Fans next Saturday sued Arizona Cardinals quarterback wide receiver Marvin Harrison, Jr. and his limited liability company, the Official Harrison Collection, for breach of contract, predictive rejection and tortious intervention. Fans claims the original Ohio State star allegedly erred on a “binding word sheet”
The word sheet’s enforceability might play a significant role in the case.
As Fanatics tells it, Harrison Jr. and the firm entered into an agreement, which the multi- billion- money firm insists is a “fully bound and legal contract”, in May 2023. Marvin Harrison Sr., a retired NFL player, represented the large device in the transaction. Fanatics claims Harrison Jr. has been paid after signing the deal but has “refused to fulfill any of his]contractual ] obligations”.

In the complaint filed in a New York test court, which is made public, redact those responsibility and many other information. However, unredacted components say Harrison Jr. allegedly warned Fans that he’s received” competing provides” from rival buying card companies and demanded Fans “meet or reach” those offers. Additionally, the complaint asserts that Harrison Jr. lied to ESPN about providing him with inaccurate information in deceptive ways. Fanatics demands a jury trial, and it estimates that there may be millions of dollars in potential damages.
Prior to 2021, the year the NCAA instituted an interim NIL policy that allowed athletes to use their publicity rights without violating their collegiate eligibility, signing commercial contracts while still in college would have been problematic for Harrison Jr. In both New York and Ohio ( and in most states ), age is necessary for signing legally binding contracts, and Harrison Jr., who turns 22 in August, was old enough to do so in 2023. Given that his father is a former college and NFL player who also signed numerous business contracts along the way, Harrison Jr. is presumably also receiving expert advice.
Fanatics ‘ complaint reveals one side of the story. In the weeks ahead Harrison Jr. will answer the complaint, presumably deny the allegations and offer rebuttals. The fact that Harrison Jr. and Fanatics did n’t resolve the dispute amicably—and in private—suggests the Cardinals rookie wo n’t go down without a fight.
Harrison Jr. might contend that no legally binding contract was created. Harrison Jr. might object that the NFL rookie interpreted the term sheet as a preliminary or aspirational agreement and that he was still negotiating with Fanatics despite the complaint claiming that the NFL rookie signed a “binding term sheet” and that Fanatics made payments to him over a number of months.
The specificity or ambiguity of the term sheet would affect the persuasiveness of such an argument, with the latter more akin to a completed contract. The response from Harrison Jr. to the complaint might reveal some redacted language. He might also contend that his understanding that the deal was n’t made sense by his alleged refusal to fulfill obligations and alleged rejection or ignoring of “every request.”

Although in a different context and jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana recently decided that former LSU head football coach Ed Orgeron had signed a non-binding “binding term sheet” with LSU in 2020. The term sheet, the court reasoned, was merely” an agreement to agree” even though it was labeled “binding”. The ruling came in the context of whether the term sheet, which was later superseded by an employment contract, created a sharable for Oregon’s former marriage.
One hurdle for Harrison Jr. in arguing there was no enforceable contract is that, according to the complaint, he accepted payment from Fanatics and did n’t perform required services. If that’s an accurate portrayal, Harrison Jr. presumably would have known Fanatics was n’t paying him as a gift or goodwill gesture. He would need a plausible justification for how he would interpret payment receipts, as well as whether or not he would return them. Harrison Jr. might make a variation by claiming that he intends to provide the services necessary and that he is not violating any of his obligations.
Alternatively, Harrison Jr. might contend that his co- defendant, his LLC, is the responsible party, not him. Fanatics says the Harrison Collection is Harrison Jr.’s “alter ego/agent” and ca n’t act independently of his direction or control. The company further insists Harrison Jr. “personally signed” the term sheet and that he is both “personally responsible” and “personally liable”.
An LLC is a distinct legal entity that, in some cases, can make it more difficult for a plaintiff to personally liable the defendant for business that was conducted through it. The effectiveness of an LLC-based defense is typically undermined when the LLC functions more like a person’s extension than as a distinct entity. Additionally, he would be personally liable if the Fanatics agreement was made between Harrison Jr. and the Harrison Collection ( and not just the latter ).
As another possible defense, Harrison Jr. might accuse Fanatics of wrongdoing. He’ll likely argue that Fanatics broke the contract or that it engaged in objectionable behavior, rendering it “unclean hands,” meaning acting in bad faith and deserving of reparation. Harrison Jr. would need to corroborate those types of claims with specifics and, eventually, evidence.
Harrison Jr. would also need to explain why ( according to the complaint ) he and Fanatics entered into a separate “limited promotion and license agreement” in March 2023. The agreement, described as non- exclusive and short term, expired in April 2024. If Harrison Jr. thought Fanatics was n’t living up to its contract in that agreement, it would be pertinent to determine whether he took legal action to assert his rights and, if not, inquire why.
Additionally, Harrison Jr. may contend that Fanatics must first mediate and/or arbitrate before it can pursue him in court. He might also ask to move the case to a different court or to transfer it there. The contractual language of Harrison Jr.’s ability to successfully pursue some of those strategies would depend on that language.