Since last weekend, when the NFLPA sent out a rather inflammatory memorandum, there’s been some interest (and confusion) regarding issues between contract advisors and the union. While this is about 10,000 miles from most fans’ interest, if you read this blog, it may be something that’s crossed your mind. Here’s a super-brief look at what’s going on so you can speak intelligently about it in your next sports management class.

• The owners entered the last CBA negotiation in 2011 with really one goal: end the practice of handing out monumental signing bonuses to first-round picks. While we won’t go into how and why it happened, all agree that the owners got a decisive win. The new CBA basically developed a slotting system for all draft picks. Obviously, this reduced the value of a skilled negotiator when it came to rookie contracts.
• Slowly, agents figured out that the real (only?) money in the agent business was in second deals, which weren’t similarly restricted. This was happening as combine trainers were becoming an established part of the pre-draft process. Slowly, an arms race started as bigger and more extensive training became a key carrot in the recruiting process.
• Soon, training wasn’t enough. Agencies started handing out no-interest loans and lines of credit. They began writing per diem checks of hundreds of dollars per month; today, agents typically pay players projected in the first 100 picks about $5,000/month, January to April. Then there were marketing guarantees – cash advances paid against an agent’s ability to find a prospect endorsements, signing deals, apparel, etc. – and finally, signing bonuses, which are pretty much self-explanatory. Today, the total package a potential first-round pick gets from an agency can exceed $100,000 before draft day.
• Depending on who you ask, either the NFLPA tried to regulate things but failed, or the NFLPA sided with the firms that could write the big checks and took a laissez-faire approach. In defense of the NFLPA, trying to referee the agent recruiting market, which is incredibly nuanced and operates in the shadows, is almost a hopeless case.
• As big firms swallowed up the top prospects, rank-and-file agencies began to fight back. About a year ago, Denver-based agent Peter Schaffer of Authentic Athletix (he was one of the four contract advisors featured in the Esquire Network’s docu-series The Agent in 2015) began rallying all certified player reps (there are exactly 800 as of today). The idea was to develop broad industry standards. This all culminated in a meeting held in Indianapolis at the combine and hosted by Inside the League, TEST Football Academy and the XFL. You can watch the proceedings here.
• The NFLPA’s reaction to Schaffer’s efforts could be described as schizophrenic. In its meetings with a select group of agents at the 2018 combine, union officials were ambivalent about agent issues (some even described officials as hostile). As Schaffer continued to grow support and took a high-road approach, union officials were much more accepting at the same meeting this year. The NFLPA even invited six agents to a Board of Player Reps meeting on Monday, April 11, at which they were allowed to state their case before 60 players interested in learning more about the issues.
• This is where things get confusing. The six representative agents attended the meeting with the goal of explaining their value to the game, presenting ideas on how players could sustain themselves during a potential work stoppage, and above all establishing a spirit of collaboration. Unfortunately, that tone was lost as a handful of players took issue with their presentation. The upshot was that the NFLPA sent out a memo last Friday with a sharply negative feel, even taking a swipe at the six agents who took time out of their schedules – amidst pro days, no less – and traveled to the meetings on their own dime.
• Furthering the contradictory messages from the NFLPA, this week the union asked agents to help them edit and improve a work stoppage guide that was disseminated to players in advance of the 2011 CBA negotiation.

Naturally, this is a very broad, very quick look at the issues as they’ve transpired over the last decade. A more exhaustive look would delve deeper into the haves and have-nots among agencies; the changing attitude of players toward their agents; how the NCAA’s dissolution of its enforcement powers has affected the playing field for agents; the leadership of the NFLPA and its strategy and goals for the next CBA; and dozens of other topics.

As always, we will continue to monitor the industry and hope that peace can be achieved so that America’s favorite game continues without interruption. Fingers crossed.

To learn more about what’s going on in the football business and what’s ahead for people who work in the game, register for the Friday Wrap. It’s the only comprehensive look at what’s going on in the business of the game on the college and pro level that comes out every week, and of course, it’s free.

As you know if you read this blog regularly, it’s a highly volatile time to be an NFLPA-licensed contract advisor. Agents are being squeezed by players with an increasingly long list of expectations and a poor understanding of what they do. At the same time, there’s more and more pressure from the union for top players to go without representation. Meanwhile, more and more players are being lured with fee cuts and mounting enticements (high-end training, signing bonuses, marketing guarantees, per diems and the like).

Denver-based Peter Schaffer is among those trying to fight back. He’s arranged a meeting of all contract advisors in Indianapolis during the NFL Combine (Thursday, Feb. 28) to allow everyone to gather and clear the air, perhaps uniting behind a handful of actions designed to unify the agent community and create a more level playing field. As supporters of NFL player representatives, we are playing a supporting role in efforts to ease turmoil in the business.

Here are a few measures that I’ve heard might have support from agents in my discussions with them over the past 2-3 weeks. The last four are recommendations Schaffer has made.

• A representative who will speak (and fight) for contract advisors: One agent I spoke to said there’s a need for someone who’s not NFLPA-certified to go to bat for the rights of contract advisors. The problem is that only NFLPA-licensed reps are allowed into seminars presented by the Players Association. It’s also anybody’s guess whether or not the PA would even listen to such a representative.
• A published list of the fee schedule for every standard representation agreement (SRA) signed in a draft class: This would be a bold move, and one supported by some agents I’ve spoken to over the last two weeks. Others oppose it, some vehemently. One way or another, this would show conclusively who’s holding the line on fees and who’s just paying lip service. In any case, it would be a true long shot for the NFLPA to do this.
• A seat at the table for the next CBA negotiation as well as NFLPA Executive Committee and Player Rep meetings: This seems like the longest shot of all. Obviously, there are some highly skilled negotiators among the ranks of NFL agents, but this might be seen as an indictment of DeMaurice Smith’s ability to strike a deal. What’s more, in the past, the PA has operated with limited transparency.
• Crafting new language that defaults to a 1.5-percent fee on all SRAs: When this was introduced in August 2016, it set the agent community ablaze. I think the Players Association saw it as a way to give draft prospects more freedom, but I think its tangible effect has been to devalue the role of contract advisors. I believe that setting the default rate back to three points would signal a respect toward agents by the NFLPA. It wouldn’t be easy, but I could see the NFLPA ditching this measure and returning to three percent, especially since it’s not binding (agents don’t have to charge at all if they so choose).
• Ending the continuing education exam: I could see the PA ending this, as well. There are better ways to ensure that all contract advisors are up to speed than by simply coming after them with a pass-or-else exam. On the other hand, though this exam was met by fire and fury at the 2018 NFLPA Seminar in Indianapolis, only 17 agents wound up losing their certification.
• Capping the amount of bonuses that can be recovered in case of termination: Schaffer has recommended that no more than $50,000 can be recovered by an agency that gets fired. We regularly hear of six-figure signing bonuses provided to top prospect as a means of getting the signature. This seems fair, though there’s been resistance.

This is a quick overview of what agents could ask for. We’ll find out in just over a month if there’s a consensus behind any of these, and if the NFLPA will even listen. In the meantime, for a deeper look at the business of football (college and pro), we recommend you sign up for our weekly Friday Wrap.

Last week in this space, I talked about the changing way NFL teams build and manage rosters, and how it’s forced the people behind the players — agents, wealth managers, marketing professionals, trainers and everyone else — to adapt, though most of them are still not sure how. One of the points I made was about the disposable nature of draftees (even recent ones that were high picks).

My post drew an email from former NFL scout and longtime friend Matt Manocherian. Those of you who follow this column know Matt scouted for the Saints and Browns before leaving to pursue his Masters in Sports Management from Columbia (he got his undergrad from Duke, so he’s not lacking in the brains department). Today, he’s the Director of Football Development at Sports Info Solutions, one of the leading analytics-based services in the game and a vendor to multiple NFL, NBA and MLB teams. Matt’s also spoken at our annual ITL Combine Seminars in 2017 and as a panelist in 2018.

In his email, Matt (politely) took issue with his perception that I blamed analytics for the fact that teams have selected, and already cut, eight players drafted before the end of the third round. He wrote:

“I couldn’t help but get curious while reading the newsletter last week, so I had our intern pull some college stats from 2016 on the guys that you listed as high pick busts from last year.  You can see the attachment for yourself, but long story short: most of these guys had poor advanced college stats.  One exception is (Cardinals 2017 4/115 selection) Dorian Johnson, who we expected to play better based on our metrics, but in general, at least in the case of this analytics organization, we weren’t the source of volatility on these misses…if anything, we warned of the possibility!”

This prompted a few thoughts.

• I didn’t express myself well. I never meant to blame analytics for these busted picks. I intended to express that we’re in a period where teams are weighing the value of traditional scouting, metrics, cost analysis, positional scarcity and other factors without a consensus on what’s most effective, and it’s created a very uncertain landscape for draft picks.
• Matt listed the SIS analysis of several of the players listed prior to the ’17 draft. He makes a compelling case that, had the NFL been paying attention, teams might have known what they were getting with these players. There are numerous examples, and I encourage you to check in with SIS’ numbers on your own. Many of the better NFL writers I read regularly cite SIS’ work. For example, Ardarius Stewart was the ninth receiver taken in ’17, while Carlos Henderson was 10th, Amara Darboh 14th and DeAngelo Yancey 25th. Yet based on SIS numbers, all of them rank in the 50s and 60s, at best, among key categories like completion percentage, on-target catch rate, yards per reception and drop percentage among the 200 wideouts SIS ranked. Stewart was their No. 55 WO. Henderson was 58, Darboh was 60 and Yancey was 145, and this is just a cursory look at SIS’ work.
• Virtually every NFL team is trying to figure out in-house how to skin the analytics cat. Meanwhile, services like SIS are spending big money to do an incredibly thorough job evaluating college and pro players alike, and they haven’t yet managed to offer a cost-effective information model for the independent consumer, i.e., agents, trainers, etc. This means there are an awful lot of voices out there but not one that everyone is listening to. Not yet, anyway.
• Until one service shoulders to the front of the pack and becomes the industry standard, or one NFL team becomes the Oakland A’s/Moneyball team, I expect volatility to continue.

Remember: if you dig talking about the direction of the game, how different factors affect scouting and the draft, and what football insiders are doing, thinking and saying, I really recommend you sign up for our newsletter, the ITL Friday Wrap. It’s free, and you can do so here.

Last week, the Alliance of American Football (AAF) circulated an email to all NFLPA-licensed contract advisors advising them of its policy for allowing signed players to work out for interested NFL teams.

The short version is that the AAF will require NFL teams to make formal requests before a player is allowed to work out for them, and agents will not be allowed to facilitate the transaction. It’s a policy that could get a little cumbersome this season.

I found out about it when an agent forwarded it to me. His initial reaction was one of concern. How could he in good conscience recommend one of his players cut by an NFL team this weekend take an AAF offer if it might jeopardize future NFL opportunities?

I was curious if other agents felt the same way, so I reached out to several of them, asking this question:

What are your thoughts on the AAF email last week detailing the procedure for allowing AAF signees to try out with NFL teams? NFL teams will have to formally ask permission, and the agent is not in the loop. Will that give you second thoughts about having your NFL cuts sign AAF deals this fall?

The answers were all over the map.

• “I will do what’s in client’s best interest. If I feel he can still catch on in the NFL, I may hold out because of that process. Keeping agents out of the loop is not a good idea. I would be working the NFL side of things to get them to request in most cases anyway. Leagues like the AAF need to have success before making demands, in my opinion.”
• “It’s definitely something to keep an eye on. I wonder if it’s meant to limit agents constantly bugging NFL teams about getting their guys a workout, and the agent getting too involved in the process. In all reality though, I think a good agent at this point will know what player realistically will get on a (practice squad) at some point and which ones should go to AAF immediately. .  . I’ve got a few guys that I’d send to the CFL or AAF, but there are a lot more that I can say with confidence will get a practice squad shot at some point. I think AAF is kind of confusing at this time. They shouldn’t be this vague about rules when players are trying to make decisions. Not a good look.”
• “(Our client) signed with the AAF and we were able to get out of it no problem with (an NFL team). (The NFL team was) a little hesitant about it, but we got it squared away pretty easily. . . I’ve been really impressed so far and they’ve hired amazing staffs.”
• “I always want to create opportunities for players, but the AAF should have a provision in contract that the agent may create NFL opportunities and tryouts without AAF permission. But it is hard when players want to play and create more film for NFL teams.”
• “Probably not because the guys that are not currently in the league are jazzed about the new league and think it’s their shot at getting noticed. If (an AAF team is) offering a deal, they’re going to want to do it. Just another way they kneecap us agents but not sure keeping our guys from playing in a new league is the best option or that they would even listen to us on that. Probably the lesser of two evils.”
• “Will still push for them to sign. We will work through those hiccups, but very disappointing, but not surprising. I wish they would bring back NFL Europe.”
• “Not even a second thought. I have one player who was signed to the AAF, we did the consent form, he worked out for (an NFL team) and made the roster last week. The league office for the AAF was perfect to deal with in the process, and I know if for whatever reason he does not stay, he’ll have a job back in the AAF with his same team. Still a win-win for the client and that’s the important part. . . If I hadn’t gone through the process yet, I may have reservations, but the AAF has it together in the front office and I’ve enjoyed working with them.”
• “I think my players that get cut will be claimed or (practice squad) but if for some reason that doesn’t happen, I will address it at that time. That rule does seem dumb — I like the idea of it (because) no one was sure if you could work out, so I know some players would probably wait until late to make that move, but to make the NFL team have to go out of their way, I don’t know . . . It should just be proof of workout from agent or airfare gets you approval.”
• “Well, anyone in the NFL right now would be a fool to sign AAF prior to the end of the NFL season, no matter what. Anyone that has no NFL option might as well sign, because odds are no one is calling, so honestly, it probably isn’t going to be much of a problem because of the timing. As long as agents are smart, AAF will just continue to improve signed talent as Jan/Feb gets closer and guys that played this preseason, who don’t resign, end up committing. There are a bunch of AAF guys under contract right now that will never see that league.”

One of the interesting paradoxes of the agent business is that often the contract advisors with the least amount of clients are the ones expending the most effort. While the work of being an agent involves negotiating contracts and marketing deals, arranging training and facilitating NFL contacts before the draft, it’s different for lesser prospects.

In those cases, the agent spends endless hours virtually begging NFL teams to consider the player, sending countless emails, making videos, and cold-calling. It’s not ‘agent work’ in the traditional sense, but it’s work, no doubt about it.

With that in mind, we asked several contract advisors how they’ll handle fees for players that sign AAF, not NFL, deals. While the contracts are less, they’re comparable to NFL practice squad pay, which is something, at least.

Here’s what we got back when we asked several agents: “What are you going to charge your AAF signees, if anything?”

• “Well, I’m going to treat this like I do my CFL clients. A one-time fee per contract, meaning, I’m not in their pockets each year. The flat fee will be like $1,000. An agent will still have to do transactional things as it relates to the player (i.e., spending time getting the contract, dealing with appeals/grievances, etc.), so that fee will be per contract, and not double-dipping or triple-dipping each year and plus you’re not being petty with the money. Have to look at bigger picture of getting your client to the NFL.”
• “Not more than 4%. Salaries are not that bad, but nowhere near what NFL pays rookies. I think 4% would be fair.”
• “Not sure, but probably whatever we agreed to on the NFL SRA.”
• “Probably nothing, as I don’t have an agreement for that. Just tell them to pay my expenses back. Might have them sign an addendum, though, for the league.”
• “Nothing.”
• “To be honest I haven’t thought about it yet.  I have addendums that state that if they play in any professional league worldwide, that I get my expenses back.  So that is the minimum. Maybe 3% or our expenses, whichever is greater. These are guys I have had to work extremely hard for. Not just throughout the draft process, but also keeping them from jumping ship, because I truly believe in them and know they will have some opportunity if they stay motivated.”
• “Was just thinking about that today. I think something between $1,000 to $2,000. Three percent of $70,000 is $2,100. I mean, if a player made $70,000 in the NFL, (that’s) basically 2.5 games in the NFL you would charge them.”
• “Three percent.”

We got several more responses which show that contract advisors are really wrestling with this question. We’ve included them in the Friday Wrap, which comes out this evening (7:30 p.m. EDT/6:30 p.m. CDT). Here’s last week’s edition. It’s free, and thousands of football professionals (and aspiring football professionals) read it each week, and you should, too. Register for it here.

With Agent Week 2018 now in the books, we spent time over the last week trying to get a sense of the exam itself, as well as how we did preparing this year’s agent class.

To answer the second question, this year, we commissioned a survey. Interestingly, only about half of our respondents (we got fewer the 20 responses) were attorneys. Most (about two-thirds) were confirmed to take the exam at least a month before the test date. We were really pleased with what we heard:

• Based on our survey, almost 80 percent found our daily newsletter series recounting success stories from the most recent agent class and providing test tips “encouraging and insightful,” while the remaining 20 percent called it “a key part of my exam prep.”
• We did pretty well on the test questions, too. More than half (54 percent) said “on balance, they were helpful and mostly similar to the actual test questions,” while another 30 percent said “they were definitely helpful and quite similar to the actual test questions.” Only one respondent said, “I wish they had been more similar to the questions on the actual exam.”
• Our study guide probably got the best grade, however. Ninety-two percent said it was “very helpful; I’m glad I had it.” All in all, based on a scale of 1-5 with five being best, we got a ‘4’ from 54 percent and a ‘5’ from the rest.

With regard to the test itself, we were interested to see how closely the exam mirrored what was taught in the day-and-a-half seminar leading up to the test, and whether or not the exam was as challenging as it has been the last three years since the players association really put the hammer down. One test-taker said “there were a few things on the exam that were not covered, but I think that is because they change topics slightly year to year. One thing I noticed is almost every exam question was covered at some point during the conference so it’s really important to pay attention during the conference.”

That jibes with what we’ve heard for years from those taking the exam. NFLPA officials are not without a heart, and they give those who pay attention during the seminar a clear advantage. Of course, not everyone takes advantage, and it shows up in the final minutes before the test begins. “Like you predicted, there were several people in the lobby seemingly reviewing materials for the first time and highlighting!,” said one of our clients. “All I could do was chuckle!” 

At the same time, there was some dissonance between what was presented and what showed up on the test. There was also one test-taker who said the seminar was a bit rushed and confusing on Friday morning. “They were presenting the info and some presenters were correcting each other, so I didn’t know who to believe,” he said. “Also, they ran over time, so they rushed info and cut short some material. On top of that they sent out stuff for us to study weeks ago just to tell us at the meeting that some things were different.”

As always, it wasn’t a perfect two days in Washington, D.C., but if you studied, took advantage of the NFLPA’s guidance at the seminar (even if it was rushed at times), and used our materials, I think there’s good news waiting in about a month.