MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W169134222

An Interview with Craig Fenech, Sport Agent and Attorney. (Interview)

2003· article· en· W169134222 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Craig Fenech, Jerry Dailey

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSports, Gender, and Society
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGold medalAthletesHistoryIce creamMedalLawMedia studiesPsychologyArt historyPolitical scienceSociologyMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract: Craig Fenech has rep resented athletes and sports media figures since 1980. In Winter 2001, he went to Toronto to meet Canadian ice skaters Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, and said: think you can become household names in the US. Little did they know how true those words would prove: a few months later, the reigning world champions in the Pairs Figure Skating event found themselves at the center of scandal at the 2002 Winter Olympics, when the Russian pair of Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze were awarded the gold, despite a flawless display from Jamie and David. An international outcry followed which was resolved four days later when the IOC awarded the Canadians a second gold medal. Here Craig talks with Professor Jerry Dailey from Kean University about his views on the role of the sport agent, the business side of sport and the ice-skating scandal. Keywords: Olympic Games, sports agent, ice skating, endorsements Introduction Craig Fenech has represented athletes and sports media figures since 1980. In Winter 2001, he went to Toronto to meet Canadian ice skaters Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, took one look at them and said: think you can become household names in the US.,, Little did they know how true those words would prove: a few months later, the reigning world champions in the Pairs Figure Skating event found themselves at the center of scandal at the 2002 Winter Olympics, when the Russian pair of Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze were awarded the gold, despite a flawless display from Jamie and David. An international outcry followed which was resolved four days later when the ICC awarded the Canadians a second gold medal. As a result, Jamie and David, largely unknown before, became two of the most marketable athletes in the world. Here Craig Fenech talks with Professor Jerry Dailey from Kean University about his views on the role of the sport agent, the business side of sport and of the ice-skating scandal. JD: What are sport agents or sport agencies doing for their clients? CF: First of all in terms of representation, there are basically two large generic categories in representation. One is the individual sports athlete, in sports such as golf and tennis, and the other is the team sports agent in sports like baseball, football, and basketball. In the past, the individual sports athlete has been largely represented by the giant agencies like IMG. However, athletes in team sports are really the domain of the individual sport agent. With regard to what we do, it really depends on who you are, what you can offer to your clients, and what the clients want. A question I always ask the athlete is: how rich do you want to be? If they are willing to take risks, chances are they will make more money than if they don't. We encourage players to be conservative because an athlete only has a five- to 10-year income earning lifespan. During that time he will most likely make more money than most people do in their lifetime, but must be careful not to adjust his lifestyle to the level of income he is generating. He also has to plan on investing so he has money for the future. Based on the need, an agent can negotiate a player's employment contract, provide tailored tax preparation services, investment advice and money management, and explore and advise on marketing and endorsement opportunities. There are agencies or agents that provide only one or a few of the services, while others serve as a one-stop shop. For example, IMG does all these things. That's why they are so large. JD: From a sport agent perspective, how has the sport industry changed in the past 10 years? CF: Well, 23 years ago, when I started to build my sport agency practice, the field was wide open. The concept that a sport figure needed an agent to leverage his brand status was not popular. If you look around now you can see that the sport industry is completely flooded with agents and large sports agencies, and I mean a lot of agents. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,339
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,639

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Sports Marketing and SponsorshipMême sujetSports, Gender, and SocietyTravaux en français237 207