But footballers are not employees. They are contractors, hence, the contract. I know that's loose, given the AFL is sole arbiter anyway. Employees fall under general employment law, coloured by any contract they agreed to. Contractors, like footballers, agree to terms, including duration of contract and renumeration for that period. How can it be ok for the duration period to be shortened, yet the sum contracted for maintained?
You say above 'Both Ablett and the Suns have entered into a contract where X amount has been agreed to and that figure needs to be adhered to' Yes, I agree. Providing the services that the players was contracted for - ie, actually playing for the club for the duration of the contract, is also adhered to.
I don't understand how the Sydney example you mention has anything to do with Ablett. Buddy was contracted for 9 years. He does his nine years - he needs to play for the club or at least provide a recognised service, for 9 years. The issue there is signing someone on for longer than they can realistically play for, as a back door way to pay a larger sum over a shorter time (TPP rort). In this case, since all contracts should be sanctioned by the AFL anyway, the decision needs to be made on whether a contract
can be for part play/part other contracted services, such as coaching. That's how you deal with the issue, not allow players to willy-nilly break contracts and make the whole thing a farce.