It is certainly an interesting time in South African football. Kaizer Chiefs, for probably the first time in their history, have effectively released 20 players in what has been described as a mass exodus. Since then, the South African Football Players Union (SAFPU) has come out in defence of the players. So the question is: Is a club right to terminate an underperforming player's contract? Or are they responsible for their livelihood?
Some supporters think there was nothing wrong with the decision to remove the 20 players from the roster; it is a performance industry, after all, and if a player is underperforming, a team should be able to terminate his contract if he is not meeting the standards required.
"Does the union bother when its clients don't perform at those respective clubs?" – Nathi Nyawo
And then there are those who believe the player as a person must be considered, and much like being fired from any job, it has an impact on him and his family.
"Popp signed these players… Nobody forced him at gunpoint… now he's obliged to pay their salaries." – 22 December 2012
"Don't get it twisted, Sundowns loans out a lot of players. Loan is when you give a player a chance to prove himself elsewhere. Terminating a contract is when you destroy the player's career… This is a serious issue, players are the sole breadwinners. Bobby is killing young players. #Khosi4life." – lulikho
There are also those supporters who sit somewhere in the middle, who think that a team is perfectly right to get rid of a player, but there is a time, place, and manner in which to do it.
"Teams are allowed to terminate players' contracts. That is not the issue here. The issue under discussion is how Chiefs went about terminating those contracts." – Setlaboswana
Where do you sit in this argument? Who do you side with?