What is /r/boxing's opinion of rematch clauses?

I don't like them due to restriction of free trade/movement, and I think there'd be a case for challenging them in court, certainly in the EU. As the top guy, you are in a unique position of power, and in some cases, (Mayweather, Klitschko) it amounts to an almost monopolistic dominance. If you wanted most of the heavyweight belts, the lineal title, and the chance of being seen as the best boxer in the world, you had no choice but to fight Wlad. If he put an option for 5 rematches and you having to fight in pink Speedos, you'd either have to go with it, or miss the chance.

Some people will go for the simplistic, "Well, you didn't have to sign the contract." This is the thinking of the free market theorist and not a representation of reality. If a company forces a janitor to sign a non-compete agreement (which legally isn't a million miles away from a rematch clause), most courts in the developed world would throw it out as a restriction of trade. The janitor had no power and was effectively coerced into signing.

On the flip side, boxers have short careers, so any period of dominance is relatively short-lived. The argument could be made that they've earned their position of power, and like a company first to market, each fighter is allowed a short period wielding monopoly power.

I'm curious as to what r/boxing thinks about this. Could rematch clauses be declared null and void if boxing had its own Bosman-style court case?