The Decision Is Hard — Especially When You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know

If you’re a professional athlete, you already understand how difficult it is to make the right call when you don’t have all the information.

I’ve lived that personally — not just as an advisor, but as a former player who once trusted two of the biggest brands on Wall Street with my own money and later started my career inside one of them.

When I signed and had real money for the first time, I did what most guys do. I went with one of the largest names I’d heard of. Big logo. Polished pitch. “Everyone uses them.”

I didn’t know what questions to ask about conflicts, platforms, advisor capacity, or incentives. I assumed the biggest brand meant the safest choice.

Later, when my playing days ended and I joined another major Wall Street firm, I saw how the machine actually works — what drives decisions, how products are prioritized, and how advisors are compensated.

That’s when I realized something critical: The system wasn’t built for athletes. Athletes were simply a profitable niche inside a much larger corporate agenda.

‍

Best in the World vs. Best on the Shelf

On the field, you chase best in the world.

You hire the best strength coach. The best skills coach. The best recovery and nutrition team — regardless of what logo they wear.

But most financial institutions are built around best on the shelf.

“Best on the shelf” means your options are limited to whatever that one organization manufactures, approves, or has distribution agreements with.

That tension shows up clearly across three models:

‍

Private Family Office Built for Athletes

• Success measured by each family’s long-term definition of wealth

• ~30 families per advisor• Open architecture investing (public + private markets)

• Integrated tax, estate, league benefits, lending, and governance

• Incentives aligned to long-term outcomes

‍

Public Brokerage Firm

• Success measured by shareholder profit

• ~200 clients per advisor

• Platform-restricted investment menu

• Lending tied to one bank

• Limited tax coordination

• “Legally cannot manage” certain pensions and estate matters

‍

Insurance-Driven Platform

• Success measured by premiums and production

• 500+ clients per advisor

• Primarily in-house products

• Advisors paid on production grids

• Many areas legally restricted from advice

‍

What the Disclosures Actually Say

Every firm says “we put clients first.”

But the legal documents tell the real story.

In large insurance platforms, disclosures commonly acknowledge:

• Advisors are contractually tied to the insurance company

• Compensation increases with production volume

• Incentives exist to recommend more expensive or proprietary products

• These incentives create “material conflicts of interest”In large brokerage firms, disclosures often admit:

• The firm is paid more when clients trade more

• Third-party companies pay additional compensation when their products are sold

• Proprietary banking and investment products create layered revenue for the firm

‍

You don’t need a law degree to understand what that means.

It’s the financial equivalent of saying: “We pay the trainer more if he uses our equipment and sells more expensive programs.”

That’s best on the shelf.

‍

Why Most RIAs — Even Built By Former Athletes — Aren’t Structurally Built for This

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Playing professionally does not automatically qualify someone to architect a multigenerational financial system.

And being an RIA does not automatically mean you’re structurally built to handle:

• $50M–$300M compressed earnings windows

• Complex state residency strategies

• League pension integration

• Private market access

• Asset protection across multiple jurisdictions

• Family governance and legacy architecture

‍

Most RIAs operate excellent practices for entrepreneurs, executives, and retirees.

But professional athletes represent a completely different risk profile, income structure, liquidity cycle, and psychological environment.

Competence at this level is not about personality. It’s about architecture.

It’s about having a platform built — collectively — by specialists who understand athlete contracts, league systems, tax mobility, estate compression, and private investment access at scale.

This wasn’t built by one person. It was built by a team who saw the structural gaps and engineered a solution around them.

That distinction matters.

‍

How This Plays Out in Real Life

When you overlay structure with incentives, the gap becomes obvious:

Client Load

• Family office: ~30 families

• Brokerage: ~200 clients

• Insurance platform: 500+

Depth is impossible at scale.

Investment Access

• Family office: Open architecture across public and private markets

• Brokerage: Approved product shelf

• Insurance: Primarily in-house solutions

Integration

• Family office: Investments + tax + estate + benefits + lending + governance

• Brokerage: Fragmented, often legally restricted

• Insurance: Product-centric

If your earning window is 10–15 years, fragmentation isn’t just inefficient — it’s dangerous.

‍

I Understand Why Athletes Choose the Big Names

When I first chose a major Wall Street firm, I genuinely believed I was making the safest decision.

I didn’t yet understand disclosures. I didn’t fully grasp fiduciary nuance. I didn’t know what “open architecture” really meant.

I saw a brand and assumed it equaled best in the world.

In reality, I was getting best on the shelf.

‍

Why Structure — Not Marketing — Is the Only Real Solution

If your training, coaching, and representation are best in the world, your wealth strategy cannot be limited to what one corporation manufactures.

If your goal is a 100-year family legacy, you cannot operate on a production grid.

If your net worth is eight or nine figures, competence isn’t optional.

That’s why the solution isn’t just “find a good advisor.”

The solution is working with a family office built — from the ground up — specifically for professional athletes:

• Small roster

• Open architecture

• Fully integrated planning

• Incentives aligned to long-term family outcomes

• Institutional sophistication without corporate product pressure

‍

That model wasn’t built for mass market clients. It was built for athletes.

And at this level, structure is everything.

‍

Questions Every Serious Athlete Should Be Asking

Not to anyone else — first to yourself.

1. How is my advisor actually compensated? Is there a production grid? Are they paid more if I use certain products? Do proprietary investments or in-house insurance increase their payout?

2. How many clients does my advisor truly serve? Am I one of 30 families — or one of 200? Or 500?

‍3. Is my investment menu open architecture? Or am I limited to one firm’s approved platform?

4. Who is coordinating my tax strategy? Is it integrated into my investment decisions? Or are my CPA and advisor operating in separate silos?

5. Can my current firm manage my league benefits and pension? Or are they “legally unable” to advise on them?

6. If I relocate states, sign a new contract, or receive a signing bonus, does my team proactively model the tax impact?

7. Do I have access to institutional private investments? Or am I primarily in retail mutual funds and packaged products?

8. If something happens to me tomorrow, is my estate plan fully engineered and stress tested? Or do I just have documents sitting in a binder?

9. Is my advisor structurally built to serve professional athletes — or did they simply add athletes as a niche?

10. If my career ended today, would I feel confident my financial system is complete, integrated, and built to last 100 years?

‍

The right answers to those questions reveal the structure.

And structure determines outcomes.

At this level, brand familiarity doesn’t equal sophistication. Personality doesn’t equal competence. And good intentions don’t eliminate conflicts.

The only thing that truly protects you is architecture built specifically for your world. That’s the difference between best on the shelf — and best in the world.