Imagine graduating from college, diploma in hand, ready to embark on your career. But instead of interviewing with multiple companies and choosing the best fit, you’re drafted by a single employer based on their needs and your ranking. No negotiation, no choice—just assignment. This scenario, absurd in most professions, is the reality for many collegiate athletes entering professional sports leagues like the NFL and NBA. The draft system assigns top talent to teams, often the worst-performing ones, to promote competitive balance. Yet it comes at a steep cost: restricting athletes’ freedom to choose their workplace and negotiate their worth.
This restriction represents the final stage in a system that has controlled athletes throughout their college careers. While universities generate billions from college sports, with top football coaches earning over $10 million annually, student-athletes have historically been limited to scholarships and faced severe restrictions on profiting from their own name, image, and likeness. The draft extends this pattern of institutional control into their professional lives.
Far from fostering fairness, drafts embody anti-free market practices that suppress competition and player autonomy. They also clash with American ideals of liberty and self-determination. Free agency, where players can sign with any team willing to bid, offers a fairer alternative that emphasizes equal opportunity over forced equal outcomes. As universities grapple with issues like free speech, individual rights, and athlete compensation, the draft’s effect on student-athletes highlights a broader tension between institutional control and personal freedom.
[RELATED: Professionalization Is Killing College Sports]
The Mechanics of Control
Professional sports drafts originated in the mid-twentieth century to distribute talent evenly and prevent wealthier teams from dominating. In North America, leagues like the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB use drafts to allocate players, granting the selecting team exclusive signing rights. Teams can trade picks, but the core mechanism initially limits players to one buyer.
This setup creates a monopsonistic market, where multiple sellers (players) face a single buyer (the drafting team). As noted in “The Draft is Illegal (& Un-American),” “the draft inescapably forces each seller of football services to deal with one, and only one buyer, robbing the seller, as in any monopsonistic market, of any real bargaining power.” Such restrictions distort free market dynamics, where supply and demand should determine value.
While the draft system achieves equitable distribution of talent, ensuring weaker teams get strong players, it does so by sacrificing equal opportunity for athletes to choose their employers and negotiate their worth. This trade-off between equity and opportunity reflects broader debates in higher education about fairness versus freedom.
Legal Contortions
Antitrust laws, designed to promote competition, have long scrutinized drafts. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts that restrain trade. In the 1978 case Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the NFL draft was “undeniably anticompetitive both in its purpose and in its effect.” Player Yazoo Smith argued the draft prevented him from negotiating a better contract, and the court agreed it constituted an unreasonable restraint.
Despite this, drafts persist due to the non-statutory labor exemption, stemming from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between leagues and players’ unions. Cases like Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea and Connell Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters established that union-negotiated practices could evade antitrust scrutiny. Thus, while drafts violate free market norms in isolation, CBAs shield them legally.
The Real Cost to Athletes
This exemption doesn’t erase the economic harm. Drafts suppress rookie salaries by eliminating bidding wars. For instance, under the 2011 NFL CBA, top picks like Cam Newton signed deals worth over fifty million dollars less than predecessors like Sam Bradford. Owners benefit from cost control, but players, often fresh out of college, lose out on their market value.
Why should this matter to the average person? Beyond the principle of workplace freedom, consider that these “millionaire athletes” are actually workers whose earning windows are extremely limited. The average NFL career lasts just 3.3 years. A software engineer can work for decades; a running back might have five productive years. The draft system ensures that during their crucial early years, when they’re healthiest and most valuable, athletes cannot maximize their earnings. This mirrors how college athletes generate enormous revenues for universities while being restricted from sharing in those profits until recently.
Critics argue this isn’t just anti-competitive; it’s anti-labor. One analysis calls the draft “an antiquated anti-labor practice” that controls players’ bodies and squashes their rights. In a true free market, athletes would shop their skills, driving up wages and innovation.
[RELATED: Men Stole Gold from Nearly 2,000 Women — RESPECT Title IX Act Stops the Theft]
American Values at Stake
Drafts also contradict American values of individualism and opportunity. The Declaration of Independence enshrines the pursuit of happiness, which includes choosing one’s path. Forcing graduates into predetermined jobs echoes serfdom more than the American Dream.
Consider the analogy: if tech giants drafted computer science majors, assigning them without consent, it would spark outrage. Yet in sports, it’s normalized. This paternalism undermines the university’s role in preparing students for autonomous lives. Campuses champion free expression and debate, yet the draft treats athletes as commodities, not empowered individuals.
The contradiction is particularly stark given recent developments in college sports. Universities have begun allowing athletes to profit from endorsements and social media, recognizing their right to benefit from their talents. Yet upon graduation, these same athletes face a system that strips away their negotiating power entirely.
A Better Way Forward
Free agency aligns better with these ideals. In baseball, since 1975, players with six years of service can become free agents, negotiating freely. Contrary to fears, the sport hasn’t collapsed—it’s thrived, with franchise values soaring.
Proponents claim drafts ensure parity, citing the NFL’s dynamic playoffs. But the evidence is mixed. Studies show salary caps and drafts don’t guarantee balance; dominant teams like the New England Patriots persist. The last NBA team to fold was in 1955, pre-modern restrictions, suggesting markets self-correct.
European soccer offers a compelling alternative: no drafts, just transfers and youth academies. Players move via negotiated fees, fostering a global market. Parity comes from promotion and relegation, where poor performers drop leagues. This system rewards development and ambition, without assigning fates.
In the U.S., the NWSL recently scrapped its draft in 2024, opting for free agent signings and player consent for trades, aligning with international norms. This shift acknowledges drafts’ flaws.
[RELATED: No to Biological Males Competing Against Women]
The Path to Reform
Abolishing drafts wouldn’t doom leagues. As one proposal suggests, make all players free agents: “History has proved that the greatest lie in sports is that workplace restrictions serve anyone other than team owners.” Teams could still scout and bid, but players choose.
Skeptics fear superteams, but markets adapt. Wealthier clubs might dominate, but antitrust could curb collusion. Plus, fan interest in stars like LeBron James shows that appeal transcends balance.
For collegiate athletes, free agency would honor their education. Universities invest in development; drafts repay with coercion. Aligning pro entry with free choice reinforces campus values of agency.
Reform of the draft system should be part of a broader reckoning in college sports. From addressing the vast disparities between coach salaries and athlete compensation to ensuring players have meaningful control over their careers, the entire ecosystem needs examination. The draft represents just one link in a chain of restrictions that begins in college and extends into professional careers.
In sum, drafts are relics of cartel-like control, anti-free market in suppressing competition, and anti-American in curtailing liberty. They sacrifice equal opportunity at the altar of equal outcomes, controlling workers under the guise of competitive balance. Embracing free agency would liberate athletes, invigorate leagues, and affirm core principles. As society reexamines power dynamics in education and work, it’s time sports followed suit.
Image: “2024 Atlanta Falcons Post-draft Press Conference Michael Penix Jr.” Atlanta Falcons on Wikimedia Commons
The author overlooks three important facts:
First, like public utilities, sports teams have a natural monopoly — without other teams and the league, an individual team has nothing to do. There can be — and have been — competing leagues such as the American Football league (1960-70) and the author’s thesis falls apart in light of someone like Joe Namath.
Namath, a University of Alabama quarterback, had been drafted in 1965 by the St. Louis Cardinals of the NFL — and instead signed with the AFL’s New York Jets. I’ve also heard of players going overseas, playing basketball in Europe or baseball in Japan. So much for a monopoly….
Second, there are player’s unions and they negotiate with the LEAGUE and not individual teams. Hence, in this extent, players are employed by the league and not the individual team. And unions inherently lower the pay of the most productive employees so as to increase the pay of everyone else.
But third, the real issue is why are the NFL, NBA, and NHL permitted to use academia as their farm system. Baseball doesn’t — it has its own farm system, but the other pro sports use academia to develop their talent without paying for it!!!
I’d like to see the universities get compensated for this. Perhaps the players who sign for big bucks should be required to pay something for the university programs that developed them.
But I don’t feel sorry for someone who has a multi-million dollar career that only lasts a few years — between deferred compensation arrangements and prudent investments, that kid is set for life!