Mid-game transfers: a rationale

[Longtime Observer]

The rationale for allowing unlimited transfers, while also allowing an effectively unregulated "NIL" market, is that players should be able to do ANYTHING that helps them better themselves. ANY limits or regulations are said to be immoral, and probably rooted in "white supremacy". Welp, imagine a player playing on a team that's getting their butts kicked. You can't argue that it wouldn't improve his marketability to simply take off his uniform and walk over to the other sideline during the game. NOW, he's on the WINNING team. It would be MUCH better for the player to be on the winning team than to be a no-good loser. And, since "equity" is seen as THE most (if not only) important thing-whereby "equity" is defined and measured by the equivalence (or lack thereof) of outcomes- allowing all of the players on the losing team to simply leave and join the winning team, it all makes perfect sense!*

*While bitter sarcasm was employed here, this is not really a joke. Using the current rationale, the above IS consistent with the rationale.

[Longtime Observer]

Based strictly on the currently employed rationale to justify unlimited, instant availability transferring, why WOULDN'T mid-game transfers be allowed? Set aside the fact that it's an incredibly stupid idea for a moment. Just apply the rationale used for what's currently allowed and examine the idea of transferring mid-game in those terms. Why shouldn't we expect mid-game tranafers to be the next step?