Yes, it's a stupid loophole as I said above. But in some cases, failure to exploit a loophole is not allowed. And agreeing explicitly or implicitly with others not to exploit the loophole could be collusion. In this case, since it went to court and since the owners tried to get it closed and failed, I think a pretty decent argument could be made for teams not being allowed to collude not to exploit the loophole. From a game theory perspective, it's a prisoner's dilemma for the teams: in the short-run each team is better off exploiting the others by using poison pills. But in the long-run, all teams are better off in a poison pill-less world and therefore they implicitly agree (through the use of social pressure) not to use them in order to stay at the long-run optimal situation instead of exploiting short-term gains. But, as GregR pointed out, the long-run optimum for the owners is coming at the expense of the players. The players would be better off at the point where all teams used poison pills, since that would increase player mobility and drive up player values. As in any prisoner's dilemma, the only way to achieve the better outcome for the owners is through implicit collusion brought about by it being a repeated game (i.e. if the Vikings screw the Seahawks today, the Seahawks will screw the Vikings tomorrow.)The players signed off on the RFA system. The sytem clearly and implicitly is designed to allow the original tream to retain the rights of a player. Therefore...the players would have a very tough time selling this as an illegal collusion on the part of the owners. Consistant use of poison pills would essentially negate the entire RFA system, and it should be painfully and blatantly obvious to everyone that that was never the intent, no matter what player(s) later decided was in their own best interests.What happened was a specific player found a loophole, then found another team willing to exploit that loophole. Much like any loophole in a legal contract, a judge said "sorry, you'r s.. out of luck" to the Seahawks. This whole conversation is much ado about nothing, IMO. If the current RFA system is retained, this loophole will be closed in the next CBA. If it isn't retained (or something very close to it), then it won't much matter.Not if the poison pill is, as I suggested above, "You get $100MM if you play in a game in a Vikings jersey with authorization of the coach". That has no impact on any team other than the Vikings.GregR has been almost completely spot on in this thread, no idea why people are arguing with him. There is no evidence of explicit collusion. There is plenty of evidence of implicit collusion. Collusion by the teams is bad for the players. The way the teams are acting is bad for the players. It also may or may not be illegal.