|
On July 21 2011 23:23 Copenap wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 23:05 jiveturkey wrote:On July 21 2011 23:00 Copenap wrote:On July 21 2011 22:48 meadbert wrote:
So in the real world when someone wants to hire me they call me, not my current manager. Why should it be different in esports? If Puma had some contractual obligation then he would need to negotiate out of the contract. What is it with management acting as if they own their employees? That is not how it operates in America at all. 1. TSL made it possible for Puma to become this good and basicly paid for his "qualification". Now that finally that pays dividends EG comes a picks him up instead putting the money in developing own talents. 2. What's even worse imo (if that is all true, I'm still waiting for an official statement), you don't approach a 19yr old boy who's probably abroad for the first time and make him an offer a kid can't really comprehend. Wait for him to return home to korea and contact him and his parents while also informing TSL of this move, that would have been the better way. We still don't know everything but the op states that they contacted him while the tournament wasn't even finished and that's not responsible at all imo, even if I certainly hope he took this offer home and discussed it throroughly with his parents. 1. If a team wants to stipulate that they have the exclusive rights to a player's 'talent' if they are the people that cultivated that talent, then they need to put that in a contract. Plain and simple. 2. Really? At 19 people are not able to comprehend offers? I know that I was married, had a full time job, had an apartment, was paying insurance, healthcare bills, and picking a major in schhool that determines my life direction at the age of 19. That's plenty old, and definitely old enough for the parents to be left out of it. That is, unless there is some strange cultural thing I'm missing where Koreans feel that 19 is still a kid. If that's the case, that's sad. 1. It's not about whether it's legal, it's about whether it's ethical. 2. I don't agree at all. 19yr olds are kids and especially vulnerable in a foreign environment. If you think otherwhise, I think we have to agree to disagree. Reminds me of Benjamin Button...
1. And I do not believe there is anything unethical about it either. As I said, EG as a business has an interest in Puma, not TSL. It is Puma's responsibility to decide whether to switch or not. If he decides to switch, it is his responsibility to figure things out with the team he is on.
2. I don't know where this idea comes from of 19 year-old not being able to handle decision making. In most places, you are able to drive, smoke, drink, join the military, go to college to determine your life direction, etc.. at or before the age of 19. 19 is not a kid, it is an adult age.
Maybe there is some cultural divide where some different ages tend to be nurtured too much and hence have a lower maturity level. Maybe cultures have created those types of environments which have different maturity expectations, I don't know. But I know that a 19 year-old brain is fully capable of making a decision such as this.
|
On July 21 2011 23:59 neptunesak wrote:
Horrible move by Puma. What does he expect to get from EG who can't even perform well in tournies except IdrA.
A living.
|
Well, EG desperately needed another Terran player and they got one.
|
evidence for what? the non-binding nature of contracts which aren't enforced by anyone? if you think someone is going to approach the international human rights court for esports, you're kidding yourself. contracts are enforced by a federated organization to which all teams are signatory (as in soccer etc). consider i sign a contract with EG. consider i break it. what's eg's recourse? they can't bar me from professional esports. they certainly aren't going to take me to court over it, and even if they did, the best they can hope for is no severance and me being barred from EG EVENTS. that's why nobody bothers with contracts in esports: because they're a formality.
|
On July 22 2011 00:02 Cubu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 23:52 Bitters wrote:
I can't really understand this thread, maybe someone can help me out.
Puma is on TSL, goes and dominates NASL. Is approached by EG about joining a foreign team, he decides he wants to go this route. Puma tells TSL the news, they can:
A) Tell him no, you are under contract and cannot leave the team
B) Tell him yes, we will release you from your contractual obligations
C) Can't tell him anything, because they don't have him under contract
If "A", then this news doesn't occur. If "B", then TSL opted not to enforce their contract and have no reason to complain about Puma leaving, and EG could be seen in a negative light for trying to poach a contracted player. If "C", then TSL would be upset and complain about the situation because they did not have the intelligence or foresight to contract their "professional" players on a "professional" team. With these teams being involved with money, salaries, sponsors, there is no reason to think they do not need contracts.
With the response from TSL (complaining and finger pointing), it seems "C" is the likely scenario. I have no idea how someone can blame EG for doing what's right by them. If you have a star player not under contract, you do what you can to get him under contract. You don't need to talk to TSL, they are his team, not his "agent" (since he likely doesn't have an agent, Puma would represent himself then). When professional sports players are unrestricted free agents (not under contract) you don't need to deal with the team they were on, you deal with the agent.
And if Puma was under contract ("B"), then TSL should give its head a shake for not enforcing there own stipulations and then complaining about Puma joining a team after they green-lighted his release.
Edit:
And for those saying "but in Korea, you do this with manner, talk to the team, etc."...
Sorry, but an American team making an offer at NASL (on American soil in an American based tournament) to someone playing a Global e-sport, should not be expected to follow a single countries rules. If they do, then they are going out of their way to be exceptionally inclusive, but I don't see how this should be the standard. People stopped arguing about whether it was lawfully right or wrong a while ago, the centre of arguement seems to be about whether it was right or wrong from a moral POV.
That's fine, but my post can still speak to a moral perspective.
EG is in competition with TSL, and every other professional team. They compete in team leagues, for sponsors, etc. I could argue EG is morally OBLIGATED to seek the best deals, best sponsors, best everything for its team and players. In this case, getting Puma signed is best for the team and may help them win more team leagues and gain more sponsors.
Morality and ethics aren't black and white. It's all perspective. And it's not all warm and fuzzy. If you're running a fortune 500 company and suddenly want to invest all your profits to charity, is that ethical? It's definitely warm and fuzzy because it's "going to a good cause". But is it ethical to your shareholders and investors?
EG is acting morally in regards to the people it needs to take care of. TSL did not act morally trying to keep a player without promising them anything (via contract) and then bad mouthing them in public after the fact.
|
On July 21 2011 15:00 Milkis wrote:
He noted that "It's really disturbing. It feels like the player I raised was just stolen away from me.", adding that "There needs to be a system to stop foreign teams from stealing Korean players like this"
LOL. There is. IT SHOULD BE IN HIS CONTRACT.
|
On July 21 2011 23:46 NyxErinyes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 23:40 Grimsong wrote:
But the SC2 scene isn't regulated the same way major sports leagues are. It's simply not that advanced, and honestly everyone involved with SC2 should be hoping it never is. You can't tamper within the confines of the league. IE another Organization in the league can't contact a player on another team in regards to something like this. But nothing is stopping these guys from talking to other avenues outside of that league. Until SC2 becomes a league, and a professional players union is created to protect the players still in that environment, you can't have that type of regulation, especially in an INTERNATIONAL scene.
This. It's already been repeated several times that the treatment of Korean players is questionable at best in certain situations. I certainly can't fault them for bailing and going somewhere better when given the opportunity. In fact, I think it's the best thing for eSports to ensure that these guys have a decent standard of living (physically, emotionally, and financially). Just because holy Korea lost out on this deal is no reason to say its inherently evil. And the guy I'm quoting is spot on about why the traditional league mentalities are A) stupid and B) do not apply here. The kid found a new job and didn't broadcast it to his boss. Big deal.
1) Treatment of SC2 players in Korea is more than fine, as we have seen from countless tours of their prohouses. The situation you are talking about is outdated, from a different game, and has no place in a discussion in 2011.
2) As I stated before just because something isn't regulated doesn't mean you should do it. Are you so braindead that you need someone to say 'no' just to stop you from doing it? What if murder was legal? Fuck it, someone has something I want, it's obviously ok if I kill him for it right?
I find it pretty shocking that people ITT have so little moral fiber that they think it's ok to do everything there isn't a law for. You probably think it's ok to start dating your best friends girlfriend as soon as they break up too, cause you know.. IT'S HER CHOICE RIGHT.
3) Given that we have already deduced that the standard of living in Korea for these players is adequate, i'd strongly debate wether this was "the best thing for esports". taking all the Korean players out of a (clearly better) practice regimen and making them play worse players is obviously going to lower the skill factor of the game and provide less of a viewing experience.
Anyway, as many have already stated, theres no point in branding EG as an evil corporation untill we hear their side of the story. But trying to say that it's ok to just steal players is mind boggling to me.. no wonder the world is going to shit.
|
On July 22 2011 00:07 Bitters wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 00:02 Cubu wrote:On July 21 2011 23:52 Bitters wrote:
I can't really understand this thread, maybe someone can help me out.
Puma is on TSL, goes and dominates NASL. Is approached by EG about joining a foreign team, he decides he wants to go this route. Puma tells TSL the news, they can:
A) Tell him no, you are under contract and cannot leave the team
B) Tell him yes, we will release you from your contractual obligations
C) Can't tell him anything, because they don't have him under contract
If "A", then this news doesn't occur. If "B", then TSL opted not to enforce their contract and have no reason to complain about Puma leaving, and EG could be seen in a negative light for trying to poach a contracted player. If "C", then TSL would be upset and complain about the situation because they did not have the intelligence or foresight to contract their "professional" players on a "professional" team. With these teams being involved with money, salaries, sponsors, there is no reason to think they do not need contracts.
With the response from TSL (complaining and finger pointing), it seems "C" is the likely scenario. I have no idea how someone can blame EG for doing what's right by them. If you have a star player not under contract, you do what you can to get him under contract. You don't need to talk to TSL, they are his team, not his "agent" (since he likely doesn't have an agent, Puma would represent himself then). When professional sports players are unrestricted free agents (not under contract) you don't need to deal with the team they were on, you deal with the agent.
And if Puma was under contract ("B"), then TSL should give its head a shake for not enforcing there own stipulations and then complaining about Puma joining a team after they green-lighted his release.
Edit:
And for those saying "but in Korea, you do this with manner, talk to the team, etc."...
Sorry, but an American team making an offer at NASL (on American soil in an American based tournament) to someone playing a Global e-sport, should not be expected to follow a single countries rules. If they do, then they are going out of their way to be exceptionally inclusive, but I don't see how this should be the standard. People stopped arguing about whether it was lawfully right or wrong a while ago, the centre of arguement seems to be about whether it was right or wrong from a moral POV. That's fine, but my post can still speak to a moral perspective. EG is in competition with TSL, and every other professional team. They compete in team leagues, for sponsors, etc. I could argue EG is morally OBLIGATED to seek the best deals, best sponsors, best everything for its team and players. In this case, getting Puma signed is best for the team and may help them win more team leagues and gain more sponsors. Morality and ethics aren't black and white. It's all perspective. And it's not all warm and fuzzy. If you're running a fortune 500 company and suddenly want to invest all your profits to charity, is that ethical? It's definitely warm and fuzzy because it's "going to a good cause". But is it ethical to your shareholders and investors? EG is acting morally in regards to the people it needs to take care of. TSL did not act morally trying to keep a player without promising them anything (via contract) and then bad mouthing them in public after the fact.
this is stretching 'morally' pretty perversely.
|
all ethical stand points aside, I hope puma will show up for as many tournaments as possible like IEM, dreamhack, MLG, assembly, etc etc etc ^^
|
On July 22 2011 00:03 zinzio wrote:
If the rumors are true on how EG went about acquiring Puma, I will have to find another team to root for. Even under the suggested conditions (that Puma may not have even made a salary) I can't stand to think EG would have went to Puma directly without speaking to his team/managers. Just seems very dirty and completely unprofessional. Shame on you EG.
I think not many people on TL follow professional sports so they don't understand how egregious poaching a player from a team is.
|
Well done EG, hopefully this will, in combination with a pro house, raise a level of competition quite a bit.
|
|
|
On July 22 2011 00:03 Shiori wrote:
this silliness about free agency is a technicality and you all know it. contracts don't exist in esports because there is no governing entity. in the lack of such an entity, most teams have stepped up to the plate and acted as if there were an unwritten rule of honour/ethics between. eg, obviously, has not. therefore, the people criticizing them for their lack of integrity are spot on.
I am completely uneducated when it comes to contracts but why would an esports team need an esports specific governing body to enforce a contract? If a contract is written and signed and then broken by the player why couldn't the team take legal action against that player?
And if it's the case that Puma broke his contract with TSL why didn't the team manager mention that in his angry statement?
|
On July 22 2011 00:08 Gnabgib wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 15:00 Milkis wrote:
He noted that "It's really disturbing. It feels like the player I raised was just stolen away from me.", adding that "There needs to be a system to stop foreign teams from stealing Korean players like this"
LOL. There is. IT SHOULD BE IN HIS CONTRACT.
and who would enforce such a contract?
|
On July 21 2011 23:52 Bitters wrote:
I can't really understand this thread, maybe someone can help me out.
Puma is on TSL, goes and dominates NASL. Is approached by EG about joining a foreign team, he decides he wants to go this route. Puma tells TSL the news, they can:
A) Tell him no, you are under contract and cannot leave the team
B) Tell him yes, we will release you from your contractual obligations
C) Can't tell him anything, because they don't have him under contract
If "A", then this news doesn't occur. If "B", then TSL opted not to enforce their contract and have no reason to complain about Puma leaving, and EG could be seen in a negative light for trying to poach a contracted player. If "C", then TSL would be upset and complain about the situation because they did not have the intelligence or foresight to contract their "professional" players on a "professional" team. With these teams being involved with money, salaries, sponsors, there is no reason to think they do not need contracts.
With the response from TSL (complaining and finger pointing), it seems "C" is the likely scenario. I have no idea how someone can blame EG for doing what's right by them. If you have a star player not under contract, you do what you can to get him under contract. You don't need to talk to TSL, they are his team, not his "agent" (since he likely doesn't have an agent, Puma would represent himself then). When professional sports players are unrestricted free agents (not under contract) you don't need to deal with the team they were on, you deal with the agent.
And if Puma was under contract ("B"), then TSL should give its head a shake for not enforcing there own stipulations and then complaining about Puma joining a team after they green-lighted his release.
Edit:
And for those saying "but in Korea, you do this with manner, talk to the team, etc."...
Sorry, but an American team making an offer at NASL (on American soil in an American based tournament) to someone playing a Global e-sport, should not be expected to follow a single countries rules. If they do, then they are going out of their way to be exceptionally inclusive, but I don't see how this should be the standard.
This pretty much sums it up. pretty good post. i totally agree with you. Althou i hope there will be an official announcement
|
On July 22 2011 00:06 Shiori wrote:
evidence for what? the non-binding nature of contracts which aren't enforced by anyone? if you think someone is going to approach the international human rights court for esports, you're kidding yourself. contracts are enforced by a federated organization to which all teams are signatory (as in soccer etc). consider i sign a contract with EG. consider i break it. what's eg's recourse? they can't bar me from professional esports. they certainly aren't going to take me to court over it, and even if they did, the best they can hope for is no severance and me being barred from EG EVENTS. that's why nobody bothers with contracts in esports: because they're a formality.
You asserted that all teams were obeying some sort of chivalrous code of honor and that EG suddenly broke it. Contracts are enforced by governments. You write them so that they work. It's not hard, take for example, a noncompete clause. You are talking about something you apparently know nothing about.
|
On July 22 2011 00:10 Proko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 00:06 Shiori wrote:
evidence for what? the non-binding nature of contracts which aren't enforced by anyone? if you think someone is going to approach the international human rights court for esports, you're kidding yourself. contracts are enforced by a federated organization to which all teams are signatory (as in soccer etc). consider i sign a contract with EG. consider i break it. what's eg's recourse? they can't bar me from professional esports. they certainly aren't going to take me to court over it, and even if they did, the best they can hope for is no severance and me being barred from EG EVENTS. that's why nobody bothers with contracts in esports: because they're a formality. You asserted that all teams were obeying some sort of chivalrous code of honor and that EG suddenly broke it. Contracts are enforced by governments. You write them so that they work. It's not hard, take for example, a noncompete clause. You are talking about something you apparently know nothing about.
If Puma decides to just stop practice, is TSL going to sue him over it or would it be more economical to just let him go? I think they chose the latter.
|
Remember that TSL did release Puma, so to a certain extent, they agreed. EG is a business and although a little not nice, there is nothing shady about what they did. Shady implies some corruption or some bribe, or some other bad business practice. All they did here is violate some people's sense of ethics.
And you know, EG isn't universally loved. I bet they would not be happy even if EG approached TSL in the first place. However, the benefits are immense for EG- it has been so often in team leagues a carried team. A purchase was coming, and Puma is a good one. Maybe his practice habits will rub off on IdrA.
|
For the ones who didn't watch last night's Live on Three, here's SirScoots' (EG team manager) take on player sponsorship and and player transfer.
http://www.justin.tv/onemoregametv/b/290651034
On the topic of MC and Nada getting sponsored by SK (@ 19:00)
"If a player is getting another opportunity to make more money, or get another plane ticket, or another hotel room, or more exposure outside of what he currently has available to him, and all parties involved are doing this on the up and up - this is not a shady thing - then that's fantastic."
On the topic of Delpan leaving Fnatic and joining SK gaming (@ 55:00)
"A player's contract is between a player and the team that he's on ... technically the team that's coming to be ... at the table to be the new possible team for a player has no legal determination to play nice with anybody ... it's a courtesy we all do."
In both cases he goes on to discuss the issues more in depth, but I felt these statements were most relevant.
|
On July 22 2011 00:05 jiveturkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 23:23 Copenap wrote:On July 21 2011 23:05 jiveturkey wrote:On July 21 2011 23:00 Copenap wrote:On July 21 2011 22:48 meadbert wrote:
So in the real world when someone wants to hire me they call me, not my current manager. Why should it be different in esports? If Puma had some contractual obligation then he would need to negotiate out of the contract. What is it with management acting as if they own their employees? That is not how it operates in America at all. 1. TSL made it possible for Puma to become this good and basicly paid for his "qualification". Now that finally that pays dividends EG comes a picks him up instead putting the money in developing own talents. 2. What's even worse imo (if that is all true, I'm still waiting for an official statement), you don't approach a 19yr old boy who's probably abroad for the first time and make him an offer a kid can't really comprehend. Wait for him to return home to korea and contact him and his parents while also informing TSL of this move, that would have been the better way. We still don't know everything but the op states that they contacted him while the tournament wasn't even finished and that's not responsible at all imo, even if I certainly hope he took this offer home and discussed it throroughly with his parents. 1. If a team wants to stipulate that they have the exclusive rights to a player's 'talent' if they are the people that cultivated that talent, then they need to put that in a contract. Plain and simple. 2. Really? At 19 people are not able to comprehend offers? I know that I was married, had a full time job, had an apartment, was paying insurance, healthcare bills, and picking a major in schhool that determines my life direction at the age of 19. That's plenty old, and definitely old enough for the parents to be left out of it. That is, unless there is some strange cultural thing I'm missing where Koreans feel that 19 is still a kid. If that's the case, that's sad. 1. It's not about whether it's legal, it's about whether it's ethical. 2. I don't agree at all. 19yr olds are kids and especially vulnerable in a foreign environment. If you think otherwhise, I think we have to agree to disagree. Reminds me of Benjamin Button... 1. And I do not believe there is anything unethical about it either. As I said, EG as a business has an interest in Puma, not TSL. It is Puma's responsibility to decide whether to switch or not. If he decides to switch, it is his responsibility to figure things out with the team he is on. 2. I don't know where this idea comes from of 19 year-old not being able to handle decision making. In most places, you are able to drive, smoke, drink, join the military, go to college to determine your life direction, etc.. at or before the age of 19. 19 is not a kid, it is an adult age. Maybe there is some cultural divide where some different ages tend to be nurtured too much and hence have a lower maturity level. Maybe cultures have created those types of environments which have different maturity expectations, I don't know. But I know that a 19 year-old brain is fully capable of making a decision such as this.
1. You can do a lot of stuff from a business point of view that is not ethical at all.
2. You are considered an adult by law, that again doesn't make you anything close. You can make these decisions and eventually have to but you shouldn't do that on your own as you don't know shit about life at the age of 19. But I guess a 19yr old never regreted getting married early, picking the wrong direction in his professional life or whatever... Yeah right. When you get older you will eventually realise that you didn't have a clue back then. Money can do weird things if you lack the experience of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
