Brooklyn Nets basketball player Spencer Dinwiddie previously planned to tokenize his NBA contract worth more than $30 million— until the NBA blocked the deal, citing a Collecting Bargaining Agreement (CBA) violation.
We were ready to open on the 14th but in the spirit of partnership, we are pushing it back a week to try and allow the @NBA sufficient time to respond.
Having been on the ground in China, we are sensitive to what the @NBA has been dealing with. (1/8)
— Spencer Dinwiddie (@SDinwiddie_25) October 13, 2019
In essence, investors would provide Dinwiddie upfront money, then reap the rewards in the third year of his deal, which is a player option. Assuming his first two years were gang busters, Dinwiddie would opt out and go for a bigger, long term contract, rewarding his early investors.
Dinwiddie is trying to sell shares in his contract even though the league’s collective bargaining agreement may prevent such an act in the end.
He goes on to say:
“This is why we are giving them additional time as our goal is to partner. Regardless of the NBA’s position, we will move forward. Therefore we will launch on Oct. 21st, a week from our original date and before the start of the NBA season. Even with our desire to partner with the NBA, it is not necessary. And I want to be clear, this is not and never was an ‘assignment’ nor am I in violation of the CBA. By definition an ‘assignment’ would give fans rights towards the Nets/NBA.”
The described arrangement is prohibited by the C.B.A., which provides that ‘no player shall assign or otherwise transfer to any third party his right to receive compensation from the team under his uniform player contract.
Dinwiddie has said there is great interest in how things work out among fellow players. It’s also attracted a lot of interest among those who follow crypto currency.
He ends his Twitter rant by stating:
“Lastly, as we speak about freedoms domestically and urge athletes to offer comments on situations they maybe weren’t prepared for, it would be a shame if we try to abuse our power to limit similar liberties that can be beneficial to all parties involved due to misunderstanding.”
