With reports surfacing of IMG chairman Ted Forstmann being allegedly accused of using inside information from Roger Federer (a client for IMG) to make bets in the 2006 and 2007 French Open, it brings up the old question. Should sports agents be allowed to bet on professional sports players, especially those they represent?
Federer denied any involvement in the betting scandal, which has Agate Printing Inc. suing Forstmann by former friend and colleague, James Agate. The two men have quarreled in the past and Agate even apologized at one point for attempting to smear Forstmann’s name. Forstmann is calling it a shakedown and said he may have called Federer before those matches, but only to wish him luck.
However, Forstmann has acknowledged that he does gamble on sports and Agate is suing him for damages on lost business he promised when Agate acted as an intermediary for his sports betting.
Forstmann is not Federer’s direct agent at IMG, but why is he allowed to gamble on Federer’s matches, and sports in general? IMG represents plenty of other professional tennis players and owns a piece of several tournaments. Granted, IMG’s sports division generates only 5% of the company’s profits, but this is a multi-million dollar global corporation we’re talking about here. They represent hundreds of other clients in other sports that could be affected by illicit gambling.
Grand Slam tennis tournaments do not allow players to gamble on matches, but there are no rules prohibiting agents or player entourages from betting on tennis. Until January 2009, there were no rules stopping players from leaking insider information to a gambler. The rules were put in to prevent potential match-fixing. Gee, you think that could be a possibility?
In my opinion, agents are just as much a part of sports as the leagues are. A league employee would never get away with gambling on a sport they have a financial interest in. Just ask NBA referee Tim Donaghy or MLB great Pete Rose. Why should it be any different for sports agents?
Much like the Pete Rose scandal, it doesn’t matter if Forstmann gambled legally or only bet on his clients to win. The slight hint of corruption is enough to damage the integrity of the sport. If Forstmann bets on Federer to win, what does that mean when he doesn’t bet on Federer at all? Like with Donaghy and other examples of point shaving, being in debt to gamblers make sports figures vulnerable in their position of power.
It’s an incestuous tale between sports agents and sports betting. The agents receive inside information from their clients. It’s part of their job. If they use that information for personal gain instead of that of the client’s, they should be banned from representing athletes. Sports and gambling can co-exist, but their representatives shouldn’t be allowed to cross over, for the sake of a fair game.
Not only should agents not be allowed to gamble on sports played by their clients, but they shouldn’t be allowed to gamble on sports, period. Agents talk to other agencies and word gets around fast in the sports world. I’m sure agencies have rules set in place to prevent this, but, to put it bluntly, sports agents are pretty much the scum of the Earth, so we can’t rely much on those. How is it fair to the rest of us?