Tatis plans – Fernando Tatis Jr. says he will appeal after a San Diego judge ruled his bid to unwind the future-earnings deal he signed as a teenager came too late. The ruling leaves him owing Big League Advance just under $3.74 million, and it also addresses—while rejectin
Fernando Tatis Jr. didn’t wait long after the decision to tell the world this fight wasn’t finished.
On Saturday, the Padres star said he planned to appeal after a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled against him in his attempt to unwind the future-earnings deal he signed as an 18-year-old in the Dominican Republic. “Oh, it’s definitely not over,” Tatis said.
The ruling came from Judge Judy Bae. who on Friday confirmed her tentative decision that Tatis’s legal challenge came too late—arriving after arbitration proceedings had already begun. With that determination in place, Tatis now owes the Big League Advance Fund just under $3.74 million. That figure reflects the money he owed when he stopped making payments after the end of 2023. plus interest. attorney fees and additional costs.
Tatis deferred further comment to his legal team. The team could not be reached.
The deal at the center of the case dates back to October 2017. when Big League Advance gave Tatis $2 million in exchange for 10% of his future earnings. The long-term agreement—signed in February 2021—extends for 14 years and totals $340 million. Under the terms, Big League Advance is due $34 million.
Tatis’s lawsuit asked a California court to step in even though he did not sign the contract in California. He argued he should be able to pursue recourse here because of the state’s consumer protection laws.
But his opponents say the arrangement was built on predatory tactics aimed at teenagers. Tatis’s legal team has argued that Big League Advance is an unlicensed lender issuing illegal loans and using manipulative and unlawful tactics to lure teenagers into investment deals. The terms of the deal included an agreement to voluntarily submit to arbitration proceedings.
A key point in the court’s decision was timing. Tatis filed his lawsuit in San Diego nearly a year after arbitration began, and his legal challenge was treated as coming after the window to raise certain legality issues had closed.
In confirming her ruling on Friday, Bae wrote that “a party challenging the legality of the entire contract must raise such challenges before arbitration proceedings begin.”
Yet Bae’s decision also sided with Tatis on one larger legal question: California law could apply even though the contract was signed overseas. In her ruling. Bae said Delaware’s interest in the dispute was minimal because the agreement was negotiated in the Dominican Republic and signed there. She also pointed to the fact that Tatis made payments on the Player Agreement while playing for the San Diego Padres. meaning the agreement was largely performed in California. Applying Delaware law, Bae wrote, would undermine California public policy, making the Delaware choice-of-law provision contrary to that policy.
That combination—California public policy being acknowledged, while Tatis’s challenge still being rejected as untimely—has left the case at a tense crossroads.
When Tatis publicly discussed the dispute, he framed it as more than his own financial exposure. In a June 2025 statement. he said he was “fighting this battle not just for myself but for everyone still chasing their dream and hoping to provide a better life for their family.” He added: “I want to help protect those young players who don’t yet know how to protect themselves from these predatory lenders and illegal financial schemes — kids’ focus should be on their passion for baseball. not dodging shady business deals.”.
Inside the courtroom, Tatis’s attorney, Maurice Mitts, argued that an “illegal contract” deserves review when properly raised. He told the court that the court has an independent obligation to review illegal contracts so long as the issue was raised before the arbitrator.
Now, with the judge’s ruling confirmed and the owed amount set at just under $3.74 million, Tatis’s appeal becomes the next major move in a case that has turned on a simple, sharp question: not only whether the contract was lawful, but whether the challenge arrived soon enough to matter.
Fernando Tatis Jr. Big League Advance Fund arbitration Judge Judy Bae San Diego Superior Court appeal future-earnings deal consumer protection Dominican Republic Padres