2
Case Analysis: Case 9-13 United States v. Piggie
Unethical practices and illegal conduct among sports agents are significant issues
affecting the integrity of intercollegiate and professional athletics. The case of United States v.
Piggie is a substantial illustration of unethical and illegal behaviors among sports agents and
their impact on agents involved in inappropriate conduct, the institutions, and individual players.
Creating a secret scheme for obtaining talented athletes and recruiting them to college basketball
amateur teams for the coach’s benefit is unethical. Furthermore, engaging individuals who do not
qualify in intercollegiate sports to obtain huge wealth from athletics renders Piggie an unethical
coach in the presumed sports agent role. Other aspects of unethical practice are the failure to file
returns and using part of the money received to pay high school athletes clandestinely. Ideally,
the role of the NCAA in regulating sports agents is seen, and potential implications of unethical
behaviors in sports, such as imprisonments, penalties for the coaches or agents and institutions,
and loss of reputation for the athletes and their institutions, are evident in the case.
Issues
One major ethical issue in the case of United States v. Piggie is the lack of transparency
in the sports agency in which coach Piggie engages. Sports agents should be transparent and
carry on their duties openly by obtaining the necessary certification from the NCAA that
regulates agents. Based on this argument, Piggie’s new scheme of getting top talents and
including them in amateur sports for personal gains is immoral (Champion et al., 2019).
Another ethical concern is the embezzlement of funds realized with Piggie. The coach
uses the money he receives to pay the players clandestinely and hides other money in the Nike
shoe boxes. Still, Piggie must file returns for three consecutive years, resulting in a considerable
tax loss of $67,662.69. Piggie’s secret sources of income and expenditures on the athletes show
3
fraud, which is a significant ethical issue. For instance, Piggie received a total of $420,401
between 1995 and 1998 due to fraud. Piggie paid players Jaron Rush, Kareem Rush, Williams,
and Maggette to give false student-athlete statements to the institutions to play in his AAU
basketball. The students also obtained scholarships and enrolled in classes fraudulently.
The conceptual issues raised in this case are unclear, addressing sports agents’
certification, ethical responsibilities, and appropriate ways to regulate the agents. It is only that
the coach has not been identified for those years because he would have paid for his unethical
practice and prevented further fraud in the institutions. However, NCAA concepts of regulating
the agents seem powerless and less effective in identifying the offenders early enough to prevent
severe impacts on institutions, athletes, and government taxes.
Lastly, the factual issue raised in this case is that there needs to be an effective way of
overseeing intercollegiate sports and addressing all forms of unethical practice, especially with
sports agents. The follow-ups on the use of funds and conduct of a coach as a sports agent are not
transparent; hence, fraud exists in sports. Most importantly, agents face constant pressures to
engage in unethical practices due to the huge amounts of money they handle on behalf of the
athletes, where their commission is just a few dollars (Champion et al., 2019). As a result, they
are forced to look for secret methods to gain more income.
The major stakeholders in this case are the US government, coach Piggie, universities,
and the players. The case calls for the collaboration of the four stakeholders to find the course
and identify those who could be held responsible for the unethical practice. Piggie emerges as the
core culprit but also causes some penalties for the institutions and a loss of reputation. The
players involved in the fraudulent practice also lost their reputations.
Options
4
The major viewpoint on this case is that the institutions leave the role of regulating
coaches and sports agents to the NCAA, which has yet to be effective. It is a wide period for the
coach to engage in unethical practices for three years and accumulate huge wealth through fraud
without anyone’s notice. Another relevant standpoint is that coaches and sports agents are no
longer concerned with their ethical responsibilities but only their greed for wealth. Still, the
procedures for awarding scholarships to student-athletes are not thorough enough to address
fraud and other unethical issues associated with the awards (Robertson & Constant, 2021).
The alternative actions in responding to the unethical issues could help assess this case.
First, assigning responsibilities for the institutions to screen coaches and student-athletes for
unethical behaviors would be necessary instead of leaving the whole process to the NCAA. This
option would have addressed the issues early enough before undermining the reputation of the
institutions. Another important alternative is encouraging ethical coaches and sports agents by
creating awareness of their ethical responsibilities in intercollegiate athletics. The responsible
bodies should also follow up for unfiled tax returns before another year approaches to ensure no
fraud associated with the practice. Follow-ups on expenditures on funds given to coaches could
help address unnecessary activities with the coaches.
One of the unknown facts about this case that could be relevant in addressing the case is
that the motives for the coach to act unethically are not revealed. There might be reasonable
ideas behind the conduct. To some extent, more individuals might be linked to the coach’s
fraudulent and unethical conduct. The institutions might have earned from Piggie’s schemes,
which could help assess the case.
Ethical and Moral Arguments
5
Utilitarianism is a theory of morality advocating for actions that foster pleasure and
oppose unhappiness-related conduct. Like utilitarianism, natural law calls for a close
examination of human nature to direct ethical practices in various contexts. These two moral
standards are applicable in the case of United States v. Piggie. Coaches and sports agents need to
be observed closely, deciphering their nature and their prevalence of engaging in unethical
behaviors in sports. At the same time, the identified individuals should understand their ethical
roles and responsibilities and act in a way that causes happiness to all the other stakeholders,
such as the government, institutions, and players (Lussier & Kimball, 2023). Utilitarianism and
natural law can adequately invoke a suggestive conclusion in addressing the coach’s unethical
practices and empowering the role of the NCAA in regulating sports agents.
According to the bible, the best way to create happiness for others and avoid harm is by
doing to others what one would like others to do for them as per the Golden Rule (New
International Version, Luke 6:31). Piggie would have made ethical choices if he considered the
fact that if others do that to him he would be unhappy. Risking the reputation of players and the
institutions is something that others would not like, and the coach would have thought bigger
before taking the unethical actions.
Regarding the principles of respect for persons, there are converging judgments towards
encouraging ethical practices in sports. Respecting a person means taking actions that will not
undermine their dignity and reputation or make them unhappy. Egoism, however, has a diverging
judgment on the coach’s conduct in that it encourages emphasizing one’s self-interest as the
long-term goal. If coach Piggie continues to care about his interests only, there will be no point
that he will find it unethical to acquire wealth through fraud at the expense of athletes.
Conclusion
6
The best option to recommend for dealing with the unethical issues in this case is hiring
overseers in the institutions to investigate and report unethical conduct in intercollegiate sports.
With the limited power of the NCAA in regulating sports agents, individual institutions can take
responsibility for encouraging ethical practice, bearing in mind that ethical conduct can cost the
institution penalties, resources, and reputation. Although a critic that NCAA power should be
maximized and utilized in regulating sports agents, the institutional agents will be by far the
closest to the coaches and students. They would readily identify any unethical concerns in the
athletics.
7
References
Champion Jr, W. T., Karcher, R. T., & Ruddell, L. S. (2019).ESports ethics for sports
management professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Lussier, R. N., & Kimball, D. C. (2023).EApplied sport management skills. Human Kinetics.
New International Version (2024). Bible Study Tools. https://www.biblestudytools.com/niv/.
(The work was first published in 1978).
Robertson, J., & Constandt, B. (2021). Moral disengagement and sport integrity: Identifying and
mitigating integrity breaches in sport management.EEuropean Sport Management
Quarterly,E21(5), 714-730.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
