Tfue’s lawyer says that FaZe Clan taking only $60,000 is “a complete fiction”

Tfue’s lawyer has given more details on the contract.

Screengrab via Tfue

The lawsuit between Turner “Tfue” Tenney and FaZe Clan has been discussed widely across the esports industry, with information on either side seemingly coming in consistent waves.

In a new interview with theScore esports, Tfue’s attorney Bryan J. Freedman talked about the player’s contract and FaZe Clan’s immediate response to the initial lawsuit announcement. In late May, FaZe Clan CEO Lee Trink claimed talks began as far back as September 2018.

Freedman claims that Tfue’s team sent a desired contract to FaZe Clan prior to signing and it was refused by the organization and countered with its own, apparently illegal contract. FaZe Clan’s initial response to the lawsuit claimed that it was the only party that suggested a contract to Tfue and approached the pro player for changes earlier in the year, only to be refused.

The first contract that Tfue’s team sent to FaZe Clan was “as close to a legal contract as you can get, but apparently, that wasn’t good enough for [FaZe],” according to Freedman. He then claims that the organization “put in their own provisions which made it illegal once again.”

The lawyer also brought up the figure of $60,000 that FaZe Clan claimed it made from Tfue in the entirety of his contract. “How you could rely on their $60,000 figure as to what they made off him is disingenuous when you realize how much money FaZe Clan is making by having Turner as part of its team, how much advertising they’re selling, how many sponsorships they obtained because Turner was part of their team,” Freedman said.

Freedman says that the figure of $60,000 that FaZe claims it made from Tfue is “almost laughable” and “a complete fiction.” He claims they “made millions of dollars through sponsorships with Nissan and other companies” as a result of having popular gamers such as Tfue.

The attorney questioned why no one talked about the provision in Tfue’s contract that prohibited him from playing or streaming video games for an entire six months after the termination of the contract. “I’m really, really surprised that that’s not the part of the contract that people are looking at and saying ‘wow,’” Freedman said.

Freedman also “challenge[s] FaZe to do the right thing” and change its approach to the law and how it allegedly treats its players. Whether the lawsuit will actually go to trial without a settlement is yet to be seen, but FaZe settling could be a highly-likely outcome.

FaZe Clan has not yet responded to Freedman’s comments.