Michigan/Nike Contract-Activity Tracking
I stumbled on this article on Twitter and thought it would be worth a share here.
Basically, the Michigan/Nike contract has a section in it called "Activity-Based-Information", which tracks physical performance (think Fitbit/fuel bands, etc). Quote below:
"And Michigan grants to Nike the “right to utilize . . . Activity Based Information . . . in all media including, but not limited to, the worldwide web and other interactive and multimedia technologies, in connection with teh manufacture, advertisng, mareting, promotion and sale of Nike products and Digital Features and programming [which use shall be] on an aggregated, anonymous and de-identified basis and otherwise in compliance with [Big Ten, NCAA, and Michigan] regulations.”"
So Michigan is selling athletes performance metrics to Nike? Maybe the MGoLawyers will read this differently, but is that legal without the consent of the athletes even though they are aggregated and anonymous? That's still a ton of data.
August 31st, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
In the pharmaceutical world, aggregated and deidentified patient data can be used or disseminated without patient consent, payment, etc.
I imagine this (non) issue is relatively the same.
August 31st, 2016 at 1:48 PM ^
This, why do you think Under Armour bought MyFitnessPal for so much?
August 31st, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^
in connection with teh manufacture, advertisng, mareting, promotion and sale of Nike products
Somebody had a bad day at the office.
August 31st, 2016 at 1:27 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
August 31st, 2016 at 10:54 AM ^
August 31st, 2016 at 10:57 AM ^
Understood--the question is more around the fact that these are student-athletes and not paid employees.
The point being that it may change the precedence going forward.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:08 AM ^
Neither student athletes nor employees automatically own records of performance and as long as sharing that data doesn't violate any privacy laws, such as HIPAA, FERPA, etc., there likely isn't any issue with aggregated and deidentfied data.
And, you know, like WolvinLA said, they probably hired a couple law school interns or something to go over the contract before signing it.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:14 AM ^
I would be completely stunned if both UM and Nike didn't hire top law firms to make this deal happen.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:22 AM ^
To be clear, I'm only the messenger. Since you did not read the actual article, here is another quote:
"Michigan sold its player’s data, without even telling the players, or getting authorization. (The SAS signed by the player by no means makes it clear that such data is surrendered by the playeer; nor do pertinent NCAA bylaws.) In the professional leagues that sale of data would never have occurred without having the issue collectively bargained — and, most likely, with both parties agreeing to some split in the revenues apportioned to the value of that data"
August 31st, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
You're more than a messenger as it seems like you are pushing a particular angle. That "quote" if from the body of the blog post, not a quote from some purported expert.
And yes, I didn't read the entire Brewonsouthu wordpress post. Because it was a wordpress post you said you found on twitter. Instead of using my own experiences and my brain, I should've known its proprietor, one William Wilson, was an expert on contract, privacy, and data law.
I should've known that a blog with a header byline that says "OSU's Startling Suspension of JT Barrett's Scholarship is Evidence of Employee Status" and an incoherent About page should be taken very seriously and everything written therein as fact.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:45 AM ^
If you need a haitus from deadline day Twitter: this seems like it could be YUGE and nobody is saying much about it. https://t.co/111XyY3Lt5
— Willy Banjo (@bertinbertin) August 31, 2016
August 31st, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
This is your writing at the top of the page:
"Maybe the MGoLawyers will read this differently, but is that legal without the consent of the athletes even though they are aggregated and anonymous? That's still a ton of data."
Usually when someone asks an opinion with a slanted question like that and then argues with what people who have experience in the relevant area tell them, they don't actually want to know the answer. That's what I mean by you have an angle.
Either that or you are Bill Wilson. Congrats on your success, Bill!
August 31st, 2016 at 12:08 PM ^
+1, My phrasing wasn't great there, agreed. I'm not an attorney but do have a bit of experience with disclosures (like you, but in a different industry) and data.
Maybe Bill Wilson is a crackpot, I didn't dig into his background before posting this. It's not that hard to find my real name, but I'm not him.
August 31st, 2016 at 12:25 PM ^
That's fair. I do agree that it's an interesting part of the contract and I was unaware they were actively using this type of data.
Make sense once I think about it - if there's any sort of data, someone is trying to use it.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:50 AM ^
And here's the full contract (PDF) from the Toledo Blade website (page one is the section in question).
I don't have an angle, I simply found it interesting.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:04 PM ^
August 31st, 2016 at 11:12 AM ^
The short answer to your question is, no. Quite possibly the opposite. The more lawyers that are involved, the more likely it is that someone has come up with a half-plausible reason why something isn't illegal--not legal mind you, but not illegal.
Yes the lawyers have an incentive to comply with whatever applicable laws and regulations that might exist to prevent having to incur legal fees down the road, but more than anyhting, these lawyers are tasked with doing whatever is best for their respective clients, generallly by dividing up who shoulders what risk in the event of something unforeseen. Contract negotiations don't necessarily involve a period for both parties to review for external legal problems after a deal is struck. Generally, once a tentative deal is reached, you get it on paper and a pen in the client's hand to sign the damn thing as fast as possible so someone doesn't change their mind.
August 31st, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^
Yup, so let's never question anything done by major companies, because they probably hired top notch lawyers. Pretty good logic, sir!
August 31st, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^
You know what assumptions get you.
But seriously. Contracts with problems in the language are signed all the time. That doesn't make them legal. It just makes the parties look foolish for abiding by it.
August 31st, 2016 at 10:51 PM ^
August 31st, 2016 at 11:14 AM ^
These are NCAAA student-athletes you're talking about, you really think they didn't sign away those rights along with everything else?
August 31st, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^
Did the contract really have all those typos?
August 31st, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^
The link in the article is either blocked by my browser settings or broken.
August 31st, 2016 at 10:49 PM ^
August 31st, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
They have been wearing Nike for a month, and haven't played a game yet. I took it as a marketing, advertising tool. Whatever, I'm sure no animals were hurt or injured in this process.
By the way, what happened to my avatar?
August 31st, 2016 at 3:11 PM ^
Is the data shared specific to identifiable players? Seems that would make a big difference
August 31st, 2016 at 3:53 PM ^
August 31st, 2016 at 7:51 PM ^