![Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fres.cloudinary.com%2Fscarinci-hollenbeck%2Fimages%2Ff_auto%2Cq_auto%2Fv1676448213%2Fwp.scarincihollenbeck%2Fsh-mini-diamond-500x500-1%2Fsh-mini-diamond-500x500-1.png%3F_i%3DAA&w=256&q=75)
Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAuthor: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC|November 8, 2013
Amateur athletes are prohibited from having any contact with a sports agent before declaring themselves eligible for a professionals sports league’s draft. But, this hasn’t stopped agents from trying to secure top clients while they are still in school.
In an effort to strengthen the penalties agents face for providing gifts to college athletes or engaging in other improper conduct, a committee is revising the Uniform Athlete Agents Act – the sports law that outlines how to punish agents who commit infractions.
Not only would the revised law increase fines and strengthen agent registration requirements, but it would also broaden the law to cover more people, including runners, financial advisers and marketers.
Committee chairman Dale Higer told The Associated Press that changes certainly need to be made to the law moving forward, and any revisions would be implemented in 2015 at the earliest.
“I personally agree that a lot of work needs to be done to make it likely to be enforced and penalize agents that don’t comply in a significant way,” Higer said. “At the end of the day, when we get it done, I hope that the provision will be such that the agents will rue the day that they violated the act.”
One of the most recently publicized breaches of the law happened at the University of North Carolina. Patrick Mitchell Jones – a Georgia real estate agent – made his first court appearance in early October for allegedly providing former Tar Heels football player Robert Quinn with $725 to sign with sports agent Terry Watson.
With stronger laws in place, situations such as these might be less frequent, as agents could be deterred from offering amateur athletes money. As a result, there will likely be fewer suspensions for college athletes for receiving improper benefits – a positive for all parties involved.
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAmateur athletes are prohibited from having any contact with a sports agent before declaring themselves eligible for a professionals sports league’s draft. But, this hasn’t stopped agents from trying to secure top clients while they are still in school.
In an effort to strengthen the penalties agents face for providing gifts to college athletes or engaging in other improper conduct, a committee is revising the Uniform Athlete Agents Act – the sports law that outlines how to punish agents who commit infractions.
Not only would the revised law increase fines and strengthen agent registration requirements, but it would also broaden the law to cover more people, including runners, financial advisers and marketers.
Committee chairman Dale Higer told The Associated Press that changes certainly need to be made to the law moving forward, and any revisions would be implemented in 2015 at the earliest.
“I personally agree that a lot of work needs to be done to make it likely to be enforced and penalize agents that don’t comply in a significant way,” Higer said. “At the end of the day, when we get it done, I hope that the provision will be such that the agents will rue the day that they violated the act.”
One of the most recently publicized breaches of the law happened at the University of North Carolina. Patrick Mitchell Jones – a Georgia real estate agent – made his first court appearance in early October for allegedly providing former Tar Heels football player Robert Quinn with $725 to sign with sports agent Terry Watson.
With stronger laws in place, situations such as these might be less frequent, as agents could be deterred from offering amateur athletes money. As a result, there will likely be fewer suspensions for college athletes for receiving improper benefits – a positive for all parties involved.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.