I recognize the moral and ethical right of players to freedom of movement and to be compensated for their sport.
You can do that, and still recognize the damage to the game and mourn it.
Everyone talks about how boxing used to be "great" and how now it sucks. Well, every single thing that makes boxing worse than it used to be is the result of betterment for the fighters.
- Shorter fights
- less manipulative contracts
- fewer fights
- more freedom over opponents
- bigger gloves
- more safety first styles
- more belts
- and most of all...BIGGER PAYDAYS
Everyone that wishes that boxing was "how it used to be" is wishing fighters got paid less, were forced to fight more, had less control over their opponents and schedule, less protection of their health, etc. People love to hold UFC up as being better than boxing, but that's a direct result of being an effective monopoly, severely underpaying their top fighters, and being able to control their careers.
That's how I look at these changes...they're ethically right, but you can also recognize they're likely to severely damage the game. That's not a contradiction.
If the sport is going to retain some semblance of itself, it will have to end up in a place with contracts, salary caps and collective bargaining. It's the only outcome. No other sport has what college football now has. Imagine the NFL with no collective bargaining agreement governing team/player relations, no salary cap, and no contracts. If half the Rams could just go to another team this year, or if Las Vegas could just go out mid season and pay Mahomes $100 million mid season to switch teams.
A "no rules" situation is simply not a functional way for a sport to exist. If that becomes the final structure, I think the game becomes basically a niche sport for a handful of fan bases.
