Quote
roman18
Your point is well taken, but name me a professional negotiator that has had schools get into losing scholarships. It's true that teams have negotiators on the management side, but they are the ones forking over the dollars aren't they....it is the owners money and the players are working for that owner.
Who needs an agent in the real world of work/business? Although management still has negotiators, no I still say the issue with sports is more derived from the use of agents. I suppose unions could be considered in the area of agents, and IMO unions offer nothing but problems as well.
I don't know what your scholarship point is, since it's unrelated. And no, it's not the owner's money that pays the players, it's the league's money. Meaning, the league as a group--as a unit---negotiated a contract with the networks and that is where the cap comes from. Plus with the existence of a union, that's a partnership. The league and the players are a partnership when it comes to the distribution of revenues. That's the set up.
And since the 19th century ended, we understand that labor has rights, and that includes in this case the right to a professional agent (universalizing overgeneralized stereotyping of them all aside)...and that professional agent negotiates with a professional negotiator who represents the team.
In the real world of work/business, where super talent is involved, agents are part of an entire spectrum of transactions. Actors, professional speakers, writers, musicians, coaches, and so on all have agents. If not agents, then in some fields legal representation. Therefore as I said any universalizing overgeneralized stereotyping of them as a group will always fall flat. That kind of stuff will always seem unreal and caricatured.
