職業運動在全球高度商業化之發展趨勢下，球員轉隊制度已不僅係單純之人事流動安排，更涉及球員勞動權益、契約自由、聯盟治理及市場競爭秩序等多重法律問題。尤其在職業籃球領域中，轉隊制度之設計往往深受聯盟經營模式、勞資協商機制與國家法制環境之影響，進而形成不同之制度樣態。美國國家籃球協會（NBA）透過勞資團體協約建構出兼顧球員流動與聯盟競爭平衡之制度架構，而中國男子籃球職業聯賽（CBA）則因其制度背景與行政管理色彩，對球員流動仍存有較多限制。至於台灣職業籃球聯盟，現行規範尚未形成統一且完整之制度架構，聯盟間規範差異甚大，亦衍生球員權益保障不足與爭議處理機制不明確等問題。
本研究以NBA與CBA之球員轉隊制度作為主要比較對象，並以台灣職業籃球聯盟作為制度觀察與借鏡之對象，探討不同制度下球員自主性、契約權利及聯盟治理之平衡模式。研究方法上，本文採取文獻回顧法、案例分析法及比較法研究。首先，透過整理國內外有關職業運動法、勞動法、運動仲裁及聯盟治理之相關文獻，建立職業籃球轉隊制度之理論基礎；其次，藉由分析NBA與CBA中具有代表性之轉隊爭議案例，例如球員自由流動、獨家簽約權、轉隊限制與聯盟介入等事件，探討制度運作下所衍生之法律爭議；最後，再比較美國、中國及台灣職業籃球制度之差異，進一步提出適合台灣職業籃球發展之制度建議。
研究結果發現，NBA之轉隊制度係建立於成熟之勞資協商架構與集體談判制度之上，透過自由球員制度、薪資上限、Bird Rights及仲裁機制等安排，在保障球員市場流動與維持聯盟競爭平衡間取得一定程度之調和；相較之下，CBA之制度則仍帶有較強之行政管理性質，球員流動受到註冊優先權、獨家簽約權及聯盟管理機制之限制，對球員契約自由與職業選擇權造成一定程度影響。而台灣目前職業籃球制度尚處於發展階段，各聯盟對於轉隊、交易、球員保留權及爭議處理程序之規範不一致，欠缺統一且透明之法制架構。
本文認為，台灣未來在建構職業籃球轉隊制度時，應以保障球員基本勞動權利與提升制度透明性作為核心方向，並參考NBA以勞資協商為基礎之制度精神，同時避免過度行政化之限制措施。此外，亦應建立更完整之運動仲裁與爭議解決機制，以降低轉隊爭議對球員、球團及聯盟整體發展之影響。期盼本研究能作為未來台灣職業籃球制度改革與法制建構之參考。

Under the global trend of high commercialization in professional sports, the player transfer system has evolved beyond mere personnel arrangements into a complex intersection of legal issues, including player labor rights, freedom of contract, league governance, and market competition order.
Particularly in professional basketball, the design of transfer systems is profoundly shaped by league operating models, collective bargaining mechanisms, and national legal environments, resulting in diverse institutional paradigms. The National Basketball Association (NBA) has established a framework through Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) that balances player mobility with competitive balance.
Conversely, the Chinese Basketball Association (CBA) maintains significant restrictions on player movement due to its specific institutional background and administrative management character. In Taiwan, current regulations lack a unified and comprehensive framework, with substantial disparities between leagues leading to insufficient protection of player rights and ambiguous dispute resolution mechanisms.
This study conducts a comparative analysis of the transfer systems in the NBA and CBA, using the Taiwanese professional basketball leagues as a subject for observation and institutional borrowing. It explores the balance between player autonomy, contractual rights, and league governance across different systems.
Methodologically, this research employs literature review, case analysis, and comparative legal studies. First, it establishes the theoretical foundation for basketball transfer systems by synthesizing domestic and international literature on sports law, labor law, sports arbitration, and league governance. Second, by analyzing representative transfer disputes in the NBA and CBA—such as those involving free agency, exclusive signing rights, transfer restrictions, and league intervention—it explores the legal controversies arising from institutional operations. Finally, it compares the systemic differences between the US, China, and Taiwan to propose institutional recommendations suitable for the development of professional basketball in Taiwan.
The findings indicate that the NBA's transfer system is predicated on a mature collective bargaining framework. Through mechanisms such as free agency, salary caps, Bird Rights, and arbitration, it achieves a degree of reconciliation between market mobility and competitive balance. In contrast, the CBA system retains strong administrative characteristics, where player mobility is constrained by registration priority, exclusive signing rights, and league management mechanisms, impacting occupational choice and freedom of contract. Taiwan’s professional basketball systems are currently in a developmental stage, characterized by inconsistent regulations V regarding transfers, trades, retention rights, and dispute procedures, lacking a transparent and unified legal structure.
This paper contends that the future construction of Taiwan's professional basketball transfer system should prioritize the protection of fundamental labor rights and the enhancement of institutional transparency. It suggests adopting the spirit of the NBA's negotiation-based model while avoiding over-administrative restrictions.
Furthermore, a more robust sports arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism should be established to mitigate the impact of transfer disputes on players, clubs, and the overall development of the league. It is hoped that this research will serve as a reference for future institutional reforms and legal construction in Taiwanese professional basketball. Keywords: Professional Basketball, Transfer System, Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Sports Arbitration, Player Autonomy, League Governance

壹、 中文文獻（依筆畫順序）
一、 期刊論文
1. 李志峰，美國職業籃球個別紛爭解決制度之研究，月旦法學雜誌，第271期，頁126-136，2017年11月。
2. 李清玲，NBA仲裁運行實踐的研究，西安體育學院學報，25卷2期，2008年3月。
3. 孫國平、王晗，論CBA獨家簽約權制度——“周琦事件”引發的思考，上海體育大學學報，48捲6期，頁1-13，2024年6月。
4. 陳冠廷、張永健，法律解釋中的比較法論證：方法論的反省與重構，臺大法學論叢，53卷2期，2024年6月。
5. 鄒俊峰，陳家起，高奎亭，CBA聯賽（2014—2019）競爭性平衡：趨勢與對策，吉林體育學院學報，36卷5期，2020年10月。
6. 鄒躍培，CBA與NBA轉會制度的比較研究，文體用品與科技，頁26-27，2018年7月。
7. 劉鳳傑、杜叢新、陳傳亮，職業籃球俱樂部“獨家簽約權”條款的現實困境與完善進路——基於勞動法視角的考察分析，廣州體育學院學報，44卷3期，2024年6月。
8. 鄭敏，中美職業籃球俱樂部運動員轉會制度的差異研究，西安體育學院學報，33卷3期，2016年5月。
二、 學位論文
1. 王建國，NBA制衡機制的研究，北京體育大學體育教育訓練學博士論文，2005年5月。
2. 李雲成，CBA職業球員轉會現狀及發展對策研究，北京體育大學碩士論文，2006年5月。
3. 周國營，NBA仲裁制度研究及對CBA的啟示，山東大學法律研究所碩士論文，2010年3月。
4. 尚子辰，論中國男籃職業聯賽獨家簽約權的法律規制，北京外國語大學法律學研究所碩士論文，頁17，2025年5月。
5. 易鶴瑤，美國職業籃球聯賽勞資糾紛仲裁程序研究，湘潭大學法學院、知識產權學院研究所碩士論文，頁35，2024年6月。
6. 胡昌紘，職業運動聯盟法律關係之研究——以職業籃球為中心，國立政治大學法律科技整合研究所學位論文，2023年7月。
7. 崔佳琦，我國職業籃球運動員轉會核心利益相關者博弈困境及協調機制研究，東北師範大學博士學位論文，2023年5月。
8. 張嬋麗，CBA聯賽糾紛解決機制研究，北京體育大學體育學研究所博士論文，頁191-204，2023年6月。
9. 劉凱，中美職業籃球球員轉會制度比較研究，江西師範大學碩士學位論文，2017年5月。
10. 戴祥祥，中國男子籃球職業聯賽轉會制度的研究，寧波大學碩士學位論文，2010年12月。
11. 羅仁柎，從職業運動經營探究臺灣職棒大聯盟的消逝，國立臺灣體育運動大學體育研究所碩士論文，2012年6月。
三、 網路資料
1. 法主筆室，叛將條款再臨，換隊打籃球也不行？｜白目觀點，法律白話文運動，2020年12月23日， https://plainlaw.me/posts/pleague（最後瀏覽日：2026年07月02日）。
2. 廣東康浩U法官方網易號，從周琦與新疆廣匯的爭議，看中國體育爭議解決路徑，網易新聞，2023年3月03日，https://m.163.com/dy/article/HUU4GVJB0521D0JB.html （最後瀏覽日：2025/06/30）。
貳、 外文文獻（依照字母順序）
一、 英文專書
1. Raymond L.yasser et al., Sports Law: Cases and Materials 429 (7TH ED. 2011).
二、 英文期刊
1. Colin Rizzo, Temptation to Tamper: The Ineffectiveness of the NBA's Anti-Tampering Policy and Why the League May Be Forced to Take Drastic Measures to Fix It, 26 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L.J. 403 (2019).
2. Daniel J. Murphy, Oscar Robertson The player and the case, Sports and the Law 195 (1996).
3. Evan S. Totty & Mark F. Owens, Salary Caps and Competitive Balance in Professional Sports Leagues, Journal for Economic Educators, vol. 11(2) (2011).
4. Fidel, R. The case study method: a case study. Library & Information Science Research, 6(3). (1984).
5. Foraker, S. J. The national basketball association salary cap: an antitrust violation, Southern California Law Review, 59(1), (1985).
6. Jeffrey A. Mishkin, Dispute Resolution in the NBA: The Allocation of Decision Making Among the Commissioner, Impartial Arbitrator, System Arbitrator, and the Courts, 35 Val. U. L. Rev. 449 (2001).
7. Jemuel Gascon, Taking a Shot at Mediation Is the Solution to NBA Player-Trade Demands, 21 PEPP. DISP. RESOL. L.J. 115 (2021).
8. Jonathan B. Goldberg, Player Mobility in Professional Sports: From the Reserve System to Free Agency, 15 Sports Law. J. 21 (2008).
9. Mark Van Hoecke, Methodology of Comparative Legal Research, Law & Method (2015).
10. Paul D. Staudohar, Labor Relations in Basketball: The Lockout of 1998-99, 122 Monthly Lab. Rev., 3 (1999).
11. Richard A. Kaplan, The NBA Luxury Tax Model: A Misguided Regulatory Regime, 104 Colum. L. Rev. 1615 (2004).
12. Robert Pannullo, Facilitating Change: Addressing the Underutilization of Mediation in Professional Sports, 25 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 103 (2019).
13. Thomas A. Baker, III & Dan Connaughton, The Role of Arbitrability in Disciplinary Decisions in Professional Sports, 16 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 123 (2005).
14. William W. Berry III, Superstars, Superteams, and the Future of Player Movement, 13 HARV. J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 199 (2022).
三、 學位論文
1. Çetiner, O. C, A new ball game: History of labor relations in the national basketball association (1964-1976), Bilkent University Matser’s thesis(2020).
四、 網路資料
1. Arbitrator Upholds NBA Ruling on Smith, ESPN (2000/11/02), https://www.espn.com/nba/news/2000/1102/853662.html (last visited 2026/07/01).
2. Bonnie Tiell, General Structure of Leagues for Team Sports, Human Kinetics, https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/general-structure-of-leagues-for-team-sports (last visited：2026/07/04)
3. CBS News & Associated Press, Seikaly Files Grievance (1999/11/23), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/seikaly-files-grievance/ (last visited 2026/07/04).
4. David Aldridge, NBA 75: How the Creation of the Salary Cap and Bird Rights Revolutionized the League, The Athletic (2022/02/10), https://theathletic.com/3121085/2022/02/10/nba-75-how-the-creation-of-the-salary-cap-and-bird-rights-revolutionized-the-league/(last visited：2026/07/04)
5. Gabe Feldman, Explaining the Lin Decision, Grantland (2012/06/26), https://grantland.com/the-triangle/explaining-the-lin-decision/ .
6. Howard Beck, N.B.A. Rejects Trade Sending Paul to Lakers, N.Y. Times (2011/12/08), https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/sports/basketball/paulset-to-join-lakers-as-part-of-3-team-deal.html . (last visited：2026/07/04)
https://basketballnoise.com/when-did-the-nba-introduce-the-salary-cap-the-story-behind-the-decision-that-changed-basketball-forever/ (last visited：2026/07/04)
7. J.A. Adande, NBA SUSPENDS FIVE KNICKS, ONE HEAT PLAYER, The Washington Post (1995/03/15), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1997/05/16/nba-suspends-five-knicks-one-heat-player/d39d5f4e-465f-4a14-a2f3-1a130d9e046b/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited 2026/06/30).
8. James, When Did the NBA Introduce the Salary Cap? The Story Behind the Decision That Changed Basketball Forever, Basketball Noise（2026/05/13）,
9. Vincent M. Mallozzi, BASKETBALL; Knicks File Tampering Charges Over Riley, The New York Times (1995/06/30), https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/30/sports/basketball-knicks-file-tampering-charges-over-riley.html (last visited 2026/07/04).