Comments on: Athletes Premier International, Inc. v. Hendricks Sports Management

By: SportsAgentBlog.com | Sports Agent News – Sports Agents Interfering With Contractual Relations

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:01:23 +0000

[...] Most of the time, they are just not worth litigating. But again, sometimes they are. Such was the case with Aroldis Chapman, and while we will never know if Hendricks Sports Management was guilty of interference (the case [...]

By: Scott Boras Loses One, Gaines One, In Busy Weekend – SportsAgentBlog.com | Sports Agent News

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:01:49 +0000

[...] one came by way of Hendricks Sports Management, which cannot be having fun defending itself in this pending lawsuit. The Hendricks Brothers are being sued by Edwin Mejia and Athletes Premier International after [...]

By: anon

anon — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:24:58 +0000

Francis — I hope you (and everyone else here) had a Merry Christmas.

I wasn’t replying directly to you above. It was more of a general comment based on your comment as well as about 20 others I’ve read around the ‘net.

The idea of “free will” vis-a-vis agency agreements is another matter that’s accepted as a given but hardly is settled law. People are bound by agency, referral, representation, residual, etc., contracts all the time. They might be free to change representation and pay a *second* fee (or a third, fourth, etc.), but rarely does “free will” allow people to invalidate an otherwise binding agreement. This is a legal anomaly that seems unique to pro sports in the U.S., and it might not be “legal” at all.

Again, this doesn’t seem like the perfect test case, as Mejia made some missteps and also failed to get a contract done for Chapman after almost 5 months of representation. But in the right circumstances, this sort of case seems appropriate and quite legally sound.

As an aside, I’m surprised Mejia didn’t also sue Chapman, unless the option of suing Chapman is being held in reserve in case the tortious interference and other claims fail. I suppose, until Chapman signs an MLB contract, suing Chapman might be pointless, as he’s likely penniless except for whatever money he gets from his agents and couldn’t repay Mejia right now even if he wanted to do so.

By: Francis

Francis — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:25:09 +0000

Great news Mr.Heitner.

Please let me know when and how I can read the expanded article (I believe you have my e-mail).

By: Darren Heitner

Darren Heitner — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:52:52 +0000

I’ll be enhancing this post a bit for an article in Holt Hackney’s Sports Litigation Report, which should be published in the beginning of January.

By: Francis

Francis — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:39:48 +0000

HI Anon,

I wasn’t implying that it was legal or right. I was merely pointing to the commonality of the practice. What is important to note also, is the question of free will. The client is allowed to change representation when he sees fit. Now, whether someone nudged him in that direction may be hard to prove. That being said It would be nice to see his previous agents be reimbursed for their expenses and perhaps also receiving a fee for all the work they did prior to the switch.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:16:01 +0000

The response to this lawsuit on the law and sports blogs has been interesting. Just because agent-switching and client-poaching is common in pro sports doesn’t mean it’s ever been right — or legal.

It seems like Edwin Mejia was in over his head in representing Aroldis Chapman, so this particular case might be tough for Mejia to win, but the general idea seems legally sound. It’s not like Chapman fired Mejia for an agent with a long track record with Cuban or international players. Rodney Fernandez, Chapman’s new agent with the Hendricks brothers, has negotiated exactly the same number of MLB contracts as Mejia — zero. The idea that Chapman, on his own, decided to fire one neophyte agent in favor of another neophyte agent seems like a stretch.

By: Francis

Francis — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:29:34 +0000

This case is interesting. Tortuous interference will be difficult to prove. I mean what lawyer or agent for that matter, has not lost a client to a rival firm? It happens all the time. For that matter who in this business whether it be law or being a sports agent has not gained a client from a competitor. What is important to remember is that clients themselves are free to decide who will represent them and for how long. I agree with Darren’s sentiment that it is shameful that the previous agent’s have lost a great quantity of money as a result of Mr.Chapman’s decision. However i remeber what an experienced lawyer told me just as I was starting my own Law office”Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket, ESPECIALLY when it comes to clients”.Clients are very fickle in any business, they are not necessarily interested in loyalty. They want who will represent them the most effectively whether it be cost effective or results effective.

I would be curious to hear others reactions to this article. Once again I must say it is very well written and informative.

Merry X-Mas everyone.