Anyone who follows football knows that agents are 'ruining the game.' Previously, footballers didn't care about earning money, and were motivated only by their love of the game and their club. Paul Scholes employed Grant Thornton, rather than an agent, to conduct his contract negotiations and barely scraped the minimum wage at Manchester United, after all.
Despite coming from a more restrained view of agents and football, I was nevertheless intrigued to see how it was from the other side of the fence. The moral justification on show here was similar to the level of engagement: mixed.
Smith all too often fell into the trap of justifying his own actions by saying 'it was business, not personal' and pointing to others' bad behaviour, but whenever he feels he is wronged it is always presented as a personal affront, and is far less welcoming of others who act as though 'it's business'. Similarly, he comes across as wanting to be part of the England squad and their celebrations because he was friendly with the players, rather than accepting that he was there to monetise their performance rather than improve it. But rather than embarrassment, it is more of an entitlement. Players may well have deserved more money than they were receiving based on their commercial return, but there is no need to pretend that Smith's motives were anything more than monetary.
His business sense is also skewed when he has to remain loyal to his clients. Clubs are stupid for not wanting names on the shirts due to the extra cost, but Hull's owner is justified in stipulating that players have a Hull address to keep the money in the local economy, rather than making the best decision for the club (and completely ignores other criticisms of the owner).
The stories are interesting, however, and the early history of the Premier League covered areas not seen so often in coverage of The Game, from a key figure in its inception. The inclusion of Everton as a big player at the time merely highlights that all clubs are in it for themselves, but it is just a question of who happens to be successful when the biggest gains are made.
There were a number of written quirks, such as times transfer fees he had clearly negotiated were 'reported as,' and the loyalty to his clients meant that a lot of the stories were heavily biased, but despite the negative comments these were minor complaints that mounted up, rather than massive problems, but if you weren't interested in football I'd give it a miss.
The book was written as a justification of the role of an agent, so I shall summarise that aim in the following questions. Did it change my perceptions of agents? No. Did it make me feel the game is worse for agents' involvement? No. Do Smith's gripes about how agents are treated by the authorities seem to carry much weight? No. Agents are good for maximising the value of other people's efforts that would otherwise go to the owners and sharing in that reward, and nothing more.