Tatis Lawsuit: Big League Advance Arbitration Ruling Upheld

Fernando Tatis Jr.’s lawsuit against Big League Advance is his attempt to void a 2017 contract that promised the investment firm 10% of his future Major League Baseball earnings in exchange for a $2 million advance. After Tatis signed a 14-year, $340 million extension with the San Diego Padres in 2021, that 10% share became worth roughly $34 million. Tatis sued in June 2025 to kill the deal as an illegal, unlicensed loan, but an arbitrator ruled against him, and on May 22, 2026, a San Diego judge declined to overturn that ruling. He now owes about $3.74 million in back payments and interest, and his lawyers say they will appeal.¹

The Contract Tatis Signed at 18

In 2017, Tatis was an 18-year-old Class A minor leaguer in the Dominican Republic making about $1,300 a month. Big League Advance, a firm founded the previous year by former Phillies pitcher Michael Schwimer, offered him $2 million upfront in exchange for 10% of anything he might one day earn in the majors. The deal was finalized after a dinner meeting with Schwimer in the Dominican Republic.²

BLA’s model treats these payments as venture-style investments rather than loans. If a player never reaches the majors, the firm loses its money; a handful of stars carry the returns for the whole fund.³ Tatis has said the $2 million helped fund his training, diet, and living expenses during his minor league years.⁴

The math shifted dramatically on February 17, 2021, when Tatis signed his 14-year, $340 million extension with the Padres.⁵ Ten percent of that contract is $34 million, a return of more than 1,700% on BLA’s original outlay.⁶

What Tatis Claimed in the Lawsuit

Tatis filed suit against Big League Advance Fund and Big League Advantage, LLC in San Diego County Superior Court on June 23, 2025.⁷ The central legal theory: BLA’s income-share agreement was not really an investment but an illegal, unlicensed loan.

His lawyers pointed to the California Financing Law, which requires lenders to be licensed and prohibits predatory lending. The complaint alleged that BLA “for years run an unlicensed lending business that evades legal oversight and siphons millions in earnings from California workers,” and that the effective interest rate on the deal worked out to 90% per year, far above the state’s constitutional 10% ceiling.⁶

The suit also attacked how the deal was struck. According to the complaint, Tatis faced a “needlessly short deadline,” was discouraged from seeking independent advice, and was given a lawyer arranged by BLA who spoke with him for only two minutes and made no changes to the contract. Tatis said he was unsure whether that attorney represented him or the company. The contract was presented in Spanish without a certified translation, and Tatis alleged he could not verify translations offered by BLA associates at the meeting. The complaint further alleged that BLA engaged his father to influence the decision and that the firm deliberately targeted “young, financially unsophisticated athletes” from impoverished countries.⁶

Tatis asked the court to void the contract entirely and to issue a public injunction protecting other young athletes from similar deals.⁸

Why He Lost in Arbitration

The lawsuit ran into a problem baked into the original contract: an arbitration clause. BLA had already started arbitration in September 2024, and retired New York judge Anthony J. Carpinello, sitting as arbitrator, issued an interim award for BLA in May 2025, before Tatis even filed his court complaint. Carpinello’s final ruling came on September 11, 2025.⁹

Carpinello rejected the loan theory outright. BLA “has ‘loaned’ nothing,” he wrote, because the $2 million payment was unconditional and Tatis would have owed nothing if he had never reached the majors. That contingency, in the arbitrator’s reasoning, made the deal fundamentally different from lending. He also found California’s consumer protection framework did not apply, saying a $2 million advance tied to a $340 million contract “can hardly be deemed personal or for household purposes,” and that it was “unlikely” BLA could be classified as a consumer lender.⁹

The award ordered Tatis to pay roughly $3.74 million, covering back payments he had stopped making in 2024, plus $240,515 in interest, $250,000 in attorney fees, and $14,349 in costs.¹⁰

Why the San Diego Court Wouldn’t Overturn It

Tatis then asked San Diego Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award. On May 22, 2026, Judge Judy S. Bae issued a tentative order declining.¹¹

The ruling was procedural. Judge Bae held that Tatis had forfeited his California Financing Law arguments by not raising them before arbitration began. He participated in the arbitration, lost the interim award, and only then filed a separate court challenge to the contract’s legality. Citing California Supreme Court precedent, the judge wrote that “a party challenging the legality of the entire contract must raise such challenges before arbitration proceedings begin.” Because he had not, the arbitration award should “ordinarily stand immune from judicial scrutiny.”¹⁰¹¹

The judge never reached the underlying question of whether the BLA deal actually violated California law. Tatis’s attorney Maurice Mitts said they would “most likely appeal,” and Tatis told reporters, “Oh, it’s definitely not over.”¹

Where the Case Stands and What’s at Stake

Two things are pending. Tatis’s team plans to appeal the San Diego ruling. Separately, BLA has filed a petition in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to confirm the arbitration award and compel payment; that petition remains open on the D.C. docket.¹¹

Tatis is not the first athlete to fight BLA. Former Cleveland catcher Francisco Mejía sued in 2018, then dropped his case, paid a portion of BLA’s legal fees, and issued a statement saying he did not believe he had been deceived.¹² Chicago Bears defensive tackle Gervon Dexter filed a similar challenge in 2023 but voluntarily dismissed it after BLA moved to compel arbitration.¹³ BLA has prevailed or settled in every prior dispute.

The broader reason these fights keep happening is that income-share agreements sit in a regulatory gray zone. Because they are structured as purchases of a share of future income rather than traditional loans, they generally fall outside state usury caps, and no specific federal or state law directly regulates athlete ISAs.¹⁴ California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation has treated ISAs in the student loan context as loans subject to state oversight, but that action did not reach athlete deals.¹⁵

If Tatis’s appeal gets past the procedural forfeiture and reaches the merits, an appellate court could finally decide whether deals like this qualify as regulated lending under California law. If the appeal fails, BLA will carry a substantial precedent into its contracts with other clients, including Cincinnati Reds shortstop Elly De La Cruz, whose own agreement has not been publicly disclosed but whose enforceability legal observers say the Tatis ruling could reinforce.¹⁶

1
San Diego Union-Tribune. Padres Fernando Tatis Jr. Planning to Appeal After San Diego Judge Rules Against Him
2
Times of San Diego. Fernando Tatis Lawsuit Contract Advance Teen Big League Advance
3
CNBC. Big League Advance Investing in Baseball Players With a VC Model
4
Yahoo Sports. Fernando Tatis Jr. Suing Big League Advance Over Predatory Deal He Signed as Minor Leaguer
5
ESPN. San Diego Padres Fernando Tatis Jr. Agree 14-Year 340 Million Deal
6
Courthouse News Service. Tatis vs. Big League Advance Fund Complaint
7
The Athletic. Fernando Tatis Jr. Big League Advance Fund Lawsuit
8
WSLS. Padres Star Tatis Sues Big League Advance in Attempt to Get Out of Future Earnings Deal
9
Sportico. Fernando Tatis Loses Big League Advance Arbitration
10
Courthouse News Service. Tatis Strikes Out in Fight Against Contract Signed as a Teen
11
Sportico. Fernando Tatis Jr. Big League Advance Litigation
12
Sports Illustrated. Michael Schwimer Big League Advance Minor League Baseball
13
CourtListener. Dexter v. Big League Advance Fund II LP
14
University of Iowa Law Review. ILR-110-Salas
15
DFPI. California DFPI Enters Groundbreaking Consent Order With NY Based Income Share Agreements Servicer
16
Sports Illustrated. Fernando Tatis Jr. Ruling Could Have Major Implications for Elly De La Cruz