It's funny, I just raised the "retroactive rule application" problem in reference to Luongo's deal hurting the Canucks, and basically everyone's reaction was "THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET!!2"
Here, where it's a non-rival getting screwed by it, it suddenly seems really unfair to many people.
Bottom line is, no matter who signed the deal, no matter whether it went against the "spirit" of the rules, you cannot have retroactive rule-making. That's just a basic principle of rule-making. If governments did it, it would destabilize the entire country - can you imagine doing something legal and then the government passing a law the next day retroactively applying a prison sentence to you?
People will put up with this because the stakes are lower - it's just sports, and it's just millionaires having to pay money to other millionaires. Doesn't change the fact that it's fundamentally unfair.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|