With all due respect, it seems to me that the fact that young ballplayers can choose other career paths does not justify a regime that is inherently anti-competitive. What if all the hospitals and health insurance companies conspired to limit doctors' compensation to $50,000 per year? Under your theory, the best medical students could "choose" to work for hedge funds, until the hedge funds implement a similar monopolistic conspiracy.
It seems to me that a union that fails to adequately represent its members is an abomination, and it is inherently unjust for an employee to be bound by a union contract if the employee has no vote.
I understand that in order to maintain competitive balance, ballplayers must be locked into negotiating with whichever team owns the rights to their services, and must be prohibited from participating in a free market. However, it seems to me that the scales need to be balanced by allowing them to form a separate union where they get to elect leaders and vote on contracts. Then if the owners are not willing to make a deal, the owners can close their minor league franchises. I support free markets, but the current regime seems totally one sided and the opposite of free when it comes to minor league players.
It seems to me that there should be a basic right to sell one's services to the highest bidder and that this is fundamental to capitalism and free markets. If such right is going to be suppressed in the name of preserving competitive balance among the 30 ballclubs, then there must be some mechanism for protecting the employees from gross exploitation.
It doesnt matter what I think, nor what you think. I might even think such a situation is unfair. The problem is that is the law. For example see Wood v. NBA. Unionized labor has enormous power to distort the free market place.