of the initial four-year term. The complaint states:

“Player acknowledges and accepts that if this Agreement is terminated for any reason prior to the expiration of the Initial Term (a ‘Termination Event’) Player shall be required to pay the Marketing Agent liquidated damages in the amount of $1,000,000 (one million USD)…”

HSM argues this provision was accepted by both parties as “fair and acceptable in light of the amount of the Marketing Advance and the risk assumed by Marketing Agent.” An anticipated defense to this claim, should the case move past a motion to dismiss, is that this is actually an unenforceable penalty clause disguised as a liquidated damages provision, which is something I recently addressed in the context of NIL agreements.

Implications for Athletes and Agents

This case highlights several important considerations for professional athletes and their representatives:

1. Liquidated damages clauses – These provisions are becoming more common in marketing agreements, especially when substantial advances are involved. Whether they are enforceable is something that needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
2. Exclusivity provisions – Athletes need to fully understand the ramifications of granting exclusive marketing rights to an agency, and agents need to understand whether the restrictive covenants are enforceable.
3. Early termination consequences – Breaking contracts early can trigger significant financial penalties that extend well beyond simply returning advance payments. Even if not valid and binding, it still could result in litigation as we see here.

What’s Next

HSM is seeking judgment against Beasley on three claims:

• Breach of contract (in excess of $1 million);
• Liquidated damages ($1 million plus marketing fees); and
• Legal fees (expected to exceed $250,000).

The case will likely center on whether the liquidated damages provision is enforceable under New York law, which requires such provisions to be reasonable concerning the anticipated harm and not function as a penalty.

For sports agents and players alike, this case serves as an important reminder of the binding nature of marketing agreements and the potentially steep consequences of early termination. It also raises questions about whether such substantial liquidated damages provisions may have a chilling effect on players seeking to change representation.

Beasley has not yet responded to the lawsuit and no lawyer has noticed an appearance on his behalf.

Sometimes, cases are swiftly resolved. That appears to be the case here.

Within a week of writing about the lawsuit, the parties entered into a Consent Order to facilitate an amicable resolution to the dispute. It includes a separate letter agreement and entry of the order on consent. That order states the following:

Basically, Excel has taken contractual language and supported it by court order. But at least the parties can avoid what could have been protracted, expensive litigation, assuming the former employee defendants comply with the order.