As long as you just keep holding steadfast to the mantra of 'nothing wrong happened, it was basically part of the contract itself to be penalized a certain amount for backing out', and in no way show that you would be upset in any way if you were on the bad end of someone not complying with a contract and backing out to pay the penalty, then you are at least being consistent. Consistent to the tune that you start sounding robotic and hollow if you claim you would have no negative emotion or feel disappointed on your end if someone backed out on you.

Yes, damages for breach or non-compliance can be part of a contract, but the contract was negotiated so that the parties would substantially comply with the primary terms of the contract. There is still such thing as non-performance or non-compliance with your obligations under a contract (not a good thing often, though not criminal), and you willfully paying the damages for breach or non-compliance. But if you just slip once and start saying you understand how people could be let down and put in tough financial positions if a team backs out on them, then you will not be able keep putting up your Maginot line defense on the point everywhere in this thread. My point, and that of some others here (I think) is simply that there are negative effects on others that impact people and institutions well beyond the short term decision of one side to back out and pay a penalty. Often, one party (the weaker party, or the party with less leverage) cannot simply demand much higher breach damages that you seem to think everyone could easily negotiate. And then when the other party does breach and pay the damages, the damaged party may suffer well beyond what they had the ability to negotiate (due to less power in their relative position to the other party) as the damages that they would receive if there were a breach.