Baseball Super-Agent Scott Boras Has Another Super-Conflict And There Is No Excuse For It

Eleven years ago, Ethics Alarms began a post about baseball agents in general and Scott Boras in particular engaging in a flaming conflict of interest that harmed their player clients this way…

Baseball’s super-agent Scott Boras has his annual off-season conflict of interest problem, and as usual, neither Major League Baseball, nor the Players’ Union, nor the legal profession, not his trusting but foolish clients seem to care. Nevertheless, he is operating under circumstances that make it impossible for him to be fair to his clients.

I could have written that paragraph today. Nothing has changed. Literally nothing: as baseball general managers get ready for the 2022 winter meetings where, among other things, they huddle with player agents and sign players to mind-blowing contracts, the unethical tolerance of players agents indulging in and profiting from a classic conflict of interest continues without protest or reform.

I may be the only one who cares about the issue. I first wrote about it here, on a baseball website. I carried on my campaign to Ethics Alarms, discussing the issue in 2010, 2011 (that’s where the linked quote above comes from), 2014, 2019, and in 2019 again,  There is no publication or website that has covered the issue and thoroughly as this one, and the unethical nature of the practice is irrefutable. I might as well be shouting in outer space, where no one can hear you scream.Here is a brief summary of the problem: Boras and other agents represent multiple free agent players who are in direct competition with each other. If they help one client, they hurt another one by removing a possible source of a lucrative contract. Lawyer’s are not allowed to do this with their clients: it’s a prohibited conflict of interest. Player agents have no ethics codes that are enforced, and the regulation of the field is minimal. Boras, however, is a lawyer as well as an agent, in some states his activities as an agent constitute practicing law. In law, this particular conflict of interest is known as a Zero Sum conflict. The way out of it is an informed waiver by all clients, but there are two catches. One is the word “informed.” I believe very few non-lawyers are truly informed when they waive their attorney’s conflict of interest; most lawyers don’t understand conflicts very well. The other catch is that some conflicts can’t be waived ethically. The lawyer must reasonably believe that he or she (Are there nonbinary lawyers? I don’t care.…) will be capable of zealously representing both clients’ interests despite the conflict, with neither being harmed. That belief is not reasonable when there is what the District of Columbia Bar calls a “punch-pulling conflict.” The lawyer, being a human being (I’m extending the benefit of the doubt here) can’t avoid favoring one client over the other is some situations that might arise.

Scott Boras’s conflict this year is the worst I’ve seen yet. He represents both Carlos Correa, most recently of the Minnesota Twins and Xander Bogaerts, a long-time star of the Boston Red Sox. Each high profile, star free agent shortstops in their primes. Correa is 28, had a 5.4 WAR ( 5X better than a “replacement level” player at his position) last season, and in eight season has an average OPS (on-base average+slugging percentage) of .834. Bogaerts just turned 30, had a 5.8 WAR, and his average OPS over the length of his career is .814. Both are looking for salaries in the 300 million range, and there are only a limited number of teams that can pay that. No team needs two starting shortstops either.

I’m sure both have signed waivers, and I’m also sure they weren’t really informed about all the ways Boras’s conflict in their cases could hurt them. Complicating the problem is that there is an unprecedented glut of young, higher quality shortstops testing free agency this year: in addition to these two, there is also Trea Turner, younger and perhaps better than either, and Dansby Swanson, maybe a cut below the others. A possible solution would be what lawyers call “limiting the scope of the representation.” That would require Bogaerts and Correa to agree that their shared agent would peddle their services to mutually exclusive teams. I don’t believe either player would agree to that; it wouldn’t be in their interests. Moreover, Boas would be ethically obligated to make sure they were advised by their own attorneys before agreeing to such a limitation. he can’t advise them, because he has another conflict of interest, as an agent who stands to get a significant chunk of their massive contracts.

So once again, I am screaming in a vacuum. I’ll just close with the last futile statements in some of the previous posts:

  • “Someone, Major League Baseball perhaps, should prohibit agents from representing players with conflicting interests absent true consent after an objective explanation of the potential harm to their prospects by an objective, disinterested party.”
  • “If the player agents, who know they are conflicted, are so greedy that they continue to operate as if the conflicts don’t exist, the players unions, or the leagues, or the agents association, or the law, needs to stop them.”
  • “Boras is being unethical to continue conflicted representations, and the union and the Major League Baseball are wrong to allow him to do it. By now, however, it’s a tradition.”

4 thoughts on “Baseball Super-Agent Scott Boras Has Another Super-Conflict And There Is No Excuse For It

  1. There are other factors at play here. Boras has mesmerized the players and MLB. He’s considered to have superpowers by the players. He can make them more money than anyone else. Getting Boras to represent you means you’ve won a competition. You can tell your baseball peers and buddies, “Hey man! I’ve got Scot Fucking Boras to represent me. He called ME! Who’s representing you? Sucka!” And MLB GMs are probably terrified of him.

    And I think people are right in this regard. Boras is super crafty and a more effective negotiator than anyone else. And in any event, these contracts are so huge, any differences that my result because of the conflict are relatively negligible and completely on the margins.

    Again, Boras’s reputation is clearly mythical. Paraphrasing one of Mrs. OB’s employees using a hilarious, unintentional malapropism, “Boras’s reputation exceeds him.” But this is the Kenny Rogers view of negotiating, not a purely economic analysis. And frankly, I think the players are right. They’d be fine if Scott Boras represented every single player because they feel he could work his magic for all of them.

  2. I wonder how there can be informed consent with the clients, though. Each player is going to have confidential information that cannot be disclosed by the attorney/agent to the other client. Doesn’t that mean the player is not really aware of the factors involved? Is saying, “Hey, Carlos, I also represent Xander, but it’s cool, ok?” enough to let Xander know that his lawyer/agent is directly contracting against what could be Xander’s best interests, and visa versa? This is baseball, not a huge market for headhunters shopping deals for upper management positions. The positions available with employers able to shell out the big contracts have to be very limited.


    • The big money slots are very limited. Yankees, Dodgers and then a random few others who come and go from season to season. If two guys are competing to get one of the big money slots and they’re represented by different agents, what do the agents do to get their guy in that slot? They lower their guy’s asking price!

      • Not only are there a limited number of teams willing and able to pay these kind of contracts, not all of those teams will be in the market in a given year for a superstar shortstop (or whatever position we’re talking about). Except for pitchers, of course. A team could actually have more than one of the top pitchers — at least in theory. In practice, if a team signed two Justin Verlanders they might then have a group of Little Leaguers behind them. Even the Yankees and Dodgers only have so many dollars to spend each year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.