Over the last two days, my Instagram DM has been flooded with messages from overseas hoopers who are either scared or confused about the new FIBA rule change regarding agent payments. Many of you wanted to know what this means for your careers and how it will impact your relationships with agents and clubs.
To clear up the confusion and provide some guidance, I’ve put together this blog post breaking down the regulation, explaining what it means in simple terms, listing the pros and cons, and sharing my thoughts on why I believe this change could ultimately benefit players.
What the Change Means for Basketball Players
Effective February 1, 2025, FIBA will enforce a new regulation requiring that basketball players directly pay their agents. Previously, clubs could pay player agents on behalf of players under certain conditions. This arrangement is no longer allowed, as FIBA aims to ensure transparency and reduce conflicts of interest in agent representation.
For players, this means that they will now be fully responsible for paying their agents’ fees, which must be explicitly stated in their contracts which is usually 10% of the netto contract amount. While this change aligns with FIBA’s broader goal of ethical practices, it represents a significant shift in the financial and contractual landscape of professional basketball.
Pros of the New Regulation
- Strengthened Agent-Player Relationships
By shifting the responsibility of payment directly to players, agents are now accountable to the players alone, ensuring that their focus remains on the player’s best interests. This can foster better trust and communication between agents and their clients. - Elimination of Conflicts of Interest
When clubs pay agents, there’s a risk that agents may prioritize the club’s goals over the player’s. This change eliminates such conflicts, ensuring unbiased representation. - Greater Transparency
Direct payment ensures clarity in financial arrangements, preventing potential disputes or misunderstandings between players, agents, and clubs. - Professional Growth for Players
Players will gain a deeper understanding of their financial commitments, encouraging them to take an active role in their professional and financial decision-making. - Innovative Payment Solutions
Some teams have already begun finding creative ways to help players adjust to this change. For example, in Spain, teams offer signing bonuses or increasing salaries so players can afford to pay their agents immediately. Such solutions not only ease the transition but also ensure that players can retain quality representation.
Cons of the New Regulation
- Financial Strain for Lower-Tier Players
Players with lower earnings may struggle to afford upfront agent fees. This can make it harder for them to secure quality representation unless flexible payment terms are negotiated beforehand. Negotiate with your agent exactly how these payments can be made. For example, payments on a monthly basis. This will also put pressure on your agent to be after teams who pay late or not at all because they will also not get paid in such cases if the player does not get paid. - Potential Chaos in Agent Agreements
Some players might sign with agents only if the agent secures them a deal, creating a volatile dynamic. Agents might face risks of wasted time and effort if a player signs with another agent that gets a deal faster. - Impact on Smaller Agencies
Smaller agencies that represent lower-tier players might find it difficult to survive as their client base could face challenges in affording agent fees. - Administrative Burden on Players
Players will now need to manage direct payments, adding an administrative task to their already demanding careers.
Why I Believe This Change Is a Good Idea
From a professional standpoint, this regulation aligns with the idea of empowering players to take control of their careers. A direct payment structure strengthens the trust between players and agents, ensuring that the agent works solely for the player’s benefit.
For example, during my career, I’ve seen situations where clubs influenced agent decisions to the detriment of players. This new regulation prevents such scenarios. It also encourages open and honest conversations about fees and services, something that can enhance the professional relationship between players and agents.
The innovative solutions emerging in countries like Spain—such as signing bonuses or salary increases to help players pay agents—show that the industry can adapt to this shift while maintaining balance. These approaches can serve as models for teams in other countries.
Potential Challenges and Chaos
However, this change isn’t without its downsides. One significant risk is that players might treat agent relationships transactionally, only signing with an agent if they guarantee a contract. This could lead to agents taking fewer risks with unproven players, potentially reducing opportunities for up-and-coming talent.
Additionally, smaller agencies might struggle to adapt, as their clientele often consists of players who can’t pay upfront. For lower-end players, this could mean fewer options for representation unless flexible payment plans are negotiated.
While the transition may be challenging at first, I fully believe FIBA’s regulation could lead to a more ethical and transparent environment for basketball players and agents alike. For players navigating these changes, having the right guidance is crucial.
At SJM Consultation, I specialize in helping players understand and manage their careers, including changes like these. If you’re unsure how this affects you or need help renegotiating your contracts, don’t hesitate to reach out.
Let’s Talk…