Even before considering those rules one's ethical bases determines their moral reasoning as with the infamous sports agent Josh Luchs. Ethical bases are defined by deontology (based on rules or what is right), teleology (based on consequences of action or what is good) or existentialism (based on the individual or intentions, motives or character) (Malloy, D. C., Ross, S., & Zakus, D. H. (2003). Luch’s claims to have paid the first player that he ever tried to recruit and seemingly many after by justifying his actions as necessary because it was a part of the business. "People should know how the agent business really works, how widespread the inducements to players are and how players have their hands out. It isn't just the big, bad agents
…show more content…
SPARTA and UAAA can only protect the athlete and the institution while the agent is recruiting the athlete. Once the agent signs the athlete as a client only the NFLPA’s Code of Conduct is protects the athlete and as Luchs puts it, “The NFLPA is mostly powerless.” “The number of problems resulting from the athlete-agent interaction has swelled almost as fast as the ranks of the agents themselves” (Wnuk, 2010). Based upon the literature reviewed it seems that most agents do in fact follow the rules and regulations for ethical behavior but a select few which happen to be some of the more successful and well known agents have been in fact caught using unethical tactics. SPARTA and the UAAA set standards but do not serve as effective deterrents for those unethical tactics and at least 66 schools from 32 states have had athletic officials sign a petition that calls for stricter penalty for unethical agent behavior and a broader scope of the law. As there have been revisions and amendments made to the current regulations already in the past 30 years, the question for further review would be is making stricter rules the answer to stopping unethical sports agents or is making it harder to become a sports agent the answer to eliminating the unethical? The answer lies not only within stricter regulation but also making sure that there is enforcement of those rules (Martin,
SPARTA and UAAA can only protect the athlete and the institution while the agent is recruiting the athlete. Once the agent signs the athlete as a client only the NFLPA’s Code of Conduct is protects the athlete and as Luchs puts it, “The NFLPA is mostly powerless.” “The number of problems resulting from the athlete-agent interaction has swelled almost as fast as the ranks of the agents themselves” (Wnuk, 2010). Based upon the literature reviewed it seems that most agents do in fact follow the rules and regulations for ethical behavior but a select few which happen to be some of the more successful and well known agents have been in fact caught using unethical tactics. SPARTA and the UAAA set standards but do not serve as effective deterrents for those unethical tactics and at least 66 schools from 32 states have had athletic officials sign a petition that calls for stricter penalty for unethical agent behavior and a broader scope of the law. As there have been revisions and amendments made to the current regulations already in the past 30 years, the question for further review would be is making stricter rules the answer to stopping unethical sports agents or is making it harder to become a sports agent the answer to eliminating the unethical? The answer lies not only within stricter regulation but also making sure that there is enforcement of those rules (Martin,