The Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) has issued a significant ruling in Sigma Srl v. Maksym Shulga (BAT 2249/24), awarding an Italian sports agency $180,000 in damages after college basketball player Maksym Shulga breached the exclusivity clause in their representation agreement by negotiating a NIL deal without his agent’s involvement.
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:
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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:
- 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.”
- 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:
- 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.
- Timing matters: Even negotiations that occur during the representation term can trigger liability, regardless of when contracts are actually signed.