NBA players--or, at the very least, NBA stars--enjoy unprecedented power. They can decide that they no longer wish to honor the terms of their contracts, and then strong-arm their current team to not only trade them but to trade them to their preferred destination. The superficial argument in favor of this business model is that everyone should have the right to choose where he lives and works--but in the real world, that freedom comes with risks and responsibilities that NBA players do not face.
It is true that in many circumstances, a person can quit his job, move to his city of choice and get another job--but that person's salary will generally not be paid during the transition period and there is no guarantee that the person will ultimately be paid as much by his new employer as he was paid by his old employer.
The NBA operates under a franchise model, which means that if enough franchises do poorly or fold then the whole enterprise is at risk (think of the ABA and other rival leagues in a variety of sports that could not maintain enough healthy franchises to survive as independent entities). Taken to its logical extreme, the power plays that we have seen recently by players like Anthony Davis and Paul George could result in a situation where most teams will never have a realistic chance to compete for a championship. Some people may think that this has always been the case in the NBA but the difference is that in previous eras talent was concentrated on a handful of teams because those teams made shrewder personnel moves; a team that acquired a talented roster did not have to worry that another team would be able to raid and pillage that roster in collusion with players who decided that they wanted to leave before their contracts expired.
Some form of free agency is necessary and proper, but that has to be coupled with an understanding that a player under contract is going to honor his contract. Otherwise, if players want unfettered movement then they should agree to abolish guaranteed contracts; if players are willing to assume the risk of being injured or waived without having a guaranteed contract to lean on, then they will have earned the right to leave at any time (and teams will have the right to replace them at any time without any financial obligation to the players).
It was not fair to the players back in the day when the teams had most of the power and true free agency did not exist--but it is not a sustainable business model for the NBA if players are going to decide, while under contract, that they want to play for another team right now.
A player who becomes a free agent has the right to sign with any team--but a player who is under contract should not be able to force his way out and receive the full value of his original contract. Anthony Davis and Paul George did not live up to their contracts with the New Orleans Pelicans and Oklahoma City Thunder respectively. One way to discourage this type of behavior would be to enact a rule stipulating that players who, by their own volition (i.e., not because of injury or because the team decides to waive or trade them), do not fulfill the terms of their contract pay a 10% penalty on their next contract; if such a player is eligible to sign for three years/$90 million, then he can only sign for three years/$81 million. The difference is paid by the team acquiring the player to the team that lost the player, in addition to the agreed upon terms of any transaction between those two teams involving the player who did not fulfill his contract. These funds would not count against either team's salary cap.
Such a provision may not put an end to the breach of contract situations that have become more common, but it would at least give the players pause before attempting brazen power plays, and it would provide meaningful compensation to the team that is losing a star player much sooner than it could have prepared for or expected.
A Business Model Combining Huge Guaranteed Contracts With Nearly Unrestrained Player Movement is Not Smart
