Memphis Restaurant to Pay Ja Morant Over \$365K, Barred from Using NBA Star’s Likeness**
—
### **Introduction**
In a high-profile arbitration dispute between Memphis Grizzlies star **Ja Morant** and local restaurant chain **The Wing Guru**, an arbitrator recently ordered the restaurant to pay the NBA All-Star **\$365,525.30**, and permanently barred them from using his name, image, or likeness in their promotions. The ruling—now awaiting court confirmation—sheds light on the pitfalls of athlete endorsement deals, and underscores the rising stakes in brand-ambassador relationships within sports and entertainment.
—
### **The Deal That Started It All**
On **January 1, 2022**, Ja Morant entered a brand-ambassador agreement with The Wing Guru, a Memphis-based chicken wing restaurant chain with multiple locations in greater Memphis, and an expansion into **Atlanta**. Under the deal, Morant would lend his name, image, and likeness (NIL) to support various **print, social media, and audiovisual promotions**, in return for a guaranteed **\$75,000 per year**, paid in monthly installments of \$6,250 ([actionnews5.com][1]).
Morant publicly endorsed Wing Guru in March 2022 via a social media post —
> “Honored to be a Brand Ambassador for @TheWingGuru. I always choose the Guru when I get wings #TheWingGuru #BrandAmbassador #GuruGang” ([actionnews5.com][1]).
Yet, less than four months into the agreement, Wing Guru **stopped making payments**, even though the campaigns featuring Morant continued unabated ([actionnews5.com][1]).
—
### **The Breach: Money Missing, Likeness Still in Use**
After missing payments starting in **April 2022**, Morant’s legal team began a series of demand letters and attempts to settle the matter. By **November 2022**, outstanding dues approaching **\$43,000** prompted another outreach from the team ([hot97.com][2]).
Wing Guru allegedly responded with a promise:
> “You guys will receive the entire \$75K by Jan. 1st. Relax. Thanks for your understanding.” ([afrotech.com][3]).
But as with prior commitments, these too fell flat— **no payments were made**, yet the restaurant continued to feature Morant in advertising campaigns, including making use of his image in states beyond its Memphis locale, like Nashville, Houston, and Dallas ([balleralert.com][4]).
—
### **Arbitration Ruling: A Financial and Legal Defeat for Wing Guru**
Morant filed for arbitration in **May 2023**, citing breach of contract and **commercial appropriation**—the unauthorized commercial use of his likeness ([actionnews5.com][1]). The case was heard by **retired federal judge Bernice Donald**, who ruled in **August 2024**.
Judge Donald’s award totaled **\$365,525.30**, calculated from:
1. **Missed payments** and the full compensation due under the contract.
2. **“Unjust profits”** that Wing Guru generated through unauthorized campaigns using Morant’s likeness—estimated at **\$225,000** ([sportsbusinessjournal.com][5], [actionnews5.com][1]).
Additionally, the ruling included an **injunction** permanently prohibiting Wing Guru from using Morant’s name, image, or likeness in any future advertising ([sportsbusinessjournal.com][5]).
Wing Guru was given **90 days to object**, but **no response was filed** ([actionnews5.com][1]). Thus, on **December 18, 2024**, Morant petitioned the Shelby County Chancery Court to **affirm the arbitrator’s award** ([actionnews5.com][1]).
—
### **Current Status: Pending Court Confirmation**
As of **July 2025**, court records indicate that Wing Guru **has not challenged the arbitration**, nor has it paid the award. In contrast, Morant’s legal team is actively pursuing **judicial enforcement**, asking the court to bind Wing Guru to the financial award and the irrevocable ban on using his likeness .
Until the court affirms the ruling, Wing Guru technically could **appeal or delay**—but with no filed objection within the arbitration timeframe, and clear documentation of breach, their legal footing appears weak.
—
### **Why This Matters: Athlete Rights & NIL Legal Landscape**
Morant’s case is emblematic of a growing battleground in the **NIL and endorsement** era. It highlights several critical legal and commercial trends:
#### 1. **Enforcement of NIL Rights**
Contracts granting usage rights must be strictly honored. Failure to pay not only constitutes breach, but the continued use of likeness could trigger **commercial appropriation claims**, often resulting in high damages.
#### 2. **Extended Territorial Use**
Morant’s contract restricted use to the Memphis metro, but Wing Guru **extended promotions** in other states, compounding unauthorized use ([afrotech.com][3], [actionnews5.com][1]).
#### 3. **Reliance on Arbitration**
Brands and athletes increasingly rely on **private arbitration** for these disputes. Judge Donald’s ruling underscores how binding arbitration decisions can carry **real-world consequences**.
—
### **What This Says About Brand-Athlete Deals**
Morant’s takeaway is clear: contracts are only as strong as their enforcement. Several lessons emerge:
* **Transparency & Discipline** – Brands must honor payment terms or risk legal consequences.
* **Scope and Territory Clauses** – Expanding promotion beyond contracted areas can lead to steep penalties.
* **Reputational Accountability** – Associating with athletes entails responsibility. Misuse of their name can lead to brand degradation and legal fallout.
—
### **Rising Profile, Rising Stakes**
While \$365K is small compared to Morant’s **\$200+ million NBA extension**, it speaks to bigger stakes:
* **Nike & signature-gear endorsements** amplify the stakes when misuse of NIL occurs during high-profile endorsement periods ([sportsbusinessjournal.com][5]).
* **Legal precedents** like this empower athletes—current and rising—to enforce NIL rights more aggressively.
* **Brand caution**, especially among smaller, expanding businesses: one breach can result in financial exposure and public legal battles.
—
### **Broader Context: Athlete Endorsements and NIL**
Since the NCAA’s **2021 NIL policy**, athletes—from top-tier to rising high-school stars—have increasingly **monetized their personal brands**. Yet with great opportunity comes legal risk. Notable trends:
| Trend | Athlete’s Concern |
| ————————————- | ————————————————- |
| **Ambiguous contracts** | Misuse leads to breach or appropriation disputes |
| **Delayed payments** | Athletes pursue arbitration or litigation |
| **Unauthorized use by third parties** | Risk of images being shared beyond intended scope |
Morant’s case could set a precedent, emboldening athletes to **enforce contract terms strictly**, even if the compensation seems modest.
—
### **The Wing Guru’s Gambit: Small Chain, Big Risk**
Wing Guru, while a local brand, expanded into multiple states. Their misstep—halting payments while running nationwide campaigns—proved costly.
As a smaller chain, their expected damages might pale in comparison to national brands. But the legal disruption, public exposure, and legal fund drain could be devastating.
If Wing Guru fails to pay or fight the judgment, they could face garnishment, brand loss, and reduced market credibility.
—
### **Morant’s Takeaway: Not About the Money, but the Principle**
If asked, Morant would likely downplay the financial windfall. It’s not just about the dollars—it’s about **ownership and respect**.
As Black Enterprise noted, Morant’s team argued that despite the modest financial scale, the **dilution of his name—especially during a shoe deal with Nike—caused “astronomical losses”** ([afrotech.com][3]).
This reflects a deep understanding of the **long-term value** of name, image, and likeness, beyond any single contract.
—
### **Athlete Reactions and Legal Watchdogs Weigh In**
Public and industry reactions signal this is more than a local squabble:
* **NBA fans** applauded Morant’s stand:
> “Ja took a small chain to court—and won. That’ll make a lot of brands think twice.” – fan post
* **Legal experts** point to arbitration rulings as setting future benchmarks: enforceable and potent.
* **Marketing analysts** flagged the result as a wake-up call: even smaller brands face serious liability if they mishandle celebrity endorsements.
—
### **What Comes Next**
**For Wing Guru:**
* They can **petition to vacate** the arbitration award via court.
* Or **accept and pay**, then rebuild reputation—possibly rethinking celebrity endorsement strategy.
* Failure to act risks **court-enforced compliance**, wage garnishment, or asset seizure.
**For Morant:**
* Once paid, he cements control over his personal brand.
* The injunction protects him from future misuse.
* The case bolsters his public image as a principled businessperson.
—
### **The Future of NIL and Endorsement Deals**
This case illustrates important trajectory:
* **Stricter contract drafting**—athletes’ legal teams will seek granular territorial and usage definitions.
* **Brands’ risk management**—insurance, legal vetting, and payment escrow may become standard.
* **Athlete empowerment**—NIL deals are no longer symbolic; they require legal diligence.
—
### **Conclusion: A Landmark Win in Athlete Representation**
Ja Morant’s arbitration victory isn’t just about recovering \$365K—it’s about safeguarding athlete rights in an era where personal brand = bargaining power.
He stood firm. The Wing Guru faltered. The ruling reinforces how even local brands must respect the **letter of endorsement contracts**.
Moving forward, we may see:
* More athletes challenging **breaches or misuse** of likeness.
* Brands taking **greater care** in how they engage athletes.
* A sharper scrutiny of NIL deals—even small-scale referrals and social media posts.
In today’s hyperconnected media landscape, **any misuse of an athlete’s likeness—big or small—can lead to serious consequences**.
—
### **Key Takeaways**
1. **No free rides**: If you use someone’s image, pay the agreed price.
2. **Watch territories**: Campaign limits are legally binding and enforceable.
3. **Arbitration counts**: This ruling shows how powerful private arbitration is in NIL cases.
4. **Enforcement is everything**: Promises mean nothing without follow-through.
5. **Athlete leverage remains strong**: Even NBA stars must enforce their rights—but they can.
—
### **Looking Ahead**
Will this case spark a wave of similar suits? Possibly. Morant’s high-profile position and the clarity of his victory might embolden others—especially athletes in the younger generation—to demand accountability.
As for Wing Guru—they must decide: Is paying and moving on worth the investment in preserving business reputation? Or will they risk court enforcement and potential financial ruin?
Either way, this case is a milestone: it’s not just about chicken wings—it’s about **respect, rights, and the real value of celebrity in modern media**.
Leave a Reply