But Andy Oliver got in trouble not because he had an advisor, but rather because he (1) had the advisor present at one of the few times the advisor is specifically not permitted to be present. (That he fired the advisor as well changed the incentives, but it seems more likely that the team with which he negotiated and then declined to sign instigated the investigation than that the advisor did.)

A football or basketball player who declares for the draft, as you note, loses his eligibility. He does so after a "discovery process" in which he is fairly certain of his value in that year's draft, and has the option to revoke that option if he perceives that the situation has changed not in his favor.

Only when he is fairly certain does he officially hire an agent (since, as with baseball, hiring an agent eliminates the option to retain eligibility).

We can presume that his information about his likely gain from the draft comes to him as manna from Heaven, but we would likely be wrong.

Andy Oliver had an advisor who gave him information (his likely status) and advice (don't take $400K; you'll likely get more next year). Certainly, there are basketball and football equivalents.

The moment that person attended discussions with a specific team, he became an agent for the player: he was presented as a public face of the player to the team. And Andy Oliver, and Andy Oliver's former representative-now-agent, and the team involved all knew—or should have known—that the relationship had been changed by the RnA's explicit presence there.

If I write you a note that I believe you're worth more than $400K because of x, y, and z, I am advising you. If I go with you to your boss and say "You need to pay Rick more than $400K to keep him because of x, y, and z," I am acting in a professional capacity for you.

It's a very clear line, and Andy Oliver stepped over it.

 Ken Houghton -- 8/27/2008 10:53 AM  

Is "discriminates" the best choice of words? Doesn't that imply that the government is involved (and futher implying "state action") or were you using the word in the most general sense?

 Anonymous -- 8/27/2008 1:25 PM  

The whole structure is ridiculous. And the distinction Ken points out (above) is semantics. So college athletes can have "advisors" but not "agents." And they can have agents as long as the agent doesn't go to the actual meeting. He can be in the next room, but not in the room with the team.

And the whole "advisor" thing has led to huge loopholes. Now, runners and financial advisors affiliated with agents recruit and "advise" players (and even help them pick agents) and this is ok.

Sham.

 john -- 8/27/2008 1:54 PM  

Ken,

Ken, I disagree with you that baskeball and football players are in essentially the same situation.

I agree with you that it is a very clear line; there is no ambiguity with the NCAA's rule. But your argument that there is a material difference between an agent and an adviser, in terms of the amateurism/professionalism line, is not convincing to me. You are merely stating the distinction between an adviser and an agent that the NCAA has made via the "no agent" rule (which I get), but you have not explained WHY having an agent as opposed to an adviser means that a player has suddenly become a "professional". By having an agent, the player isn't signing a professional contract, he's not working out with a professional club and he's not receiving any compensation from any club.

Anon,

I'm using the ordinary (dictionary) meaning of the term discriminate, and I think it is the best choice of words. I don't know what would make you think that I'm implying that the government is involved or that there is state action by using that term.

 Rick Karcher -- 8/27/2008 2:36 PM  

Prof. Karcher, as I am sure you are aware, there are many who feel that the NCAA is a state actor even though courts have held it is not (yet). By using the word "discriminate," you imply (whether you realize it or not) government action and or/violation of state or federal law, etc., in the context of a law-related blog. I just wanted to know if you were implying state action or, if as you say, you were simply meaning that the NCAA bylaws are "unfair" to baseball players (which they are). While it is splitting hairs, the use of the word "discriminate" means a lot more in this context than in its ordinary meaning which I sure hope you can appreciate.

 Anonymous -- 8/27/2008 5:16 PM  

Anon,

There is no implication in my post whatsoever that the NCAA is a state actor or that there is governmental involvement or a constitutional issue, etc. And discriminate doesn't necessarily mean "unfair". It means to treat one group differently than another, or that one group is affected different than another. I used that term in the title of my post because the no agent rule treats and affects baseball players differently than basketball and football players.

 Rick Karcher -- 8/27/2008 8:35 PM  

I see: NCAA baseball players are discriminated against.

 Anonymous -- 8/27/2008 8:53 PM  

very nice

 halk bilimi -- 1/28/2009 11:37 AM  

Can someone please explain to me in laymans terms what this " no agent" rule means. What can or cannot a college player do, what can or cannot an agent do?

JEL

 Anonymous -- 10/09/2009 9:26 AM  

Post a Comment