What you're saying implies that because Secco offered him a truckload of money, Amauri should not be held responsible for taking the money. On the other hand, if Amauri had received the same contract, not because of Secco but because his agent was a great negotiator, then he would be. But it's the same 3m, and he took it. Once he takes it, it's irrelevant how it happened, the fact remains he's among the highest paid players and he's going to be evaluated accordingly.
What's so hard to understand?