I think the previous poster was referring to the judges of the SI as biased, and as an American myself, I think I agree with that. It's shortsighted and very biased, but who cares about SI anyway, it's a junk magazine.
Sentimental favorites aren't supposed to have anything to do with who wins the Laureus award. It's about results, and based on that Agassi doesn't have a chance. Tiger, Federer, and Schumacher are the favorites. I don't know much about Schumacher, but just because Tiger won six tournaments in a row, big deal. Federer has won 4 tournaments in a row more than once I believe, but would that win him the Laureus? I don't think so. 3 GS's in one year and a (so far) 72-5 record is the big issue. Tiger won, what, two? I don't see it as equal to Federer's credentials this year.