The majority of North American sports leagues have some sort of guarantee in their contracts.
I'm not going to get into a minimum wage debate with with but I will say this - Why should a team be saddled with the burden of paying a portion of a contract they entered in to?
My response would be: Why should a player get ZERO of a contract they entered into? If a player signs a 2-3 year deal there does need to be (in my opinion) a guarantee on both sides that the contract will be honoured.
Under the current set up every player is essentially on a 1 year deal for the team purposes, yet for the purpose of the player they are "locked in" to whatever is signed as long as the team is ok with the terms.
Lets use a random player as an example. Greg Ellingson signs a big deal, which up to this point he's earned. Let's say he has a brutal year, 500 yards and drops everything in sight. Ottawa gets out of the deal and it costs them $0. Lets go a step further and say no team in the league picks him up - injury history, not playing well, whatever. How is that fair to the player?
You ask if I have proof that a GM acted in bad faith? depends how you look at it. Obillovich signed many of his first year free agents to 2+1 year deals at the league minimum. You can argue that the player gets a chance, then when the player becomes the best returner/receiver in the league (Chris Williams) the team gets a bargain.
Bad faith or not CFL contracts benefit the team, in other leagues the guarantee is taken into consideration when signing the deal - does that mean less money is offered? possibly. But I think many players would take a bit less as a guarantee over a contract that the team never has to pay. After uprooting your family and moving cross country from Calgary to Montreal for a 3 year contract - getting cut with zero money after 1 year doesn't seem like a great deal for the player does it?
Because no terms of the agreed upon contract were hidden from the player before or when they signed.
And, it is a great deal for the player when they play out the contract they sign and are eligible for free-agency and can bargain with any team in the league for what they feel they are worth, often much much more than the original contract. See: Zack Collaros from Argos to Hamilton.
If you only look at it from the point of view of a player who gets cut and doesn't get picked up, you, in bad faith, leave out the 90% of other players who benefit. Many who make excellent money.
Please define monopoly power in pro sports. Because - Arena league, CFL, NFL, soon to be XFL or any number of semi-pro leagues in the US and Canada and Mexico. How about the European pro football leagues that exist? So, there's that.
And, please show me what would be considered as so unjust and so one sided in power to attract court intervention in any pro sports contract. Just because you look it up on the internet does not make it applicable to your argument.
Just because you THINK things are unfair does not mean that they are. How about looking at this from the perspective of a team that trains, coaches, teaches and inspires a player to go from average to MOP only to have that player leave to free-agency. How is that fair to the team? There should be a 30% guarantee to the team if a player leaves in free-agency. The CBA needs something to keep players honest when they are receiving top notch instruction then taking those skills to other teams. (sarcasm off)
I didn't even assert that the status quo is unfair. You asserted that a contract is always fair by definition as long as it was agreed to with none of the terms hidden, and I pointed out that that isn't true, or more precisely, that there are circumstances where such contracts are legally unenforceable.