A San Diego Superior Court judge has denied a major league baseball player’s attempt to void a multimillion-dollar arbitration award stemming from an investment contract he signed as a teenager.
Fernando Tatís Jr., the 27-year-old San Diego Padres shortstop, sought to overturn an arbitration ruling requiring him to pay approximately $3.74 million to Big League Advance Fund. Judge Judy Bae rejected his petition on Friday, maintaining that his legal challenge came too late in the proceedings.
The dispute centers on a 2017 agreement Tatís entered when he was 18 years old and living in the Dominican Republic. Under the contract terms, he received $2 million upfront from Big League Advance in exchange for surrendering 10 percent of his professional baseball earnings for 25 years if he reached the major leagues.
The financial stakes escalated dramatically in 2021 when the Padres signed Tatís to a 14-year contract valued at $340 million. This landmark deal meant he would owe Big League Advance Fund $34 million over the life of the agreement. However, Tatís ceased making payments to the fund in 2024, triggering the current legal dispute.
In court filings submitted in June 2025, Tatís argued that the original contract violated California Financing Law and should be considered void. His legal team contended that he was rushed through the agreement as a young person with limited financial sophistication and understanding of the long-term implications.
Judge Bae ruled that Tatís had waited too long to raise these objections. According to her written decision, California Supreme Court precedent requires parties to challenge the legality of contracts before arbitration proceedings commence, not after an unfavorable ruling.
The arbitration proceedings initiated by Big League Advance Fund in September 2024 concluded approximately one year later with an award totaling $3,735,701. This sum included $3,230,837 in principal, $240,515 in interest, $250,000 in attorney fees, and $14,349 in additional costs.
Maurice Mitts, representing Tatís from Philadelphia, argued that California Financing Law challenges were properly raised as defenses in court briefings. He maintained that courts have an independent obligation to review potentially illegal contracts regardless of timing, particularly when dealing with what he characterized as unlicensed financial lending operations.
Mitts indicated he would likely appeal the ruling, arguing that Big League Advance attempted to circumvent California law through contractual engineering designed to avoid proper regulatory oversight.
Big League Advance Fund, founded in 2016 by former MLB pitcher Michael Schwimer, maintains its agreements constitute investments in athletic careers rather than loans. The company disputed Tatís’s characterization of their business model and defended the legitimacy of their contracts.
Michael Attanasio, representing Big League Advance, countered that Tatís had willingly participated in arbitration proceedings without raising illegality concerns until nearly a year after the process began. He characterized the post-arbitration lawsuit as an improper attempt to relitigate after an unfavorable outcome.
The court did side with Tatís on one jurisdictional matter, finding that California law applied to the dispute and that the state held greater interest in resolving the matter than Delaware, where Big League Advance is incorporated.
This case highlights ongoing debates about financial agreements between young athletes and investment funds, particularly regarding the enforceability of long-term contracts signed before players fully understand their earning potential or the complexities of such arrangements.
Leave a Reply