This is the second part of a two-part series on rollover provisions in player-agent agreements. To see the first part, click here.
The point of all this, of course, is how can an agent enforce his player-agent agreement on a) players who go behind the agent’s back to sign with a new agent, and b) agents who poach players under a binding contract.
a) Enforcing against Players who Breach
How can an agent enforce his player-agent contract against a player? The agent can always petition FIBA to sanction the player. The FIBA regulations prohibit certain actions by players. “A player may use the services of only one Agent licensed under the terms and conditions of these Regulations.” FIBA Reg. 163. FIBA has the authority to sanction Players who violate FIBA Regulations: “In the event that a player uses the services of . . . more than one agent at the same time, FIBA acting through the Secretary General is entitled to:
The past few months we have received several complaints from FIBA agents about players signing contracts behind their backs and other agents poaching players. This two-part article explores the legality under the FIBA regulations of rollover clauses in player-agent agreements and what remedies agents have against their former players and other agents. To view the second part, click here.
A rollover clause is a contractual provision that causes the contract to roll over after each agreed period until cancelled by one party. Many FIBA agents utilize a 1-year rollover provision that requires notice prior to 30 days before the end of the 1-year term. This type of provision eliminates the need to re-sign the player each year and gives both the player and agent confidence for the future. Many player-agent agreements are signed in the summer months, which is the peak scouting and signing season for European teams. If an agent were constantly unsure about a player’s status because the agent had to re-sign the player during the summer each year, that agent would be less likely to focus his energy on getting that player a job.… Read More
Many players and clubs do not retain counsel for BAT arbitrations, often to their detriment. BAT arbitrations are touted as quick, efficient, and relatively inexpensive. See BAT Rule 0.1, 0.2. But this does not mean the proceedings are uncomplicated. IBPA’s researchers have discovered many cases that hinged on complex legal issues, such as the scope of the arbitration agreement and jurisdiction of the BAT.
For example, in0051, Pesic v. Dynamo, a dispute between a Serbian/German coach (the “Coach”) and Russian Men’s Basketball Club (the “Club”), the contract at issue contained confusing provisions providing for disputes to be litigated in a Russian Arbitral Tribunal and the BAT. The Club argued that the Coach had to litigate in the Russian Arbitral Tribunal first and could only appeal to the BAT afterwards. Citing http://www.supcourt.ru/catalog.php?c1=English, the arbitrator decided that this construction of the contract made no sense because the Russian Arbitral Tribunal was actually a state court with its own complex appeals system.… Read More