new media athletes

I should not know Paul Shirley’s name. He played for teams I don’t follow, isn’t very good (compared to most NBA players), and might best be known for his uncredited appearance as #50 for Iowa in Glory Road. However, I do know who he is because he used to write for ESPN while playing for the Phoenix Suns and parlayed that gig into publishing a book and working on a television pilot. He is for an intents and purposes a new media athlete. By leveraging the power of the internet, he was able to propel his career from that of a human victory cigar into becoming an author. Instead of toiling in obscurity, he now is only in relative obscurity (as in those who follow the NBA semi-irregularly might actually know who he is, unlike lets say Matt Bonner). Yes, the fact that he is a good writer certainly helped as no one wants to read the ramblings of a bad writer but it is important to not look past the fact that he was able to provide a service that few others could: an inside look at the life of an NBA player.

Gilbert Arenas is a tremendous athlete but were it not for his long-running blog on NBA.com would he be a near max-contract player with loads of endorsements? He already has the talent, but I sincerely believe that his blog took him to the next level where he was able to transcend the boundary between NBA star and pop-culture star. It is a well-known fact that he doesn’t even write the actual blog, instead he dictates his thoughts to someone else to writes it for him, yet people still flock to read it knowing that it may not be his 100%, authentic voice. His blog alone did not garner him his shoe deal, but it certainly did not hurt.

My third example of a new media athlete is Chris Bosh, star of the Toronto Raptors. He has been to known to produce videos for YouTube, usually skits of some sorts that make you think “hey if I were rich, I would do the same thing*” including a plea to make the All-Star team, and an interview with himself as Blane Herrington in a Eddie-Murphey-except-funny type role.

While you may not find this video funny, you certainly have to admit that he is taking advantage of his considerable means as a world-class athlete and making videos not only to entertain himself but to garner a new legion of fans. Currently he is playing for the USA Basketball team at the Beijing Olympics, but he is still posting videos about his journey. For the most part they offer an insight into a life that the vast majority of us will never be able to comprehend. He doesn’t have to do this but he does for his fans and because he wants to.

In this age of constant information it is important for athletes to reach out to their fans with a personal message rather than letting The Superficial do it for you. At this point in time Gilbert Arenas could murder a man in cold blood and all I would think is 1) I can’t wait for his blog post about it and 2) I wonder if he did it in a quirky fashion? Your image is everything and by merely spending a few hours a week writing a post, making videos or any other venue in which you can touch base with your fan base, you gain so much more than you could ever possibly lose. The differences between Chris Bosh’s videos and LeBron James’ Facebook are quite evident. I can hardly believe that James had any role in putting up the page other then signing his name to give permission. The video of James hanging out with his child and eating breakfast is done in a professional manner unlike Bosh who probably has his friends holding the camera and writing the script with him. If you could cause your name recognition to sky rocket merely by writing down your thoughts or producing videos with friends, don’t you think you would do it? There are really no downsides to this approach, and in the coming years I expect to see many more athletes who leverage the internet as a tool.

A quick warning, however, is that I would suggest that if you are an athlete with a MySpace or Facebook page, do the exact opposite of this man. The difference between using the internet to further your global appeal and using it to make a fool of yourself should be quite obvious.

*People who think this are dumb.

olympics and power

People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promises; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking… In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.”

Robert Greene “The 48 Laws of Power”

It is often said that people watch sporting events as a means to escape the daily drudgery of life, and that is why Joe Average will spend hours reading about his favorite WNBA team, spending money on tickets and television packages, living and dying with every move, every playoff game, and every transaction. The power of sports is hard to recreate elsewhere in society; people do not cheer for companies to crush their competition (save for the cultists that worship Apple products) nor do they tend to go out of their way to support only one brand (again, save for the Apple fanatics). The difference in loyalty between a sports team/player and a company is fairly simple: people root for their teams by birth, tradition or at random whereas in most cases they choose to buy products from a company based off of convenience, availability or most likely the price. Yes, their are cases where some people will spend more for products based off of brand loyalty, but I figure it is a safe assumption to say as a whole that in general a majority of people care more for the economic impact of saving money than they do over buying an Intel computer over a rival.

The reason the Olympics are such a powerful product is because they take the fanaticism that follows athletic competitions but harnesses that into a nation-pride frenzy where the achievements of “our athletes” somehow ascends the boundary of competition and becomes a sense of national pride. Michael Phelps was born in America and his achievements are vicariously empowering America over other countries. Logically this idea makes no sense, but when you combine athletics and nation pride you get this mixture. China is famous for harvesting children at young ages who show any slight skill at an athletic event and training them for the onset of their journey into adulthood. The Chinese know better than anyone that if you can harness national pride and unite the common folk then they are much more willing to overlook issues such as human rights violations (yes I realize this does not make much sense if looked at from a rational manner but nationalism tends to be irrational).

The Olympics are the perfect platform for nations to expand national pride through athletic competitions. The men and women representing their respective countries are suppose to be the best in the world at what they do, and by association, the best countries must have the best. Julius Caesar often put on lavish spectacles to entertain the masses and establish himself as a larger-than-life figure. China is currently doing the same thing. Their opening ceremony was meticulously planned out the even the tiniest detail; they wanted everything to be perfect down to the little girl singing the national anthem to the 29 foot prints leading to the lighting of the Olympic torch. Since the games began, when was the last time you heard about their occupation of Tibet? While people care about the issues, the games serve as a distraction that many allow themselves to be easily caught up in. Make no mistake about it, the Olympics are an economic juggernaut that if used correctly can greatly enhance a country on the world wide level. Many people believed that China wanted these games to be their coming out party as a global power and thus far they have exceeded the expectation placed upon them.

Sports in general are often used as a tool of power. This is why teams are able to hold cities hostage for brand new facilities and sweet-heart leases as no politician wants to risk angering the masses by spurning a source of escapism and unity. When you combine the love at competition with the pride of nations you get a combination that can be easily whipped up and riled into a frenzy. Remember, the fans of Red Star Belgrade were used as a militia during the 1990s Balkan Wars. Sports have the power to unite a country like few other devices are capable of, and if used correctly, much power can be gained by playing the field effectively.

transcending popular culture

In order for an athlete to transcend the boundary between being famous for their athletic achievements and just being famous, they have to become larger than the game they play. Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant are able to do this based off of sheer athletic ability. Because they are so marketable, Nike is able to promote them even if they are retired or an accused rapist. However, not many athletes are able to cross this threshold. Chris Paul right now is the best point guard in the NBA but I would be willing to bet a majority of Americans would not be able to point him out in a police line-up.

There is one easy way to gain prominence but it may lead to a lack of endorsements: become a sports revolutionary. The 10 people listed are more well known for their off the field actions, yet some might claim that they are more important than a Jordan or a James.

During the height of the Vietnam War, St. Louis Cardinals linebacker Dave Meggyesy, weary of conservatives using football to boost pro-war patriotism, circulated a petition amongst his teammates asking their Congressman to bring the troops home. Ownership, incensed, became even more furious when Meggyesy, inspired by the Mexico City Olympic fist-raisers, refused to obey Commissioner Pete Rozelle’s order for players to salute the flag during the national anthem. Benched for “political reasons” midway through the 1969 season, Meggyesy quit football in the prime of his career and subsequently authored a book, Out of Their League, which aired out the NFL for exploitation, racism and drug abuse.

Using your fame to become an activist is a double-edge sword; many people will love you for it while a majority of people will shun you. Before someone takes a stand against an injustice, they must ask themselves are they willing to forgo millions of dollars to try and support a cause. Tyrone Lue famously attempted to have all of his Cavalier teammates sign a petition condemning China’s inaction against the genocide in Darfu, which LeBron James did not sign (although I read that he didn’t sign because he felt he hadn’t researched the topic enough to offer his John Hancock, I maintain that he does not want to alienate a billion potential shoe buyers.) While Lue is certainly not a household name, a mid-level exception player at best, the fact that he is willing to stand up for his believes is an admirable quality.

As long as athletes are treated as larger-than-life figures people will continually want them to use their name recognition to power their causes. No one should be forced to do this, and using this technique to gain fame is certainly despicable, but it is the fastest way to become culturally relevant. With regards to Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, this most resembles the fifth (So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life) and the sixth (Court Attention at all Cost). Power can be gained and lost with brash outspokenness or with silence. It is up to the player in question to decide what they value most.

will lebron go to europe?

No, probably not. While he is still ridiculed for his global icon comment from a few years ago, it is obvious that his goal is to be the next Jordan in terms of endorsements and fame. Playing in Europe, even if it is just two years for 50 million a year, won’t do much to enhance that status. I really do believe that European basketball will be on par with the NBA in the next twenty years but that is because it is a free market with a youth system thats completely trumps our own. Signing players like Josh Childress shows that the prestige of the NBA won’t be enough to hinder players who are not max-contracters, but for a player of James status, the money he would make would certainly be less than he would through endorsements. The prevailing theory is that he wants to play for the Knicks because New York is the largest market in America. Playing for the best team in Europe will not sell as many jerseys.

The future of the NBA is going to be decided by our youth developmental programs and the freeing of the restricted market. Don’t expect James signing with a European club to be the catalyst that changes the system because ultimately that doesn’t have as much of an effect on the pocket books of the owners as a second, viable league rising.

viral marketing

I wasn’t at work to witness this, but over the last week someone has been coming in and stuffing the pants in our women’s section with fake one hundred dollar bills. While I haven’t actually seen them, I was told that they looked real from a distance but up close they were obviously fake. The people who find the fake currency are suppose to go to a website and from there I assume it leads them on a some sort of online adventure where eventually they find the product that was suppose to be advertised. This is all a guess, of course, because I have no idea what the website is or what steps you need to take to complete it. I was told that the flash image on the website was a lady gagging (I have no idea what she was gagging on) and because the person visiting the site was at an Apple store, he didn’t continue on.

I don’t know much about marketing, but who was the intended audience for this? The people that shop at the store I work for certainly would not qualify. Web savvy isn’t exactly how I would describe people who shop just to save five dollars on a crappy pair of pants. Not only that, but I know I would be pissed off if I had a brief moment of elation thinking I found a hundred dollars only to discover it was fake. I understand the point of viral marketing is to get people to spread your product through word-of-mouth, but a quick Google search revealed nothing about this. I still don’t even know what it was trying to sell. In a week I will forget all about this scheme, and outside of this blog post, I don’t think I will bother to tell anyone else about it because even while reading what I am writing I am finding that this isn’t even interesting. The genius behind this viral marketing needs to read Seth Godin and plan their strategy much better next time.

fulmer cup

I love sports. I will watch nearly any competition that involves scoring, someone winning, and someone losing. I watched Slamball, the XFL, MLS, and other various leagues that really aren’t that great. I arbitrarily will pick a team or player to support, even if it is just for the afternoon, for no real reason other than I like to have someone to cheer for. If I am watching ESPN Classic, I will root for a team even if the game was played 20 years ago. Competition is just something that I love.

I put that disclaimer in here because this post is about a competition that keeps track of points that college football athletes earn by committing various crimes. It isn’t because I have an agenda against the supposed privileges that are granted to these few people skilled enough to play football at a high level that I find enjoyment in these matters, but because sometimes they are just downright humorous. Obviously the people that are arrested for domestic violence or animal cruelty are scum, but there are gems such as a Purdue player being arrested for stealing condoms.

The Fulmer Cup serves as a watch dog to show you the stuff that these athletes try to get away with that ESPN will never report unless it is a big name player. In some ways it is just as bad as reading The Superficial for the latest celebrity gossip, but I think it is more important than that. Blogs are able to report news that otherwise would never get national attention. Most people have probably never heard of Ellis T. Jones III, a former San Jose State football player, but in the Fulmer Cup he is a legend.

Former San Jose State football player that used Craigslist to lure people into meeting him and getting robbed.

Jones was charged with 13 felony counts including five counts of robbery, four counts of assault for using a taser gun on some of his victims, and one count of kidnapping when he locked a victim in the trunk of a car. He faced up to life in prison with the possibility of parole, but was convicted of only five robberies. He is currently serving a five-year prison sentence.

Mr. Jones racked up an unbelievable THIRTY-ONE points by himself in the 2006 Fulmer Cup, which was then awarded to him personally and not San Jose State. It was the least they could do.

This competition is a text book example of schadenfreude. Do I feel bad for the victims of his robberies? Yes. Does that mean I can’t find humor in the situation? That would be just as bad as trying to forget the national tragedy of 7/29. If you cannot find amusement in someone being arrested for stealing beer from a gay bar then my sense of humor must be radically different from yours.

I said earlier that I felt that this was not as bad as reading celebrity gossip and I stand by that statement. I find that the Fulmer Cup is doing a service by making these crimes known. If no one except the local newspapers report these crimes than how our we suppose to find out about them? I’m not going to read the police blotter of newspapers in college towns across America just to know if anyone did something amusing. This is a niche product that not many people would be interested in, but there are enough that there is a Wikipedia dedicated to keeping track of these points in order to help the site be run.

If there is an audience for a product then it deserves to be recognized. You can’t create passion for even a trivial idea, but as long as it exists there are people out there willing to do it for free. The Fulmer Cup is a watch dog in a way, but it exists first and foremost as something for the fans of college athletics. You can take the site anyway you want it but it is around because there are people like me who love anything and everything related to sports–even the criminal aspects.

sports iq

The lack of posts these past few days can be attributed to me having finals this week. Starting Thursday I’ll be back to posting daily, with some more thoughts of Theodore Roosevelt and 48 Laws of Power with some sports talk that maybe two people find interesting.

As for the title of the post, it refers to the habit of sports journalists to refer to white players as possessing high [insert sport] IQs. I’m not one to blame everything on racism, but I never really understood the practice. On another website I read they refer to the Minnesota Timberwolves as building “Team Eugenics” on the basis of them signing and drafting many players whose only attribute is their basketball IQ. I don’t think that any sort of bigotry is implied with this phrasing, its just that outside of upside potential and sure-thing, there is a dearth of adjectives to garnish onto players.

Someone needs to develop a better system of describing players. It seems that every writer is forced into using the same ways to describe players for no real reason. What does upside potential even mean?

sports journalism is broken

As bad enough as the clip is, this is not even the worst thing I have seen, heard or read in relation to sports. Today, thanks mainly to ESPN, sports writers have degraded themselves into clamoring for attention by making obscene points with no statistical grounding. Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd are by far the worst offenders to this regard. It actually pains me to listen to either of them talk, condescending and smarmy, making comments that are sometimes border-line racist and almost assuredly asinine. When you read about how writer’s such as Bill Simmons grew up reading Peter Gammons and how he was an inspiration for his career, it makes you wonder if some day a child is going to grow and think “you mean if I am loud, obnoxious, rude, and nonsensical, people will pay money just so they will disagree with me and be angry? Sign me up!”

It obviously gets ratings to have such a dumb routine or else they would be put out to pasture. I didn’t watch any of the commentary regarding the recent WNBA fight but I can bet they expressed outrage, called it a barbaric event, said that it was exactly what was wrong with sports and then maybe it turned into a conversation about violent movies and video games corrupting our youth and that sports should remain pure and free of strife. One of the above sports personalities probably made a comment about Mahorn “beating” Lisa Leslie and demand he be fired. I believe I speak for most fans of basketball when I say that

1. The WNBA sucks
2. The fight wasn’t a big deal
3. That hardly qualified as a fight
4. Does the injured player get sent off to the glue factory or do they try to fix her like Barbaro?

The news has become irrelevant and those who cover it are trying to make themselves a part of the story. It is just like how Perez Hilton starts feuds with celebrities so that other sites report about him. He isn’t famous, he isn’t a celebrity, and yet because he is loud and obnoxious he has some how worked his way into main stream culture as someone to be admired. If I had an actual readership that mattered, it could be argued that by writing about Skip Bayless that I am merely contributing to get him the infamy and notoriety that he so desperately craves. I don’t really have a counter-argument to that, but if I can some how let one person avoid listening to him talk about Terrell Owens then this post was worthwhile.

What are some of the sites I go to if I want to get actual sports news? Deadspin, Big Lead, AOL Fanhouse, and PFT. They are able to intermix humor to go along side with actual sports journalism. I know it is a hard concept to grasp, especially for those who continue to try and make money off the internet without actually knowing how to use it. In the future we’re going to look back and figure out why the main stream media was never able to understand the rise in popularity of new media. One of the answers is going to be that while the main stream media was trying to get revenue by treating its audience like fools, the other was producing valuable content. Content is the king maker, with it you’re golden and without it you’re without a paddle. I long for the days when ESPN delivered actual sports content and not trying to tell me “Who’s now“.

For anyone who doesn’t believe that sports journalism is really that bad, I urge you to read Fire Joe Morgan. That site is where I found the video that inspired this post. If you really want an exercise in self-flagellation then read the articles about Woody Paige. I would say more but I don’t want to ruin any of the surprises, but I will leave with a quote by Paige himself, to give you an idea of what you’re in for:

Greek mathematician Archimedes solved the puzzle of the sphere inside the cylinder, but never studied the circle within the diamond. The Rockies must figure out that perplexing riddle on their own after the all-star intermission.

i hate podcasts

I can understand the appeal of podcasts. I can understand that people like to download them and listen to them on their iPods while going to work/exercising. I can understand that it presents a new venue for authors and artists alike to express their sentiments. What I cannot understand is why no one ever provides a transcript of their commentaries so that people have the option of reading the dialog.

I can’t listen to podcasts for the same reason I can’t listen to books on tape and why I don’t listen to radio talk shows: I zone out too easily. When I listen to a podcast I just can’t sit at my computer without starting to read other websites. Inevitably the podcast will become ambient noise to my ears and I will miss key points. This is a personal problem, yes, but on an unselfish level, this practice discriminates against people that are hard of hearing (I am not trying to mask my personal grievances behind white knighting for the hearing impaired but I figured that my laziness and inability to pay attention isn’t worth of a post). It seems to me that these websites, and many others that I don’t visit, are missing out on a large number of potential readers (and revenue) because they don’t provide transcripts.

Two of the websites that I visit almost daily are Bad Astronomy and Bill Simmons. Phil Plait often answers questions from his readers as videos hosted on YouTube. While sometimes this is necessary because he models examples with objects and props, but not always. Bill Simmons is on hiatus while he writes his second book but usually has at least 1-2 podcasts up a week. On the blog for the movie I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, they post interviews with various cast and crew members as YouTube videos. I’ve watched a few of them, and they were interesting, but I would still rather read it.

All three of these sites do not provide transcripts. It is hard to justify my right to complain about a free service because the people behind these podcasts are doing us, their readers, a favor by providing additional entertainment for no cost. My point is that they could increase their audience just by spending 10-20 minutes to write down what they just said. Providing multiple outlets for media can only expand the potential market of consumers for the content.

I know that in a chat on Bill Simmons’ site a reader once asked why he didn’t provide transcripts and his answer was the ESPN hasn’t/will not hire someone to do that. Why would you purposely choose to make a product that is ignored by a percentage of your audience? Personally, I would never have a podcast because my voice lies somewhere on the scale of voice quality between Gilbert Godfrey and the singer of Clap Your Hands and Say Yeah! That being said, if I did ever consider doing one, I would provide a transcript. Maybe someone can enlighten me but I really cannot see any value in refusing to do this. I am still going to continue to read all of these websites, and one day I may see the light and become a podcast addict, but in the meanwhile I’m content to listen to music while I do my daily perusal of the internet.

more on josh childress

True Hoop: Essentially I agree with everything Henry Abbot says. However, I think he is downplaying the potential ramifications of this deal. He is operating under the assumption that the leaders of the NBA office will realize the errors of their ways and fix the league to compete on a global scale. I can understand his optimism but I just don’t share it. This is the same league that mandated an age limit so it could protect the team owners from drafting players on just their potential. This is the same league that enacted the Allan Houston rule only for the Knicks to not use it on Allan Houston (although that is more Isiah’s fault). This is the same league that allowed a team to move from one of the largest markets in the United States, and one of our most important cities with regards to the Asian market, to Oklahoma City, which hasn’t been relevant on a global scale since, well, ever.

Competition can inspire change and improve the market for all parties involved. The problem is that when you’re the dominant force in the market you lose the will to innovate. Microsoft is a great example of this: once they conquered the browser market by killing Netscape, they slowly allowed their browser to become worse and worse. Now that Firefox is taking their market shares they have tried to adjust their attitude but they are essentially just copying ideas from Firefox. The DNA of Microsoft is corrupt. They become complacent and it poisoned their creativity. That doesn’t imply a death sentence but as Dr. Horrible said, “the fish rots from the head”. The problems with Microsoft begin at the top and that remains true as well for the NBA front office.

How the NBA chooses to respond to this will have long term ramifications across many different sports league. Could the MLS one day begin to poach European talent? Will baseball players in Latin America eventually stop coming over to play in their own leagues? Right now both of those ideas seem highly improbably to the point of impossibility ,but then again, so was the idea of a player of Childress’ caliber departing the NBA at the peak of his career.

But what the NBA does not have, anymore, is a free pass to supremacy. And if you’re a fan of good basketball, that’s a good thing.

This quote sums up his thoughts (and my more pessimistic ones) in a clear and concise way. While he expects the league to learn from its mistake and I expect them to be arrogant and ignore the potential issues that lay ahead, it is agreeable that a change is coming.

Wages of Wins: He takes a look at the piece by True Hoop as well, but adds additional commentary with regards to the collective bargaining agreement. His points on why the NBA forced themselves into the situation are excellent. The previous CBA was negotiated as if the NBA was an insular business with no competition. They handicapped themselves in certain ways to protect themselves from overspending. Because of these protections, the players became limited into getting their true free market value. Childress, for example, was a restricted free agent. That meant that any Hawks maintained the right to match any contract offer presented to him by another team. Because the Hawks were adamant about not doing a sign-and-trade, Childress’ options were limited. Only one team had the cap space to offer him anything greater than the mid-level exception but no one wants to play for Memphis so its a moot point. That meant that he could resign for below his market value with the Hawks or sign a one-year qualifying offer that would have allowed him to be an unrestricted free agent next summer. Like any trail blazer, he ignored convention and signed with a European team instead, negating all the good that the CBA had done to allow teams to keep their own players. The article does a much better job than me in explaining the potential impact that this will have on future negotiations for the CBA.

Chris Sheridan: Two very interesting points in this article. The first is the belief that there are not enough teams that can afford to spend top dollar to lure over NBA free agents. The problem is that many players are restricted to taking the mid-level exception which averages about five million a year or so. Those same players can go to Europe, get paid in a more valuable currency, avoid taxes and receive free housing. It seems that teams in Europe who want to compete don’t have to have pockets as deep as the Knicks or Lakers because global economics have already given them an advantage.

More importantly, and the reason for my complete lack of optimism for the NBA front office, is the following quote:

NBA commissioner David Stern has consistently said he is comfortable with the notion that there are some players who can make more money in Europe and would prefer to play there, saying the majority of the world’s best basketball players still seek the allure of playing in the world’s most prestigious league.

But what was once a trickle of players choosing Europe over America has started to become a flow, and in the years ahead it’ll become a question of whether the NBA will decide to loosen some of its salary-cap rules that have hindered player movement, especially among restricted free agents.

“The level of concern is low,” NBA president of basketball operations Joel Litvin told ESPN.com in a phone interview. “This is what happens when you have a global sport and a global marketplace for elite players, and we’re confident that the NBA remains the gold standard for professional basketball. Businesswise, it’s good for us, because it means more basketball fans will be watching basketball, and those fans will find the NBA because that’s where the best of the world plays.”

A low level of concern? The prestige will negate their open-market advantages of Europe? I am confident that if this is the attitude towards Childress’ deal that prevails in the minds of the leaders of the league, that this will be the beginning of the end. Not in the sense that the league will collapse, far from it, but that the talent will start to equalize. Like I said in my previous post, this will begin to mirror the system that governs European soccer. The NBA will have competition with other leagues that have just as much talent. The NBA must drop their idea of isolationism and realize that they no longer will be able to use prestige to acquire talent. The idea that players would turn down millions of dollars so that their jersey would say New York Knicks instead of Real Madrid is absurd. This is the wrong attitude and this is why I cannot help but to look towards David Stern and his cronies with dismay.

Globeandmail.com: This article does a good job of explaining why playing in Europe might soon become more appealing for players. Economics reasons, of course, remain the heart of the issue. Maurizio Gherardini believes that it is too early to judge if this is going to be a trend which is a valid assumption. I don’t know if trend is the word I would choose though, as I think that more agents are going to start using European teams as leverage. In most cases, an agent’s job is to get their client as much money as possible. If that becomes European leagues and not the NBA, then it is off to Europe.