Depends on how you think about it.
Under one light, any trade is collusion since it's an operation that damages everybody else (assumedly). The US Supreme Court actually wrestled with this question when the antitrust laws were first enacted since they prohibited any restraint of trade and contracts, by definition, restrain your trade by promising it to someone else. (They solved the problem by reading the word "unreasonable" into the legislation so that it only prohibited unreasonable restraints of trade).
I think the only sensible way to look at it is to look if the competitive process or the marketplace has been damaged. If someone pays their friend $20 for the use of Tomlinson for the rest of the year, both players benefit. But it damages the competitive process by bringing in something external to the competition. You have the same effect if people agree to share players to manage around bye weeks which has been discussed here before and is frowned upon (you can search for it if you're interested).
And so how you think about this situation in particular depends upon how you think of the competition. If you think of it as an ongoing contest or a series of 1-year contests. If you think of it as something ongoing then you probably don't have a problem with it. But if you think of it as a series of 1-year contests then there's some mischief going on. Because both players are procuring goods in different periods that they're not having to forfeit equal compensation for in the same period.
So where to fall in any given situation depends on the particulars. But I would say that any time you have a benefit now vs. benefit later situation, it is reason to give pause in and of itself.
But to answer your question yes, there's definitely such a thing as bad cooperative collusion.