March and April are two of the busiest and most exciting months for sports fans.  Between the NCAA Men’s and Women’s basketball tournaments, the NFL draft, and Major League Baseball getting underway, there is always something to watch on TV.  These months also bring NCAA hockey playoffs and, inevitably, the conclusion of seasons for those that do not make it further.  With the end of the NCAA hockey season comes signing of players to professional contracts.  This is a pivotal moment in many players’ careers because, much like a football player declaring himself eligible for the draft, once a hockey player makes the decision to forgo collegiate eligibility, there is no turning back.

One of the most discussed players in the coming days and weeks will certainly be Jordan Schroeder from the University of Minnesota.  Schroeder was drafted #22 overall in the 2009 draft and fans of the Vancouver Canucks know him as a future franchise forward.  According to recent reports, Schroeder will inform both the University of Minnesota and Vancouver of his decision by the end of this week.  While Schroeder had mild success at the collegiate level, he admits that it he was disappointed with his production.  After a successful two-year career with the U.S. National Team Development Program (USNTDP) and an equally successful three-time campaign representing the U.S. at the IIHF World Junior Hockey Championships in 2008, 2009, and 2010, Schroeder will almost certainly have success at the NHL level.

If he decides to sign an NHL contract, Schroeder will definitely not be the only NCAA Division I hockey player to make the early jump to the professional ranks in the coming weeks.  Several players have already decided to turn pro and are already playing at minor league levels, and for some, the NHL level.  For example, Casey Wellman, a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts, signed with the Minnesota Wild earlier this week and should see playing time by sometime this weekend.  Wellman followed the path of the starter for the Los Angeles Kings and Olympic backup, Jonathan Quick, who left UMass as a sophomore in 2007.  Soon to follow Wellman to the pros is James Marcou, a junior and also from UMass, whom is reported to be signing a professional contract in the coming weeks.

With turning pro, there are several factors for players to weigh.  Under NCAA Article 12.1.2, student-athletes are prohibited from being paid for playing their respective sport.  This means that a once a player turns pro and starts receiving compensation for playing time, there is no turning back to a collegiate career, even if their pro career is unsuccessful.  While there is a certain allure to being paid to play, players must also keep in mind the best interests of their future development.  All of this information is certainly a lot to consider for a player that is generally around 20 years-old.

On Monday, March 15, the NCAA did its best to assist student-athletes with the decision process by issuing an informational memo to “Men’s Ice Hockey Student-Athletes with Remaining Eligibility.”  Almost every player in the position to turn pro will have an advisor during this process, which is permitted by NCAA rules.  The March 15 memo informs players that an advisor may not “contact teams on [their] behalf to arrange private workouts or tryouts,” but may provide other valuable advice during the process.

An NCAA hockey player’s decision to turn pro is unique in that unlike with the NFL, where players must wait several months between deciding to turn pro and actually being able to play, hockey players that make the same decision, can play almost immediately for a professional team.  For some players, this means going right to the NHL, for others this means starting at other minor league levels, such as the AHL or ECHL.  The professional level at which they play will be a combination of their skills, their player contract, and certain NHL CBA stipulations.

Regardless of whether Schroeder turns pro, this is an exciting time for players that want to see their careers taken to the next level.  What other players do you think will leave early for the pros after their hockey season ends?

At the time salary arbitration was first implemented in 1973, Charlie Finley, a former owner of the Oakland A’s, said: “We’ll be the nation’s biggest assholes if we do this.” Citing Charlie Finley’s disapproval and the massive pay increases of first-year salary arbitration eligible players, many sports writers, such as Maury Brown, the founder and president of the Business of Sports Network, have concluded that “salary arbitration almost exclusively benefits the players.” See Breaking Down How Salary Arbitration Functions in MLB.

In his recent blog entry, Debunking Salary Arbitration Myths – Part 1, Jay Reisinger, a partner at Farrell, Reisinger & Stallings and manager of the firm’s sports law practice, discredited the notion that MLB’s salary arbitration system favors players and hurts owners. Mr. Reisinger revealed that, by focusing on the huge raises of first-year salary arbitration eligible players, that position is misleading. According to Mr. Reisinger, an accurate understanding of the salary arbitration system also acknowledges the equally significant benefits conferred upon clubs.

For instance, clubs exercise a certain amount of control over arbitration eligible players. Clubs can tender or non-tender the player, at their discretion, depending on the player’s expected salary in the arbitration system. If the player’s expected salary in arbitration is higher than his value to the club, the club can non-tender the player and make him a free-agent. If, on the other hand, the player’s expected salary in arbitration is roughly equal or lower than his value to the club, the club can tender the player a contract. If the player is unsatisfied with the offer, his only recourse is to submit his salary to final and binding arbitration. Basically, from a club’s perspective, arbitration is a low risk affair because the club has already determined that the player’s expected salary in arbitration is roughly equal or lower than his value to the club.

Another major benefit discussed by Mr. Reisinger is that clubs are protected. The key criterion in salary arbitration proceedings is the comparative baseball salaries of players “with Major League service not exceeding one annual service group” above that of the player going to arbitration. In essence, the arbitration panel tries to determine where the particular player fits within a very narrow market of players which does not include players who have accrued significant raises through free agency. Clubs, therefore, are shielded from free market forces and their inflationary effect.

Rather than a system that benefits players and hurts owners, Mr. Reisinger sees the arbitration system as a necessary compromise between two parties pursuing divergent interests through collective bargaining. Generally clubs want competitive balance and bargain for a protectionist regime that includes more restrictions on player mobility and player compensation. Players want to increase their earning capacity and bargain for a laissez faire approach. Ultimately, how good or bad the salary arbitration system is depends on your point of view, and on how well you deem the system to be protecting your specific interests as a club owner or a player. As a baseball fan, one can only hope the league and the players union avoid a strike or lockout by reaching an agreement once the current CBA expires.

In order to truly understand the salary arbitration system, it helps to look at its role as part of MLB’s larger monetary structure. Ed Edmonds, the Associate Dean for Library and Information Technology at Notre Dame Law School, explains the impact of salary arbitration on a MLB player’s salary life cycle and, consequently, on a team’s roster in his Marquette Sports Law Review article A Most Interesting Part of Baseball’s Monetary Structure – Salary Arbitration in its Thirty-Fifth Year (Fall 2009 Volume).

As Mr. Edmonds points out, the current CBA divides all players into three groups: 1) players controlled under the reserve clause, 2) players eligible for salary arbitration prior to free agency, and 3) free agents. What sets each group apart is the amount of leverage each group has with respect to their employer or potential employers. Players controlled under the reserve clause have no leverage. They are bound to one team and play for around the league minimum. That player’s salary bears no resemblance to the player’s market value. Mr. Edmonds offers Tim Lincecum as an example. Lincecum received $405,000 in 2008, his first year in the majors (the league minimum was $390,000). After putting up dazzling numbers (18-5 record with a 2.62 ERA and 265 strikeouts in 227 innings pitched), Lincecum only managed to increase his salary to $650,000 in 2009.

Free agents are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Being able to consider multiple offers gives free agents substantial leverage, which they can use to drive up their price tag. To illustrate the effect of free agency status on a player’s salary, Mr. Reisinger compares C.C. Sabathia to Tim Lincecum in his blog entry. Even though Lincecum is statistically similar to Sabathia, Lincecum recently signed a two-year, $23 million contract that will cover his first two arbitration eligible years, meanwhile Sabathia will make $23 million in the 2010 season alone.

Salary arbitration eligible players “occupy the middle group between players with no leverage and those . . . with substantial leverage.” The arbitration process offers them an opportunity to earn a significant raise yet their compensation remains below market value. One example Mr. Edmonds uses is Prince Fielder. In 2007, his second year of Major League service, Fielder was 3rd in the MVP race. Fielder earned salary of $670,000 in 2008. After another outstanding campaign in 2008 and armed with the leverage of salary arbitration, Fielder signed an $18 million, two-year contract prior to the 2009 season.

It’s true, the salary arbitration process usually results in substantial raises for first year eligible players (e.g., Fielder received $6.5 million in 2009 – a 870% raise). However, the substantial raise a player experiences once he is eligible for salary arbitration is a function of the suppressed salaries he received in his first 3 seasons without leverage. In 1973, Charlie Finley and other owners enjoyed considerable restraints on player mobility and player compensation. Then the time to compromise arrived. The current arbitration system is a result of that compromise.

Armando Velasco is a second year law student at Tulane Law School, where he is pursuing a certificate of specialization in sports law. He is the Chair of the Tulane Sports Law Society’s National Baseball Arbitration Competition and a Junior Member of the Sports Lawyers Journal, volume 17. This upcoming summer he will be a summer associate at Goldman, Antonetti & Córdova, PSC.

The 2010 Winter Olympics are in full swing in Vancouver right now with thousands of athletes proudly donning the colors of their countries.  However, one group of athletes that want to participate might not even have the opportunity to try out for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

With the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) set to expire at the conclusion of the 2010-2011 season, the debate over whether NHL players will be permitted to participate in 2014 Olympics remains to be decided.  Both Commissioner Gary Bettman and several owners have openly voiced their disapproval over the current arrangement, in which the entire NHL shuts down for a two-week period in order to accommodate player involvement in the games.  However, not participating in the Olympics beyond this year could be harmful to the competitive level of play on the United States and several other countries’ behalf.

The Problems with Participation

Commissioner Bettman argues that participation in the Olympics results in an unnecessary strain on the players, the schedule, and NHL fans.  He also believes that the league receives little positive impact from the Olympics when the games are played outside North America.  Meanwhile, the owners argue that permitting their star players to participate in the Olympics risks team success and can compromise player injury liability clauses.

There is no doubt that both the Commissioner and the owners raise valid points; however, it is from a selfish standpoint.  Commissioner Bettman’s point on the strain on players presumably is based on the same reasoning as the owners:  If a player is injured during the Olympics, his team will subsequently be severely harmed.  The same point is well taken from owners, who believe that if a player of Alexander Ovechkin’s caliber were injured, arguably, the chances of the Washington Capitals competing at the same level would be decreased for the length of any injury.

Commissioner Bettman’s arguments regarding burdens on the schedule and the fans are also valid from the same self-serving perspective.  It is true that scheduling a two-week break in the middle of an 82-game schedule does make for tricky planning.  Teams must play compressed schedules and one team, the Vancouver Canucks, were forced into a 14-game road trip due to the Olympics taking place on their home ice.  This surely results in empty arenas and no money brought in for NHL events during this time.  Further, despite being several years removed from the NHL lockout of 2004-2005, new fans are only now beginning to tune into weekly national broadcasts.  Thus, from the NHL leadership’s perspective, the Olympics are a large risk.

Potential Answers

One potential way to ease the strain on players is to consider what can be done in individual player contracts.  As mentioned here on SAB last August [The Cost of Representing Your Country], players raised fears that if they were injured at Olympic training camps their teams would not insure them —and rightfully so, as some clubs have clauses protecting themselves against this liability.  If a player wants to participate on his country’s behalf, why not base it on an individual level.  Teams could take a strong stand in the upcoming CBA discussions that if a player wants to play in the Olympics, he must contractually agree to give up certain money and release the team of liability if an injury occurs during that period.  From the NHL leadership standpoint, this will shift the burden to the players, who will be forced to choose between financial gain and representing their country.  Such an idea could lead to discontent, but it might at least serve as a starting point in negotiations.

Aside from contractual arrangements, one answer that should not be considered is non-participation by the NHL.  Such a decision would substantially harm the already fragile public persona of the NHL in the United States.  Non-participation would be harmful for several reasons.

1. To counter Commissioner Bettman’s point regarding the little positive impact the NHL gains from the Olympics when the games are played outside North America, participation arguably boosts NHL notoriety outside of North America.  The NHL already participates in its own regular-season games outside of North America and has plans to continue these games to open several upcoming seasons.  If Commissioner Bettman truly believes that the NHL gains little by permitting its players to play for their country rather than an NHL team in an international venue, he is sorely missing an opportunity for more league exposure.  Rather than a hindrance, participation surely gains fans that want to see how certain players are doing prior to and after Olympic play.  While from an immediate revenue perspective, Commissioner Bettman may not see gains in the NHL coffers.  However, in all likelihood, it will result in the same or more revenue from the current NHL games taking place abroad in the long run.
2. Not permitting players to participate could result in resentment between players and the league.  Several high-profile players have already made it publicly known that they intend to participate in the 2014 Sochi games regardless of being given permission.  This includes the current face of the NHL, the wildly popular Russian-born Ovechkin.  If several high-profile players pack their bags for two weeks to play in the Olympics, leaving teams to find alternatives in their absence, the NHL will suffer more than if the league as a whole shuts down.  Down the road, a non-participation scenario could lead players considering the NHL to consider instead playing in leagues such as the KHL, whom permits Olympic participation.
3. The most important reason that non-participation is not the answer is the effect it will have on the United States level of Olympic play.  Currently, the entire U.S. squad is made up of NHL players.  The same can be said for Canada.  However, several other countries are able to put together very strong teams with experienced non-NHL players because leagues other than the NHL permit Olympic participation.  While Canada may be able to field a team of non-NHL players and remain as competitive as they are currently, the U.S. does not have that same luxury.

In all likelihood, if the NHL does not participate, players will come from the collegiate ranks.  While the likes of the “Miracle on Ice” roster did come from the NCAA, the level of competition in international play has changed drastically since that point in time.  Putting even the top Division I players up against experienced former NHLers playing in the KHL would result in a less competitive U.S. team.  This is nothing against the players that might be chosen, but outside of competition in the NCAA, many of these players will have little experience against the faster, stronger, and seasoned veterans from other countries.

While non-participation by the NHL in the Olympics may result in parity for certain countries, it would not continue the strong play of the United States.  Some may argue that non-NHL players would be hungrier or more determined— this remains to be seen.  Regardless of where others stand on this topic, whether the NHL will permit its players to participate will certainly be a point of negotiation for both sides at the expiration of the current CBA.

What are your thoughts?  Is continued participation in the Olympics beneficial to the NHL?

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello mentioned that Doty’s ruling on Vick’s bonuses was upheld in large part because the 8th Circuit found the contract’s forfeiture language ambiguous.

The ruling allows the Philadelphia Eagles backup Quarterback to keep more than $16 million in roster bonuses from the Atlanta Falcons.  The court claimed that Vick had already earned the bonus money before he was convicted of federal dog fighting crimes and the money was NOT subject to forfeiture laws.

Vick could certainly use the additional money to help pay off creditors and start over now that he is back on the playing field.  He is set to earn  $1.6 million from the Eagles this year with a team option for the second year at $5.2 million.

Obviously the NFL was not happy about the appellate court’s decision to agree with Judge Doty’s previous ruling.  Doty has handled NFL cases including Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) matters for years.  However, after his first decision in this case, the NFL began accusing the Judge of being biased and attempted to end his oversight of its contract with the players union.

Unfortunately, after the decision that the 8th circuit handed down, it looks like the relationship between the NFL and Judge Doty will continue a bit longer.

Finding a professional athlete work during a lockout might amount to getting him on teams in other countries or minor leagues in North America. This strategy was widely used during the last NHL lockout in the 2003-2004 season. Players like Chris Chelios played with fringe minor league teams close to home and family while others like Joe Thornton, who went to the Swiss Nationalliga, gave a boost to European leagues across the pond.

Agents and advisors learned from the 2004 lockout and came up with strategies to maintain cashflow to their client in the event of a future lockout. With the current NHL-NHLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement expiring after the 2011-2012 season (unless the players use their option to extend it), agents are negotiating a very practical provision into newly signed contracts. The Lockout Provision calls for a player to receive his signing bonus in the year in which a lockout could occur.

Milan Lucic is the beneficiary of this new provision. Lucic recently signed a three-year, $12.25 million contract extension. Most of the buzz about this extension centered around the fact that Lucic will be paid over $4 million in each year of his contract, yet he only tallied 69 points in his two NHL seasons. Obviously, Lucic got a great deal and should be very happy with his agent’s work here. But Lucic can also play the next couple seasons without the insecurity of possibly not getting paid after the 2011-2012 season; that’s because the Boston Bruins agreed to pay Lucic a $1 million signing bonus in 2012.

Not only does the Lockout Provision provide players with financial security in a time of job insecurity, it may also enhance the NHLPA’s bargaining position during CBA negotiations. If the Lockout Provision becomes more common in contracts, the NHLPA can use the fact that some players will be paid regardless of whether they play as leverage.

My reading of Matthew’s piece is at a very apropos time.  I just placed my first basketball client overseas, and earlier today, discussed a possible NCAA rule change that would allow high school graduates to play professionally overseas and retain their student-athlete eligibility.  I believe that the rule change would open the NBA up to even more competition against the international market; athletes will be more comfortable with traveling across the ocean to play in a foreign country if they have previous experience playing there before college.

Matthew’s premise is that basketball competition overseas is now credible, which serves as a big threat to the NBA under its current collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  The The Union of European Leagues of Basketball (ULEB) and its exclusive Euroleague have been able to acquire strong talent from the United States in the past few years.  While the NBA does not allow any athletes under the age of 19 to play its game, FIBA (the entity in charge of creating rules and regulations in Europe), allows 18-year-olds to play in the ULEB.  FIBA does not regulate player contracts or salary caps, but teams may be bound by their country’s or European Union’s labor laws.  No salary cap means that players will be valued properly…remember rumors of Kobe Bryant considering going overseas…purely because the NBA’s salary cap restricts his ceiling.

Other benefits of playing overseas include the creativity that owners are able to use to secure players.  They often offer cars, residences, rent, and flights in their contracts.  Sometimes, players are even given the right to become partial owners of their team and can sell advertising space on their uniforms.  And then compare the Euro to the U.S. Dollar.

Meanwhile, the NBA implements a salary cap, allows owners the possibility to have restricted free agents, and tells 18-year-olds ready to play after high school, that they have to wait a year.

Epps says that a free agent transfer agreement with Euroleague is not plausible.  It would be challenged in U.S. and EU courts.  Instead, Commissioner Stern might want to consider expanding into Europe now, and create a few NBA teams across the Atlantic Ocean to compete in an NBA Europe.  I believe that an NBA Europe is an interesting idea, but it would have to be totally distinct from the NBA in the U.S.  Although there could be a “World Championship” between the winner of the NBA Finals and NBA Europe Finals.  That would make for some good T.V.

Another solution: Get rid of this one-and-done rule!

In June, I wrote an article describing the future implications of the “decade deal” as I called it, on the National Hockey League. A player typically signs a deal longer than ten years for tens of millions of dollars. There are elements of risk and reward for each side. The team gets the player signed at a lower salary cap number than the player might have got on the open market, but a contract that long can sometimes weigh a team down (eg. the New York Islanders and Rick DiPietro). The player takes a little less money per year, but has the security of knowing that his contract is guaranteed for the long term, and if it is bought out, he still receives a significant portion of his salary.

Late last week, word surfaced that the NHL was probing the long-term deals that were signed by Chris Pronger and Marian Hossa shortly after the free agency period began on July 1st. Hossa signed a 12 year, $62.8 million contract with the Chicago Blackhawks, while Pronger signed a new 7 year, $34.9 million with the Philadelphia Flyers shortly after being traded from the Anaheim Ducks. Hossa’s cap number is just over $5 million per year and Pronger’s is just under $5 million. However, both players will earn the vast majority of their money in the first years of the deal. Under Hossa’s deal, he will earn just $3.5 total million in the final three years of the deal. Pronger will earn just $1.5 million total in the final two years of his deal. If not for those years, the players’ cap hits would be much higher.

The league is concerned that these types of deals violate the “spirit” of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since they will be earning far less money in the later years of the contract than the earlier years, it has been predicted that both players will choose to retire since they will have most of their money made. The league is investigating to determine whether this was considered by the teams before the deals were signed. If it is found that this was part of the negotiations, the Hawks and Flyers could face heavy fines and could possibly lose draft picks.

While it is unlikely that any stiff action will come out of the league’s investigation, it again raises the likelihood that this issue will be addressed in the next round of CBA negotiations. Gary Bettman has stated that he does not believe that these types of deals do not circumvent the salary cap, but all signs point to several heated discussions when the league and players’ association meet to begin negotiations within the next two years. It is up to the individual teams to determine how they spend their money, but if the league has its way, there will likely be one more restriction in place to limit spending and maintain parity.

For those players who make the cut and are offered a job in the CBA or NBL (one level lower than the CBA), they can look forward to lavish lifestyles of $20,000+ per month, living expenses paid for, and a league looking for guys who can bang it down low and take control of the block.  The NBA has taken notice of the extreme growth of basketball in China and has begun to establish a stronger presence in the country.  Kobe Bryant’s jersey sells like hot cakes there.  But just maybe, not everything is peaches and cream for Americans who decide to cross the Pacific to get paid.

According to Dan Levin of the New York Times,

American players and agents describe broken contracts, unpaid wages, suspicions of game-fixing and rising resentment toward foreign players. Several players have left China after failing to receive paychecks. Last month, the league announced that it lost $17 million last season, which ended in May.

In the article, Levin also discusses the possibility of games being fixed in the CBA.  As an agent, I hate to hear that there would be any fixing or bribery occurring, but would have even more concern about the possibility of my players not being paid on their contracts.  It is a lot harder to litigate against a CBA team for failing to make good on a contract than an American team in an American court of law.  Just something to consider before you pack your client’s bags on a one-way trip to Beijing.

Football

• Largest increase in 3 years. And I predict a new CBA will be signed before the start of next season [Final adjustment increases salary cap].
• Sheldon Brown deserves more money, but who told him to sign a 9-year deal when he was 25-years-old? [The Early Extension of Young Players' Contracts].
• The guy has made a lot of money for his clients.. [Drew Rosenhaus, good or evil for the NFL??].
• My man, Kevin Sullivan, gives his advice to the Vick Camp [The PR campaign: A four-point plan for Vick].
• And Adam Ostrow of Mashable.com has some ideas of his own [Can Social Media Help Repair Michael Vick’s Image?].

Basketball

• King James makes roughly $25 million a year from endorsements alone (including a nice deal with Bubblicious) [NBA AM: LeBron James Staying Put].
• Shaq is serious about a career in broadcasting [IT'S ALL SHAQ-ADEMIC].

Sports Business

• What do you think about Danica Patrick’s new Twitter campaign? [Danica Patrick, Twitter, and Sponorships].

1) So that he and the general manager of his team does not enter a personal arena where playing on the team becomes uncomfortable.

2) Because he is “not trained in the language, rules or wording of legal documents.”

There are obviously many other legitimate reasons to employ an agent, but these two presented by Brown seem to be the most basic and traditional ones.  Point #1 can never be substituted for, but can point #2?  Seth Godin’s recent piece, Where have all the agents gone?, got me thinking a little bit about our profession.

Travel agents… gone.
Stock brokers… gone.
Real estate brokers… in trouble. Photographer’s agents, too.
Literary agents?

I have one to add: Sports agents?  Besides point #1, what makes us different than the other middle-men that have been forced out of their respective industries?  The only other thing that separates us is that our clients are a lot busier than a majority of those that employ travel agents, stock brokers, real estate brokers, etc, and while it is a stereotype and definitely not one that can be applied across the line, athletes tend to be less educated than many who would employ the aforementioned middle-men.  But that being said, can we be so confident that our profession will still exist five years from now?  In ten years?  If so, will there be a large downsizing due to a number of players deciding to go the route of self-representation?

Will someone or something come along that is cheaper, faster and more efficient?  While 5% on an MLB contract, 4% on an NBA contract, and 3% on an NFL contract may not mean much for the agent representing his client, it is money out of that player’s pocket nonetheless.  Is it money well spent?  When will there be an alternative to the standard agent, what will that person/thing provide, and what will be the cost?  It is a matter of time before someone steps into our profession with a new idea that changes the sports agent landscape forever.  In travel, it was the creation of sites like Kayak.com.  In stocks: ETrade, Scottrade, etc.  Real estate has also gone online with the spread of easily obtainable information.

So will the internet revolutionize our profession?  One thing is certain: athletes will soon be paying less for agents’ services, but that may not hurt agents’ bottom line.  I think athletes will get smarter and sign with agents who are the best at their profession, not those who pay the most for some face-time.  With lower recruiting costs, lower commissions are actually possible.  Athletes no longer want a “traditional sports agent”, and I do not blame them.  There is nothing “traditional” about the world we live in.  Every day, a new web 2.0 platform is unveiled that can be of benefit to a player.  How many players even know what web 2.0 is?  Should agents?

Will athletes ask their agents for the material that the agents use to negotiate deals, but negotiate them on their own?  Such a method takes care of Doug Brown’s second concern, but still does not get around point #1.  High-demand athletes will also continue to need someone to manage their appearance, endorsement, autograph, etc. requests.  Musicians have separate managers; athletes oftentimes do not.

Godin’s main point is that anonymous agents are unnecessary.

Middlemen add value when they bring taste or judgment or trust to bear on a transaction that isn’t transparent.

So maybe our job is safe afterall.  We supposedly go through the training: law school (not mandatory), learning the collective bargaining agreements, studying various performance bonus clauses used in the past, etc.  We bring a lot of qualities to the negotiating table that very few athletes can: a knowledge of the game outside of the game.  No matter how much you tell a player about how he compares to players at his position, age, height/weight, etc, nothing can make up for 3 years of law school or countless hours of studying a CBA.  So maybe Godin’s post does not apply to our industry.  Perhaps sports agents are necessary middle-men that should not believe that their job will be threatened any time in the near future.

The best ones provide a differentiated service that is worth paying for. Instead of being middlemen, then, they are the front men, the attraction, a key asset…

I think that is actually the main point of Godin’s piece that should resonate in our minds.  The best agents are the only ones that athletes will pay for.  To succeed, you need to innovate and buck tradition.  How can you use a site like Twitter to help your clients, how can you strengthen your firm’s online presence to help out your clients, are you connected to the new-age journalists who shape public opinion, are you busy trying to find new endorsement opportunities outside of traditional TV/print, etc.?

When markets change, agents can lead the way, not follow along grudgingly.

Call me whatever you want, but one thing I am not, is a follower.  Be a leader.  Show potential clients that you are willing and able to be innovative, which will only serve to better their careers.  That’s our philosophy at Dynasty.