I’m specifically replying to cited passage from your post. If you can’t figure that out, you’re right, there’s no point in going forward.

No, I assume the players went into the labor talks angling for something else and either (a) agreed to the contract structure as a concession to get something else; or (b) chose very poor representation.

This is all semantics—you can say every contract contemplates a breach b/c there are almost always remedies built into a contract for such an eventuality.

Yeah, it’s different. Unless we work as professional athletes or in a field with similarly ludicrous compensation.

That’s basically where I come down on the matter. Obviously, each situation is different, but if a guy is already making an obscene amount of money and his only justification is “other guys are making more,” not gonna get any sympathy from me.

Saying a Chancellor-esque holdout is bullshit doesn’t mean it isn’t his right, but it is still a breach of the contract, while cutting a player and not giving him non-guaranteed money is not.

I’m unemployed, which is why I’m on Deadspin. I’m unemployed b/c I quit my last job after being passed over for a promotion in favor of a guy just like the one you’re describing. I have no sympathy for the billionaire owners nor hatred for the players.

No, probably not.

Those two things are not the same.