We have had this discussion. In our final league game in my division I was killed immediately for no other reason than my league position. I didn't take any offence.

GFDT carries the same problem to a lesser degree. Heres an interesting secenairio for you:
My final GFDT game has three remaining players.at about equal strength. The requirement for qualification into the second round is slightly above a 3-way draw. They both were defeated in their other game. Thus neither of them will accept a 3 way draw. I have already qualified and hold a kingmaker position. I thus choose which player makes it into the second round. I could make that choice based on which player I think it would be more helpful to build trust in case we are in the second round together (which isn't unlikely).

But here's the fun part: Since I've already qualified, I could technically just throw the game. If I get defeated then both of the other players would qualify. Thus earning goodwill and a reputation as a self-sacrificing ally. This also increases the chances of me being in the second round with one of them. If my ultimate goal was winning the tournament, this would actually be the most rational response to the situation.

Of course, thats taking it a little far. I think there are unwritten rules that still need to be abided by. Minor meta-gaming like league shuffling should be embraced, but a line needs to be drawn.

Re the League metagaming issue
how about blatant, I will support you into A in game 2 if you support me into B in game 3 ? Isn't that going way too far?

I think the league scoring system could be reworked a bit to discourage draws. The GFDT scoring system might go too far the other way where it is better to lose with many Sc than to draw. but then again 15-17sc(just losing) is better than 9-12sc that you might have in a 3way draw so maybe its quite fair.

sean. The problem with reworking the scoring system is that I don't see that it would work:

If a win becomes more valuable, everyone will make damn sure the leader doesn't win, and the leader will fear tall poppy syndrome.
If a win becomes less valuable, it is easier for a player just to take draws all the time and then they still get alot of points.

The calibre of players that you see in the league along with the conservative nature of a four or five game season will inevitably make things rather draw-ish, because a best played WTA game should end in a draw.

As for meta-gaming, I agree with sean that "I will support you into A in game 2 if you support me into B in game 3" or "I will let you win in game A if you let me win in game B" is indeed going too far.

Having draw points as in the leagues, except worth more (34=win rather than 12), and then SC points as in the league tie-breaker and summing them might give an interesting system, however the leagues are about WTA, so I shall stick with what we have.