Phil Kessel: Getting Help from a Family Friend or Representation by an Agent?

But you say he's just a friend.
But you say he's just a friend.
--Biz Marke, from his sublime 1988 song "Just a Friend"

It's not too often when I can invoke lyrics by the great artist, Biz Markie, but they come to mind when reading about the Boston Bruins' contract negotiations with first round draft pick Phil Kessel, a rising sophomore at the University of Minnesota, and Kessel's "family advisor," Wade Arnott.

Here's the deal: although Wade Arnott is an NHLPA certified agent--and a well-respected one at that--who works for the sports agency Newport Sports Management, he is not acting as Kessel's agent in Kessel's contract negotiations with the Bruins.

Rather, he's acting as Kessel's "family advisor" or "family friend."

What's the difference? Well, possibly two things: Arnott is not being compensated in any way by Kessel, and there is no contractual relationship between the two. But those may only be illusory distinctions: even if Arnott were Kessel's agent, his compensation would likely be derived by a 2% or 3% cut of Kessel's contract, and because it's expected that Kessel will sign with Arnott as a client right before he signs with the Bruins as an employee, Arnott will still get that cut as a friend. Moreover, Kessel, like any player, can likely drop Arnott at any time, for any reason, with or without a contractual relationship (meaning the existence of a contractual relationship may not be meaningful).

So why the difference? By Arnott being labeled a "family advisor" or "family friend," Kessel can maintain his NCAA eligibility. So if Kessel's contract talks with the Bruins were to fail, he can return to the University of Minnesota and play there in the 2006-07 season. In contrast, if Kessel were to formally sign with Arnott, NCAA rules dictate that he would immediately forfeit his collegiate eligibility.

While I understand that this arrangement bolsters the negotiating power of amateur players, is the NCAA really fooling anyone by engaging in name semantics? If they are really worried about the undue influence of agents (a legitimate concern) why are they letting the very same agents get around the rules by acting as "family friends"?

Posted in: