Drafts do not exist in a vacuum; they must be considered in conjunction with the manner in which the entire supply of players is controlled.
Drafts are a tool used to control the supply of players in order to increase wages, not depress them. They do this through introducing an element of scarcity every year.
If all players (including your pool of potential draftees) are free agents every year all wages come down because Owners have an overabundance of players to fill the limited number of openings. Thus, there is always someone who will fill that role lest a better player doesn’t accept. It grossly reduces the negotiating power of stars and dominoes down through the various skill tiers.
The draft may lower some salaries to individuals, but it also raises the average salary considerably. Otherwise, the handful of obvious talent each year (thinking about basketball that’s usually 5-6 people, 13 in a deep year) will compete for star money, then what’s left would be doled out to players to round out rosters; rookies would compete against veterans. By separating the two classes (rookies and veterans) the sports unions were historically able to trick owners into thinking they would have greater control over assets and thus a better chance at making money.
The alternative you propose does depress wages. A cap based system, similar to your argument is currently used in baseball. The Union and Owners agreed to the system to depress early players wages by allotting a max pool of money teams can use to sign their draft picks. The union likely allowed this as a concession to the obvious advantage of limiting the supply of players that the current CBA already allows.
Veterans and rookies do not compete as they would, absent such limitations. Otherwise, more people would benefit from the system, but fewer would make a lot of money. Without any question, there would be less money made by the labor overall.
Drafts do limit who one can bargain with, but one is allowed to bargain inside a system that increases the amount available to all. Drafts made millionaires out of Ndudi Ebi, Ryan leaf, Scott Scissons, and Adam Johnson. A draft examined separate from the rest of the system may appear that way, but there is no real restraint on trade as opportunities have not been limited to any great effect. See the cases of JD Drew, Travis Lee, Jason Varitek, Jim Kelly, John Elway, etc. I will concede that someone good, and likely someone great has lost some money or even the opportunity to play, but overall there has been massive gains by players.
This is a false analogy.
In this example you’d be right; a draft in isolation without the rest of the process negotiated would further depress wages. In baseball they called this the reserve system. Current industry doesn’t need to do this as there already is an overabundance of labor competing for available positions. Everybody is a free agent and wages are depressed without artificial mechanisms. Skills matter far less than you think, as most people are average. Plus they are too difficult to measure and compare across large pools of labor.
However, skills in Closed systems (games with rules, like football and hockey) are much easier to measure. Thus, a system can be created that prevents the exploitation in your example. Also, pro leagues can and arguably must limit the positions available in order to control both quality and logistics. Imagine the world with teams sprouting up and failing year in and year out like companies. The inherent need for certainty within leagues grossly distorts the comparison.
What did the NCAA do to make you feel this way? Pro sports have drafts. Please explain your disdain further. There is clearly a connecting piece missing.
