BREAKING: In new federal court filing, Zion Williamson pushes back against Gina Ford’s claim that he was paid to play at Duke. Calls accusation “baseless” and “irrelevant,” and points to her prior admissions that he was a “student-athlete” until declaring for the NBA Draft. 
Zion Williamson has now denied the pay-to-pay allegations, although he was not required to do so at this stage of the case.
“Rather than defend their conduct, Defendants seek to shift the focus with salacious and false rumors from unreliable ‘sources’ outside the pleadings.”
“Rather than defend their conduct, Defendants seek to shift the focus with salacious and false rumors from unreliable ‘sources’ outside the pleadings.”
Williamson’s lawyers point out that Ford relies on “Wikipedia articles, Zillow estimates, and hearsay ruled inadmissible by other federal judges” and embraces “rank speculation” that Duke intentionally violated NCAA rules. Calls such allegations “baseless” and “irrelevant.”
“Defendants’ sole argument in opposition—that Williamson should never have been eligible—has no bearing on whether the Agreement is void” because the UAAA defines “student-athlete” as any student who “engage in” intercollegiate sports, and is not tied solely to eligibility.
Reminder: this filing is part of Zion’s argument on why he should win the case right now based on what he asserts is a clear violation of the UAAA by Gina Ford based on text messages showing early contact with the family. Judge could rule within a few weeks. He has a strong case.
1/ Williamson’s attorneys say that Ford’s attempt to retroactively nullify his status as a student-athlete “would turn the legislative purpose [of the UAAA] on its head. The UAAA is designed to protect student-athletes by regulating the conduct of overreaching agents.”
2/ “Defendants’ approach would instead protect would-be agents from liability by allowing ex post facto, retroactive victim-blaming. That is fundamentally backwards and contrary to the statutory text and purpose.”
Rebuts Ford’s claim that Williamson “initiated” contact with her. Calls it a “red herring” because even if true, under the UAAA, Ford was required to register within seven days of her “initial act as an athlete agent.” (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 78C-88(b)). She never did.
My favorite line of the brief:
“A student who ‘engages in’ intercollegiate sports is a “student-athlete,” full stop.”
That’s really the heart of it.
“A student who ‘engages in’ intercollegiate sports is a “student-athlete,” full stop.”
That’s really the heart of it.
“A student-athlete cannot retroactively lose protection under the UAAA. . . There is no support for the contention that the applicability of the UAAA’s regulation of athlete agents provides for a retroactive inquiry into student-athlete eligibility. It does not.”
Key point here - determinations of “eligibility” are “made by the educational institution or the national association [meaning the NCAA].” Not sure this fits with a statutory requirement and the broad powers flexed by fed judges. But, notably, NCAA and Duke are not parties.
“Defendants’ theory that Williamson was never a student-athlete is contrary to their own admissions. In a letter to Williamson’s counsel dated June 4, 2019, Defendants alleged that Williamson forfeited his student-athlete status when he “declared eligible for the 2019 NBA draft.”
“Their position now rests entirely on the theory that Williamson was never a “student-athlete,” and their counsel’s letter makes clear that Defendants believed Williamson was a student-athlete until at least April 15, 2019.”
“Defendants should be estopped from now arguing, ex post facto, that they did not violate the law.”
“Defendants’ interpretation would contravene the UAAA’s statutory purpose. It would transform a shield to protect student-athletes against overreaching agents into a sword by which those agents could avoid liability by attacking students’ reputations.”
“If Defendants could retroactively challenge Williamsons’ protection as a “student-athlete”—notwithstanding that he was playing basketball for Duke—their approach would eviscerate the UAAA’s protections.”
“Defendants do not deny that they recruited a prominent college athlete in North Carolina without registering. Their entire brief instead consists of an effort to point the finger at Williamson and his family, levying a stream of offensive and baseless insinuations.”
“Defendants assert that a purpose of the UAAA is to police student-athlete
behavior, but fail to provide any support for this contention. None
exists. The UAAA was enacted to protect student-athletes from the predatory conduct of athlete agents at the time of their recruitment.”
behavior, but fail to provide any support for this contention. None
exists. The UAAA was enacted to protect student-athletes from the predatory conduct of athlete agents at the time of their recruitment.”
Good line (and important point):
“The statute regulates the conduct of athlete agents, not student-athletes: It is called the Uniform Athlete Agent Act, not the Uniform Student Athlete Code of Conduct.”
“The statute regulates the conduct of athlete agents, not student-athletes: It is called the Uniform Athlete Agent Act, not the Uniform Student Athlete Code of Conduct.”
“Finally, even if Defendants could rewrite the statute to authorize retroactive review of student-athlete eligibility, Defendants raise nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture.”
“For example, Defendants offer an excerpt from a taped phone conversation between two individuals ostensibly discussing Williamson, but Defendants neglect to include the portion of the trial transcript in which the Court rules the excerpt inadmissible.”
“Notwithstanding Defendants’ insinuations about owning cars and renting homes, they nowhere allege that Zion Williamson or his family actually engaged in any conduct in violation of NCAA rules.”
“The suggestion that a Duke alumnus gave the Williamson family a favorable deal on a home is not only untrue, it is reckless and not based on a reasonable inquiry.” (cont.)
“Indeed, a news article posted only hours after Defendants’ filing suggests that, based on the News and Observer’s investigation, public records easily disprove Defendants’ assertions.”
This may have been Zion’s legal team’s finest work product in the case. With the case now pending in federal court, writing absolutely matters. It also helps having a strong legal argument. This could be the end of the legal road for Gina Ford.
