In Reply to: That's not corruption, that's capitalism posted by TheHappyBurgermeister on April 19, 2024 at 10:37:41
That is, there's a moral justification to "locking a kid in" to playing for one school for a limited, of course, time, for the "indentured servitude" that the league system slightly resembles. I put those loaded phrases in quotation marks because their application can be strongly limited, and need to be, of course, to where the evils they imply aren't really there.
In pro-sports, in the US as well as in other countries, the players -to some extent- are locked into playing for one team for a period of time, -if they wish to continue playing their chosen sport. This is considered a mandatory feature by all involved simply because the sport, as a spectator sport generating a huge interest in the population and revenue for those involved, couldn't continue without the players "locked in", somewhat, as in for a time period, to playing for one team. The playing roster chaos would ruin it. It's understood that the fans would soon lose interest in watching if there were no stability in their favorite team's roster.
So why is that not indentured servitude if the players can't move completely freely from team to team? The first difference is, they can quit any time they choose, go become doctors or insurance salesmen. Another is that there are mechanisms for them to move from time to time. They just have strong brakes. Another big distinction from indentured servitude in pro-sports is that the freedom the players have to move is enough that they're able to barter their services and ensure that they're well compensated. The term's "indentured servitude" and being "locked in" seem to imply that the players will be shut out of the big revenue stream, that they'll be forced to play almost for free. It isn't the case in pro sports, although one can argue that it has been until recently in college major sports
The fact that college major sports, until recently, did resemble too closely indentured servitude has something to do with why the USSC ruling removing NIL restrictions was made. The overly restrictive we'd say, rules concerning player movement were greatly loosened partly because they impacted the players' constitutional freedoms. Am I right? So yes, most agree that it is possible for organized, revenue generating sports to verge too closely on indentured servitude which, I think we all agree, is, and should be, considered unconstitutional.
But complete freedom of movement by players, most of us probably agree, is also untenable, makes the particular sport unwatchable to fans. If the players are not willing to be "locked in" to a certain degree, they'll soon be reduced to playing on playgrounds and in driveways because virtually nobody will want to watch. They simply have to be locked in, as they all in all professional team sports, by some kind of contract, for some period of time. That locked in for a defined period of time, I think, is both necessary to the continuation of the sport, and unfortunately, bears a superficial resemblance to "indentured servitude". It's main and crucial differences being that the player has the opportunity to make a fantastic living and that he can quit and do something else the moment he chooses to.
This balance between the players' needs and wishes, actual, completely legit, and the needs of the sport itself has not been achieved yet I don't think (cap'n obvious), in college major sports. My point in this extended, too long, ramble is that the players will have to be somewhat "locked" into playing for one team for at least some period, because not to have that is impractical, but within strict limits, such is not an evil thing.
Again, we're currently in a state in college major sports where the amount of "locked in-ness" necessary for the viability of the sport vs the constitutional freedoms of the players hasn't been determined. My point is that both are necessary. It's agreed in the other pro sports that some "locked in-ness" is essential to continue.