Add a Hall of Famer to the laundry list of names irked by MLB’s current jersey partnership.
Chicago White Sox legend Frank Thomas has filed a lawsuit against his former team, Nike, and Fanatics, alleging the “unlawful” selling of jerseys bearing his name and number without his consent or compensation in any way.
Thomas, a two-time MVP who played in Chicago’s South Side from 1990-2005, claimed that the corporate triumvirate used his name and retired No. 35 to market and sell Chicago’s “City Connect 2.0” jerseys without his permission, causing him to “suffer economic detriment.”
“At all relevant times, Frank Thomas’ commercial identity was extremely valuable and, as such, he exercised control over its usage in various ways, including, but not limited to, trademarking his ‘Big Hurt’ moniker,” Thomas said in his complaint, which was filed Thursday in Illinois state court.
“Without his agreement or consent, [the defendants] profited by selling items using Frank Thomas’s identity for their own commercial purposes,” the suit continues.
Thomas, 57, alleges that the White Sox and their retail partners have been “unjustly enriched,” exploiting the former star first baseman and designated hitter’s stardom — bolstered by five All-Star nods, four Silver Sluggers, and a batting title — to fill their pockets, which he said “violates fundamental principles of justice, equity, good conscience, and fair play.”
As outlined by Law360, the grounds for the lawsuit surrounds the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which impedes the use of an individual’s identity for commercial purposes without their prior consent.
“Companies may not profit from anyone’s identity without their permission,” William T. Gibbs of Corboy & Demetrio, the law firm representing Thomas, said in a statement. “We believe our filing speaks for itself.”
The claim also lists several entities as respondents in discovery, including the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Nordstrom, and Macy’s among other retailers that “may have information as to whom, if anyone, should be named as additional defendants in this action.”