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.
I notice that if we want to let a player leave the team, there are only two ways: sell or fire.
In normal situations, if firing a player still requires paying severance, it feels like a punishment compared to selling.
Back to tough's solution:
I propose a solution to this; any player that works for a team after their transfer acquisition commands to be paid, it’s only right since they need to make a livelihood. If player is let go before the economic update, the team that acquired him has to pay either their entire salary or a percentage (like 50%) of that salary for the week if they were to be let go before economic update.
For selling players, there's a rule: "You cannot offer a player for sale until he has been on your team for at least 4 days."
So there will definitely be at least one financial update.
Therefore, if a player is fired before the first financial update after joining the team, paying severance still seems reasonable.
However, I thought of a situation: when that financial update doesn't require paying the player's salary, it seems a bit unreasonable to still have to pay severance if the player is fired.