I remember the AAF football set that came out a couple years back, nearly everything had the RC stamp on it. I suppose one could say their first "pro" card is a rookie in some respects, but there is not a one-size-fits-all definition for any of this. Now, if someone spent their entire career in, say, the CFL, then it would make more sense that their rookie card in the hobby is a CFL card (and not considered an XRC). Granted, these types of players are typically less sought after so there is little scrutiny here. As I understand USFL players (and CFL players who have transitioned) all had XRC designations by Beckett. The whole XRC designation is a mind-screw if you try to explain this to a hobby illiterate.
Soccer stuff gets really tricky. Some would probably equate the Polish top division with MLS (especially from a European perspective, which tends to roll their eyes at the American concept of the "world's game"). Trading cards are, by and large, an American hobby so the entrance of soccer in the field makes it really interesting. By and large the Panini Stickers have always been the top draw in Europe. I have a friend from Norway who has NO clue about sports cards, but is all about the sticker albums.
I absolutely agree that RC desingations are mostly silly. It should just be up to the hobby itself to determine value and desireability among a player's early cards, whether they be minors, college, prospect or top level/major league cards. True "RC" designations shouldn't really matter.
