February 3, 2020
With respect to Oregon, UNLV, and Arizona:
1. Each such school has long been a ‘Nike’ school, bound by multi-million dollar contracts with Nike which supplied product, and mandated that the school and its players engage in product promotion.
2. Nike was a “booster,” pursuant to the terms of NCAA bylaw 13, because Nike “participated in . . .promoting the university’s athletics programs.”
3. Nike’s payments to recruits who eventually attended your schools materially violated NCAA bylaws, but also the Nike-School contract, which mandates that Nike comply with all NCAA bylaws.
4. Prima facie evidence from January 2020 Avenatti trial suggests that Nike engaged in recruiting activities, on behalf of your respective schools, in order to induce player attendance at each such school, in violation of NCAA bylaws.
5. That evidence also suggests that Nike must be ‘disassociated’ from each of your respective schools, because, as a booster, it has engaged activities which violate NCAA bylaws. It also suggests that the NCAA should utilize its plenary power to significantly sanction each such school, for gaining competitive advantage in violation of NCAA bylaws.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Wm Wilson Esq