Day One CBA talks---No agents involved in negotiations?

[Pats726]

ProFootballTalk.com - Union Not Communicating With Agents About CBA Issues

I found this interesting...that there is surprise that agents were not involved with the CBA talks. I really wonder what input they have had on past negotiations and if they really should be involved at all as their claim in this might NOT be the same as the players. If Upshaw was influenced by agents could that explain certain things in the CBA that was pro agent and not helping the players as much? Is this a good idea NOT to have agents involved in these negotiations?
This is one dynamic I do not have a handle on.

 

[DaBruinz]

ProFootballTalk.com - Union Not Communicating With Agents About CBA Issues

I found this interesting...that there is surprise that agents were not involved with the CBA talks. I really wonder what input they have had on past negotiations and if they really should be involved at all as their claim in this might NOT be the same as the players. If Upshaw was influenced by agents could that explain certain things in the CBA that was pro agent and not helping the players as much? Is this a good idea NOT to have agents involved in these negotiations?
This is one dynamic I do not have a handle on.

One of Upshaw's closest confidants was Tom Condon, super agent extraordinaire. And its been well speculated that Condon's got a burr up his butt stemming from the Patriots contract talks with Watson.

I think it would be great if the agents were NOT involved. I think that this will allow the players and owners to get a fairer deal done.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

I would say agents should not be apart of the talks because of conflict of interest.

The job of an agent is to look out for the best interest of the principal. However, for the purposes of the CBA the job of looking out for players interests falls to the union. If the agents are there to represent the interest of the players they are pretty much redundent. If they are there to represent themselves in conflict with the players they are violating their agency agreement and have a conflict of interest. The only legitimate purpose they would serve would be to represent the players on manner in which the union and players might be in conflict such as union dues or how much control the union might have over a player.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think having player agents allowed to represent coaches and UNION PRESIDENTS was always a conflict of interest from the get go.

I wonder who developed Upshaw's trickle down (mostly from #1 drafted QB's) economic approach? In his tenure discussion of capping those insane rookie deals was a non starter, even though the majority of players took as much issue with it as management did. This time around the players council seemed to want to move away from the status quo, which IMO is why neither of the former members of the NFLPA is wearing the crown and it went instead to a total outsider. I think at the end of the day most rank and file players don't want to risk killing the goose over a handful of entrenched principles that never impacted the vast majority of them. And I think they would like to see less rhetoric and lip service being paid to long term security and benefits for all those players who suit up for years while never cracking any top ten categories.

 

[Pats726]

I think having player agents allowed to represent coaches and UNION PRESIDENTS was always a conflict of interest from the get go.

I wonder who developed Upshaw's trickle down (mostly from #1 drafted QB's) economic approach? In his tenure discussion of capping those insane rookie deals was a non starter, even though the majority of players took as much issue with it as management did. This time around the players council seemed to want to move away from the status quo, which IMO is why neither of the former members of the NFLPA is wearing the crown and it went instead to a total outsider. I think at the end of the day most rank and file players don't want to risk killing the goose over a handful of entrenched principles that never impacted the vast majority of them. And I think they would like to see less rhetoric and lip service being paid to long term security and benefits for all those players who suit up for years while never cracking any top ten categories.

mo...I agree with you totally on that. It seems from the piece that making a big deal out of the fact that they are NOT involved this time means they were QUITE involved in other CBA negotiations. If true that might explain the push for such LARGE rookie contracts..where agents would get mucho bucks. I think it will be better that they are not involved...it's unions vs players...the agents have their own axes to grind and the fact they were involved to me slants the way siome of how those agreements turned out. No way do the players want that golden goose dead..they are NOT on a good position.