Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp
If teams can cut players who are under-performing, should it be a problem for players to want to cut their teams who are under-performing?
That's really the point I was making that's being missed. If people think it's fine to cut players who are under-performing, then the "he signed a contract and should live up to it" argument goes out the window. The contracts players sign never say they have to play well. The contract says they are to play football for that team for a salary over a set period of time. So as long as a player is showing up to practice and the games, they are keeping their end of the contract. Why should owners not have to stick to theirs?
If sticking to a contract that was signed was so important, then it should be important all the time for all sides.