Interestingly, replacing or firing a staff member requires paying one week's salary in severance, but that's not the case for players.
It seems like BB did this on purpose.
I wonder if there's a reason behind it?
I don't know the reason behind it.
I just thought that new teams might need to fire the players they started with, including star players.
If firing a player requires paying severance, that would be an extra cost for the new team.
Also, for teams that are close to going bankrupt, whether severance is needed might make a difference.
If severance is required, they might need to fire players one week earlier to avoid bankruptcy.
If there's no plan to change the system to make firing players cost severance, it's also possible to suggest this to other managers:
To avoid having listed players treated as disposable by others, you can set the starting bid to be, for example, the same as their salary.