So the agent story seems the most plausible to Armchairs, then? I tend to agree. Another point I saw mentioned on this topic (not on this list) was that agents' primary selling point is endorsements. They hold that as a carrot, against the risk that a low-profile agent won't be able to persuade Nike to pay an athlete $10 million to wear their new shoes. However, only a tiny minority of players earn significant endorsement income -- one would think that the majority made up of role players and bench warmers would do its utmost to minimize agents' role in the decision-making of the players' union.
Another puzzle is that the players' union has very little threat power in negotiations, since the league has not yet recovered from the enormous damage done by the lockout-abbreviated season a few years back. The league would laugh at any new lockout threat, since the vast majority of players would lose hard in such a scenario. Therefore, if this issue matters so much, the league has the advantage. On the other hand, maybe the money at stake just isn't enough for either side's bureaucratic inertia to overcome -- no one wants to spend political capital on what might well be Pareto optimal to the current situation (if you don't count the high school players). -ASG
