The Cost of Unethical Agent Poaching in Football

After nearly two decades in sports representation, I understand that losing clients is part of this business. An athlete’s needs can change. A relationship may stop working. Sometimes another representative is simply a better fit.

Agents have to be professional enough to accept that.

What I have a difficult time accepting is the idea that misleading an athlete or tearing down another agent is just how the business works. We should expect more from a profession entrusted with helping people navigate some of the most consequential decisions of their careers.

Football players already operate with considerable uncertainty. They are waiting on evaluations, roster decisions, callbacks, and opportunities that may or may not materialize. For someone who has spent most of their life working toward professional football, silence can be difficult to sit with.

An agent approaching that player should understand the weight their words carry.

Telling an athlete that you can pursue an opportunity is one thing. Giving them the impression that the opportunity will become available if they fire their current agent is a much more serious claim. It deserves scrutiny.

So does telling a player that their agent has done nothing for them when you have no knowledge of the calls, submissions, follow-ups, or conversations taking place.

Those statements can change someone’s career decisions. We should not treat them casually.

The promise is easier to see than the work

Much of representation happens outside the athlete’s view. There is no public announcement for a follow-up email, an honest conversation with personnel, or the work involved in keeping a player prepared while waiting for the right opening.

That does not excuse an agent who fails to communicate. If your client has no idea what you are doing, you need to address that. Athletes should not have to guess whether the person representing them is working.

But a lack of immediate results does not, by itself, prove a lack of effort or competence. An agent can do their job well and still be unable to create a roster opening where none exists.

That is a difficult truth to explain to someone who desperately wants to play. A promise of immediate access is often easier to sell. It is also difficult to tell a player that they just may not be at the level of play or skill needed to be pursued by professional teams.

An ethical professional has to be willing to tell the truth even when the truth is less appealing or when the topic is delicate.

What happens after the player switches?

The new signing is the visible part. What follows matters considerably more.

Was there an actual opportunity? Were the promised conversations real? Does the new representative have a specific plan, or did the recruitment effort receive more attention than the representation will?

Meanwhile, the athlete may have interrupted work already underway. A transition can require records to be transferred, pending conversations to be clarified, and responsibilities to be sorted out. When it is handled carelessly, the player is left trying to make sense of competing accounts while still preparing to perform.

For athletes with limited time and financial resources, that disruption matters. So does the disappointment of discovering that the certainty they were sold was never justified.

An athlete may absolutely be better served by making a change. My concern is whether they were given accurate information on which to base it.

Families deserve an honest conversation

Parents can also become part of the recruiting process, particularly when they are helping a college athlete evaluate representation.

They want to protect their child’s future. They may be paying expenses, researching unfamiliar processes, and trying to determine whom to trust. Someone speaking confidently about connections and opportunities can be persuasive in that setting.

I believe we have a responsibility to slow that conversation down enough for a family to understand what is actually being offered.

What does the service include? What does it cost? Who will be doing the work? Which outcomes depend on decisions made by a team or another third party?

An agent should be comfortable answering those questions. A family should not feel pressured to sign before they have had a reasonable chance to understand the answers.

There is a cost to the agent, too

I also want to acknowledge something agents can be reluctant to discuss because it is easily dismissed as bitterness over losing a client.

Building a representation business takes time, money, and sustained effort. There is real work involved in developing an athlete’s materials, maintaining relationships, identifying opportunities, and supporting a client through setbacks.

That investment does not give us ownership of an athlete. It does give us a legitimate reason to object when someone knowingly misrepresents our work to secure their business.

There is a difference between a player deciding that you are no longer the right fit and a player making that decision because someone supplied false information.

The latter can leave an agent defending their professional reputation, correcting confusion, and repairing relationships. It takes attention away from serving clients. It can also make cooperation between agents more difficult, even when cooperation would benefit the player.

None of that improves the industry.

We have to hold ourselves to the same standard

An agent cannot demand professional courtesy from competitors while being unavailable, vague, or dismissive with clients.

We owe athletes clear communication and a realistic explanation of what we can do. We should be able to account for our work, explain our fees, and answer difficult questions without treating them as disloyalty.

And when an athlete chooses to leave, we need to handle that professionally, consistent with the applicable agreement and rules. Concern about poaching cannot become an excuse to pressure someone into staying in a relationship that no longer serves them.

For athletes and families considering a change, my advice is to ask a prospective representative to be specific. Ask what they would do differently. Ask what supports their claims. Ask what happens if the opportunity being discussed does not materialize.

Listen carefully to whether they can explain their own value without relying on unsupported attacks on someone else.

I welcome competition that makes us better at our jobs. Athletes benefit when agents raise the quality of their service.

What I will not accept as an inevitable part of football is the use of an athlete’s uncertainty to sell a promise that cannot be supported. We are dealing with people’s careers, their families’ resources, and years of work. That should carry more weight than adding another name to a client roster.