Short version: A right of first refusal is a matching right. When your deal ends and a rival brand makes an offer, the current brand can keep you by matching it. You sign it now and it works later, at renewal.
A right of first refusal is a promise about the next deal. When this one ends and another brand makes an offer in the same category, the current brand gets the chance to match it first. If it matches, you stay. The clause is also called a matching right, and it does its work after the term, at the moment you are free to leave.
How it works
William Fry's note on brand partnerships describes the mechanism: matching rights, also known as rights of first refusal, give an incumbent the right to match any offer the other side receives from a competitor when the incumbent's contract expires. You must bring the rival offer to the current brand, and the current brand must match it on the material terms to keep you. If it does not match, you may sign the rival deal.
The weaker cousin is a right of first offer. The same note contrasts the two: a matching right gives the holder a stronger position than a right of first offer, which only obliges the other side to enter good-faith negotiations, after which it may contract elsewhere. One lets the brand bid first; the other lets the brand bid last.
Where it appears in athlete deals
Optimum Sports Consulting's note on retaining talent reports that Nike's deal with distance runner Parker Valby includes language giving Nike the right to match offers from other brands for her professional deal, and says such clauses have become very common in NIL deals for distance runners. The same note says they are not common in college basketball or football deals. That is one commentator's view, not a survey.
The clause is signed during the deal and used after it. When you read it at signing, you are reading about the renewal.
Where it gets litigated
Oakley's suit against Rory McIlroy is the case these sources use. Oakley's contract gave it the opportunity to retain McIlroy beyond 2012 by matching any offer covering the same product categories. Oakley alleged that McIlroy's representatives never gave it a real chance to match Nike's offer, having already decided to go with Nike. Sports Litigation Alert and Mondaq draw two lessons. First, courts have frequently required an exercise of the right to be an exact match of all relevant and material terms of the competing offer, so a rival offer with unusual terms is hard to match. Second, the side with the clause must act in good faith and provide the full details of the third-party offer; a UK court held exactly that.
Enforcement is not automatic. Sports Agent Blog records that Percept Management took cricketer Yuvraj Singh to court over such a clause and was unable to enforce it at trial, with an appeal pending at the time.
What the words decide
Scope: which product categories the clause covers. Oakley's covered only certain categories, so a Nike apparel deal was a different question from a Nike eyewear deal. Mechanics: whether a match creates a new agreement on the matched terms, or a new offer the athlete may shop again. Duration: whether the right applies to the first renewal only, or to every future deal you sign in the category. The clause is a few lines, and each of those is a separate decision inside it.
What Leave does with this
Upload your contract and Leave reads it back in plain words, and labels a right of first refusal when one is there: the categories, how the match works and how long it follows you. Leave takes 0 percent of any deal. You decide what to sign.
Questions people ask
Is a right of first refusal the same as a right of first offer?
No. A right of first offer only means you negotiate with the current brand first; after that you can sign elsewhere. A right of first refusal lets the current brand match a rival's actual offer and keep you.
What does the brand have to match?
Courts have frequently required the match to be exact on all material terms of the competing offer, not just the money.
Do you have to show the brand the rival offer?
Under a typical clause, yes. In the Oakley case the dispute was whether McIlroy's side gave Oakley a real chance to match Nike's offer. A court in a UK case held the athlete's side must act in good faith and give full details of the third-party offer.
Be your own agent. Leave.