Problem
Suppose that you have a sister who is a big fan of baseball and now she is sitting in a game where her team's best hitter is about to set a new home-run record per single season (FYI: The current record is 73 set by Barry Bonds). And, she becomes the one who catches the record-setting home run ball (Wow!!!).
Everyone expects your sister to sell the ball in the auction market, as the fan who caught Bonds' 73rd home-run ball did in 2001. However, your sister made up her mind to give the ball to the dearest slugger of her team, as Tim Forneris did to Mark McGwire in 1998. So, she met the player after the game, handed over the ball to him, saying "This is yours."
Upon hearing the news, one of your friends says "It's not moral." Here is your friends' argument:
"Your sister was wrong about the ball's belonging to the player. Once she got her hands on it, the ball was hers. If she does not want the ball, she should put the ball on the market and let the highest bidder, including the player, pay for the ball and have it. The one who puts the highest value on a property should have and hold the property. So, I would say that the way she gave away the ball distorts the efficient distribution of resources and property in the market, which should be distributed to the best-interested party."
Do you agree or disagree with your friend? Why? Explain based on either "Econ" or "Human."