> Footballers first unionized in 1907 and haven't looked back since

Incorrect, the first footballer's union was from 1898 [1].

> I don't think unionization had any effect on their salaries

Despite the existence of the union, clubs could impose a salary cap on players well into the 1960s, and could trade them like slaves under the "retain-and-transfer" system [2] until the EU forbade that practice in the 1990s [3].

All in all, football is a very bad example for the success of unions. Unions helped jack shit to get players out of an exploitative situation - every improvement was hard-won in courts by individual footballers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_Footballers%27_Uni...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retain_and_transfer_system

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling

The NBPA has overseen a huge increase in NBA player's wages over the past few decades, both at the top and for the average or minimum player. Yes, there's a salary cap, but that actually helps the vast majority of players, because otherwise Lebron would get paid 200M/year and the minimum/average players would get basically nothing, and it also ensures competitiveness.

A salary cap is not a reason unions are bad when the salary cap is 800x the average person's income...

The abolition of the maximum wage was arguably a consequence of organisation by the PFA under Jimmy Hill. I agree that the picture is mixed.

But when Jimmy Hill became secretary the PFA did succeed in vastly improving things early 1960's

> and could trade them like slaves under the "retain-and-transfer"

Don't you see a little bit of an issue with this wording? Namely that said players were paid for their labor and could quit playing football at any time?

In America, baseball unionization was what drove higher salaries.

It had the effect of driving up wages for veteran players. Collective bargaining in Major League Baseball produced service time provisions that artificially limit the salaries of young players while driving up the pay of established veterans.

Seniority provisions are a common feature of union contracts and they’re a direct wealth transfer from younger, generally poorer workers to older, more established employees.

Um, yeah you don't know what you are talking about. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Minimum_salary

You make the real money after free agency. Draft picks get slot bonuses. If you are on the roster you make $500k+

> You make the real money after free agency.

To be clear, nobody would argue that any of the players are starving, but the agreement is structured to reward seniority. That’s literally what I argued. The “real money” comes in free agency, access to which is restricted by service time.

Also the minor leagues aren't unionized and they make poverty wages.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/baseball-broshu...

It’s silly to compare tech unions to sports teams. There is usually only one major league in a country, and the team that signs you owns you like property. You do what the coach says or you sit on the bench until your contract expires and then don’t get re-signed. It’s not like tech, where if your Google manager so much as gives you a dirty look you can just walk over to facebook and have a new job by Monday. This alone is far more powerful than anything a union can provide.

For what it’s worth, Major League Baseball also has a union and one of its primary effects is to fuck over “new hires” by artificially transferring wages to older players based on seniority-based “service time” provisions.