Shyamalan Twist! NCAA athletes joining labor union?

[FerryFor50]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwestern-wildcats-football-players-trying-join-labor-union

Would be an interesting headache for the NCAA...

[UrinalCake]

Does this mean the first union will be awesome and ground breaking, but then each one afterwards will get progressively worse until it's not worth our time anymore?

[FerryFor50]

Does this mean the first union will be awesome and ground breaking, but then each one afterwards will get progressively worse until it's not worth our time anymore?

Actually, that's a pretty accurate description of unions in general, without getting too political. :)

[A-Tex Devil]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwestern-wildcats-football-players-trying-join-labor-union

Would be an interesting headache for the NCAA...

This seems like it is either absolutely nothing, or earth shattering. Lean toward former, but will have my popcorn ready.

There are so many variables at play here if this gets traction at other schools: from the fact that the NLRA only governs private enterprises (so, ostensibly, the private schools only), to the interplay with Title IX if the football players are deemed employees, to the effect in right to work states vs. non-right to work states.

[JasonEvans]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

[FerryFor50]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

But hasn't the NCAA's argument been "we pay them in scholarships and education"? There is an implied exchange for services there...

[peterjswift]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

I'm not too worried about that. The tuition alone would be significantly more than minimum wage for any scholarship athlete. The scholarship would no longer be a gift, it would be salary.

Also - any student that is suddenly employed to play their sport would lose their amateur status and be in violation of NCAA rules... :)

[alteran]

I'm not too worried about that. The tuition alone would be significantly more than minimum wage for any scholarship athlete. The scholarship would no longer be a gift, it would be salary.


I think there are laws that require employee compensation be convertible to cash without penalty. It was a reform to stop employer abuses like only paying in company IOUs and such.

Pulling this back to the main subject, any time the NCAA has to defend their lucrative collegiate sports arrangement in court is a bad thing for the NCAA. People are worried about the O'Bannon case nuclear bomb going off, but the NCAA needs to be equally aware of a bunch of nickel and dime precedents that collectively overwhelm the status quo.

[77devil]

I am no labor lawyer, but would think the players will have to prove they are actually employees before they can be recognized as a union and collectively bargain. Actually being declared employees would be a huge, significant step as it would require the schools to at least pay them minimum wage, right? If you took all the hours of practice and game time and paid the players $8-10/hour for that time, it would be a fairly decent stipend and spending money.

-Jason "I think the NCAA's lawyers are going to have a fairly easy time proving the players are not employees" Evans

Nor am I but I suspect if the players were able to make the employee case the NCAA lawyers would argue that the direct economic value of the free education far exceeds the minimum wage because it does.

[fuse]

Tough topic. While I think the students should have rights and a voice, I'm not a big fan of the union approach.
A union is a construct whose time has come and gone.
Look at how unions almost destroyed the US auto industry.

I know pro player unions are a better analogy, but would NCAA/schools lock out players/students for seasons if the labor agreement was in dispute?

I'm picturing a professor ejecting a student athlete from a class because there is a union/NCAA/university dispute and that student is not allowed to pursue their education during the dispute.

[crimsondevil]

I'm picturing a professor ejecting a student athlete from a class because there is a union/NCAA/university dispute and that student is not allowed to pursue their education during the dispute.

At UNC they might be forced to attend class...

[allenmurray]

Look at how unions almost destroyed the US auto industry.

American car manufacturers thought the American public wanted, and would purchase and embrace, the following, so they made and marketed them:

Ford Pinto
Oldsmobile Cutlass Diesel
Ford Mustang II (70s version)
Chevrolet Vega
Cadillac Cimarron
AMC Gremlin
Chevrolet Chevette
Pontiac Aztek
Chrysler K-car (every one of them)

Somehow I think whatever the unions did that may have contributed to the demise of the US auto industry was overshadowed by the engineering and marketing decisions that led to the production of the above automobiles. The greatest union employees of all time couldn't have saved an auto industry that had executives who thought those cars were a good idea.

[JasonEvans]

I'm not too worried about that. The tuition alone would be significantly more than minimum wage for any scholarship athlete. The scholarship would no longer be a gift, it would be salary.


Nor am I but I suspect if the players were able to make the employee case the NCAA lawyers would argue that the direct economic value of the free education far exceeds the minimum wage because it does.

If I was the lawyer representing the players and the NCAA made the "but your scholarship is ample compensation" argument, I would have a hard time deciding who to call as my first witness, Trajan Langdon, Clay Matthews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Matthews_III#College_career), Andre Drummond (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7377356/andre-drummond-play-uconn-walk-on), or perhaps Patrick Davidson.

-Jason "I'd probably opt for Patrick as the jury would look at him and instantly bend to his will... that's one of his superpowers" Evans

[alteran]

Tough topic. While I think the students should have rights and a voice, I'm not a big fan of the union approach.
A union is a construct whose time has come and gone.
Look at how unions almost destroyed the US auto industry.

I know pro player unions are a better analogy, but would NCAA/schools lock out players/students for seasons if the labor agreement was in dispute?

I'm picturing a professor ejecting a student athlete from a class because there is a union/NCAA/university dispute and that student is not allowed to pursue their education during the dispute.

Please be cognizant of the rule against discussing politics / public policy on this board. I think the mods are giving us leniency on the potential union discussion here because it is directly related to the NCAA, but making blanket statements about unions in general abuses this leniency, and invites those that disagree vehemently to respond in kind.

If it's something you'd like to discuss I would certainly respond to IM.

Getting back on topic, the NCAA has accumulated enough enemies that people are hitting them on this on multiple fronts. They are losing the PR war of defending the status quo. They are on the receiving end of multiple legal threats. The O'Bannon lawsuit is essentially an existential threat, but a series of small precedents could easily undermine them as well. A union would open a huge can of worms.

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the NCAA status quo hits a tipping point.

[alteran]

Nor am I but I suspect if the players were able to make the employee case the NCAA lawyers would argue that the direct economic value of the free education far exceeds the minimum wage because it does.

Are you allowed to compensate employees entirely without money even if the employee requests monetary compensation? I don't think so.

There was a case a month or two back about employees being paid with cash cards (which required service fees to actually get one's pay). I remember an interviewer saying that was illegal-- I think it went back to laws preventing employers from issuing IOU's / company cash and then forcing employees to use company stores, etc. I'm sure there's someone here who can speak more knowledgeably than me on this topic.

I think the NCAA is trying to hit some legal sweet spot where they can compensate people (who they're making a lot of money off of), but the people are simultaneously not employees or contractors. I just don't think that's tenable when it gets looked at closely.

[JasonEvans]

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the NCAA status quo hits a tipping point.

To me, there is an obvious and clear end to all this. There are a group of schools -- the rich, TV-contract billionaire, BCS conference schools -- who would be perfectly happy to pay the players and set up a new structure outside the confines of the NCAA. Right now, inertia and a sense of obligation to their smaller counterparts; along with a desire to not have to deal with everything involved in managing the smaller non-revenue sports; is keeping those school stitched to the NCAA. But, a couple court rulings and lawsuits will likely provide all the incentive the ACC/SEC/PAC?/Big12/B!G schools need to build their own sandbox to play in... and there will be money for the players in that new sandbox.

-Jason "I will mourn it because it will be the end of the beautiful David-Goliath matchups in the NCAA hoops world that are so much fun, but I think it will be good for the players in the long run" Evans

[77devil]

If I was the lawyer representing the players and the NCAA made the "but your scholarship is ample compensation" argument, I would have a hard time deciding who to call as my first witness, Trajan Langdon, Clay Matthews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Matthews_III#College_career), Andre Drummond (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7377356/andre-drummond-play-uconn-walk-on), or perhaps Patrick Davidson.

-Jason "I'd probably opt for Patrick as the jury would look at him and instantly bend to his will... that's one of his superpowers" Evans

Ample compensation, which is subjective, and a state or federal minimum wage, which is precise, are different. And I would argue that a walk on is in a voluntary relationship that would not be deemed employment and ineligible to join the union.

[77devil]

Are you allowed to compensate employees entirely without money even if the employee requests monetary compensation? I don't think so.

There was a case a month or two back about employees being paid with cash cards (which required service fees to actually get one's pay). I remember an interviewer saying that was illegal-- I think it went back to laws preventing employers from issuing IOU's / company cash and then forcing employees to use company stores, etc. I'm sure there's someone here who can speak more knowledgeably than me on this topic.

I think the NCAA is trying to hit some legal sweet spot where they can compensate people (who they're making a lot of money off of), but the people are simultaneously not employees or contractors. I just don't think that's tenable when it gets looked at closely.

Pay the minimum wage and invoice the scholarship athlete partial tuition, room and board for the after tax equivalent.

[Duvall]

To me, there is an obvious and clear end to all this. There are a group of schools -- the rich, TV-contract billionaire, BCS conference schools -- who would be perfectly happy to pay the players and set up a new structure outside the confines of the NCAA. Right now, inertia and a sense of obligation to their smaller counterparts; along with a desire to not have to deal with everything involved in managing the smaller non-revenue sports; is keeping those school stitched to the NCAA. But, a couple court rulings and lawsuits will likely provide all the incentive the ACC/SEC/PAC?/Big12/B!G schools need to build their own sandbox to play in... and there will be money for the players in that new sandbox.

-Jason "I will mourn it because it will be the end of the beautiful David-Goliath matchups in the NCAA hoops world that are so much fun, but I think it will be good for the players in the long run" Evans

Which players? Doesn't seem like it will do much for players in the leagues that would be deprived of NCAA tournament revenue, or the players from non-revenue sports whose teams are dropped to find the funds to pay football and basketball players.

[brevity]

If I was the lawyer representing the players and the NCAA made the "but your scholarship is ample compensation" argument, I would have a hard time deciding who to call as my first witness, Trajan Langdon, Clay Matthews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Matthews_III#College_career), Andre Drummond (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7377356/andre-drummond-play-uconn-walk-on), or perhaps Patrick Davidson.

-Jason "I'd probably opt for Patrick as the jury would look at him and instantly bend to his will... that's one of his superpowers" Evans

Patrick Davidson is a special case. The NCAA has rules regarding payment to amateurs, but they never anticipated a player whose nail clippings serve as currency in many countries. He is so money, literally.

[BigWayne]

Please be cognizant of the rule against discussing politics / public policy on this board. I think the mods are giving us leniency on the potential union discussion here because it is directly related to the NCAA, but making blanket statements about unions in general abuses this leniency, and invites those that disagree vehemently to respond in kind.

If it's something you'd like to discuss I would certainly respond to IM.

Getting back on topic, the NCAA has accumulated enough enemies that people are hitting them on this on multiple fronts. They are losing the PR war of defending the status quo. They are on the receiving end of multiple legal threats. The O'Bannon lawsuit is essentially an existential threat, but a series of small precedents could easily undermine them as well. A union would open a huge can of worms.

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before the NCAA status quo hits a tipping point.

I don't see how this topic can be discussed more than superficially without getting political.

I am very interested to see how it plays out as the creation of a union based system for the revenue sports will almost certainly be at direct odds with Title IX. It will be very interesting to see how the politically motivated segments of society take sides in this case. I am also waiting for the day when the players figure out that if they are unionized and paid as employees, they will have to pay union dues and taxes.

[ricks68]

Patrick Davidson is a special case. The NCAA has rules regarding payment to amateurs, but they never anticipated a player whose nail clippings serve as currency in many countries. He is so money, literally.

So, that's what clipcoins are. Now it is all clear to me.

ricks

[alteran]

I don't see how this topic can be discussed more than superficially without getting political.

I am very interested to see how it plays out as the creation of a union based system for the revenue sports will almost certainly be at direct odds with Title IX. It will be very interesting to see how the politically motivated segments of society take sides in this case. I am also waiting for the day when the players figure out that if they are unionized and paid as employees, they will have to pay union dues and taxes.

Are you seriously arguing that players should regard 1) getting paid, and having to hand a fraction of that away to a union and for taxes, is less financially advantageous than 2) not getting paid at all?

All I can say to that is that not all players go to UNC, my friend.

[-jk]

Paging Greybeard! (He has more experience in this arena than he has in Feldenkrais...)

-jk

[wilson]

...will have my popcorn ready.Meh. Pass the potato chips.

[A-Tex Devil]

The more and more I think about it, the more I think this is all going to blow up sooner than we'd like from a pure college sports fan perspective. Toeing a very fine line here, the South Park episode on the NCAA from several years isn't that far off.

The inertia comment upthread is really what is holding all of collegiate athletics together at this point. Unlike any other country, our minor leagues for two of of our 4 major sports (and part of the other two) are intertwined with our educational systems.

But I could envision some type of quasi-minor league where teams are associated with universities (at least initially), but the players are paid and don't have to go to class. The money would come from the alumni associations and would be completely unfair. But... it would be a similar evolution as English soccer where the clubs were simply representative of the town, village or neighborhood, and some evolved into behemoths while others languish in the fifth division for 100 years.

This is all just some futurist hair-brained scenario that hit me today as I've been ruminating on this. But I don't think the college football status quo will work, even via some kind of additional stipend. Either college football splits from intercollegiate athletics and becomes its own entity, or the NFL or some rich dudes fund a minor league and relegate college football to what college baseball is like today, at best, and glorified club teams, at worst - with many schools forgoing football altogether. That latter scenario is not an altogether bad thing, but it could gut revenues and put other sports at risk.

[ChillinDuke]

The more and more I think about it, the more I think this is all going to blow up sooner than we'd like from a pure college sports fan perspective. Toeing a very fine line here, the South Park episode on the NCAA from several years isn't that far off.

The inertia comment upthread is really what is holding all of collegiate athletics together at this point. Unlike any other country, our minor leagues for two of of our 4 major sports (and part of the other two) are intertwined with our educational systems.

But I could envision some type of quasi-minor league where teams are associated with universities (at least initially), but the players are paid and don't have to go to class. The money would come from the alumni associations and would be completely unfair. But... it would be a similar evolution as English soccer where the clubs were simply representative of the town, village or neighborhood, and some evolved into behemoths while others languish in the fifth division for 100 years.

This is all just some futurist hair-brained scenario that hit me today as I've been ruminating on this. But I don't think the college football status quo will work, even via some kind of additional stipend. Either college football splits from intercollegiate athletics and becomes its own entity, or the NFL or some rich dudes fund a minor league and relegate college football to what college baseball is like today, at best, and glorified club teams, at worst - with many schools forgoing football altogether. That latter scenario is not an altogether bad thing, but it could gut revenues and put other sports at risk.

This just hit you today? And not during the 101-page, 2000+ post Conference Realignment thread that you were the cornerstone of? :D

I keed. I keed.

- Chillin

[A-Tex Devil]

This just hit you today? And not during the 101-page, 2000+ post Conference Realignment thread that you were the cornerstone of? :D

I keed. I keed.

- Chillin

Well..... I never anticipated in that thread a world where the players wouldn't be students too. But i am starting to see where perhaps UNC was prescient here.

[cf-62]

The more and more I think about it, the more I think this is all going to blow up sooner than we'd like from a pure college sports fan perspective. Toeing a very fine line here, the South Park episode on the NCAA from several years isn't that far off.

The inertia comment upthread is really what is holding all of collegiate athletics together at this point. Unlike any other country, our minor leagues for two of of our 4 major sports (and part of the other two) are intertwined with our educational systems.

But I could envision some type of quasi-minor league where teams are associated with universities (at least initially), but the players are paid and don't have to go to class. The money would come from the alumni associations and would be completely unfair. But... it would be a similar evolution as English soccer where the clubs were simply representative of the town, village or neighborhood, and some evolved into behemoths while others languish in the fifth division for 100 years.

This is all just some futurist hair-brained scenario that hit me today as I've been ruminating on this. But I don't think the college football status quo will work, even via some kind of additional stipend. Either college football splits from intercollegiate athletics and becomes its own entity, or the NFL or some rich dudes fund a minor league and relegate college football to what college baseball is like today, at best, and glorified club teams, at worst - with many schools forgoing football altogether. That latter scenario is not an altogether bad thing, but it could gut revenues and put other sports at risk.

Let's be clear about something. This system of semi-professional football teams described above will not happen in more than a handful of places. Once it is not College Football, it will no longer get my money or my support. I would rather go watch a game of non-scholarship walk-ons who are students at Duke and UNC play each other than watch the Durham Azure Devils play for the "College" National Championship against the Tuscaloosa Elephants.

And for those that don't feel that way already, it will only take a year or two to realize that they are paying for the "Durham Bulls" of football, except that they're called the "Duke Bulls."

Is the NCAA a plantation system? There is a LOT of money passing between hands, but at the end of the day, the NCAA's statement is accurate. Participation in athletic endeavors is VOLUNTARY. If you are too stupid or misguided to NOT take advantage of your scholarship, educate yourself, and prepare yourself to earn a living, then that is on YOU. Even down the road at UNC, just because a counselor TOLD YOU about a fake class does not mean you HAVE TO TAKE IT. There are certainly a large number of football, basketball, lacrosse, and baseball players that didn't take those classes, so the argument that "UNC" didn't actually provide the value of the scholarship -- the responsibility lies with the athlete that CHOSE to take the fake class.

I believe that there are valid complaints about some aspects of the treatment of athletes: full cost scholarships should be allowed, medical expenses should be 100% covered, scholarships should be for 4 years. But I draw the line at "paying them" (beyond the full cost scholarship). It will be interesting to watch what happens with the O'Bannon case. A loss by the NCAA will result in massive changes, but they aren't what the media thinks they will be (everyone is assuming the semi-pro / D4 scenario). There is a completely different scenario that will likely occur, and the B1G has hinted at it.

The talent level will regress greatly, but the games will be a lot more fun - because it will be true interscholastic sports at the college level. There may not even be TV, since the on field product won't match the D4 teams - but those that want to root for their schools will still go, still tailgate, and still cheer.

[BigWayne]

Are you seriously arguing that players should regard 1) getting paid, and having to hand a fraction of that away to a union and for taxes, is less financially advantageous than 2) not getting paid at all?

All I can say to that is that not all players go to UNC, my friend.

If they are ruled to be employees and they continue to receive scholarships, then surely the cost of the scholarships will be deemed to be income that is taxable. This would especially be painful for schools like Duke with high tuition costs.

[lotusland]

Let's be clear about something. This system of semi-professional football teams described above will not happen in more than a handful of places. Once it is not College Football, it will no longer get my money or my support. I would rather go watch a game of non-scholarship walk-ons who are students at Duke and UNC play each other than watch the Durham Azure Devils play for the "College" National Championship against the Tuscaloosa Elephants.

And for those that don't feel that way already, it will only take a year or two to realize that they are paying for the "Durham Bulls" of football, except that they're called the "Duke Bulls."

Is the NCAA a plantation system? There is a LOT of money passing between hands, but at the end of the day, the NCAA's statement is accurate. Participation in athletic endeavors is VOLUNTARY. If you are too stupid or misguided to NOT take advantage of your scholarship, educate yourself, and prepare yourself to earn a living, then that is on YOU. Even down the road at UNC, just because a counselor TOLD YOU about a fake class does not mean you HAVE TO TAKE IT. There are certainly a large number of football, basketball, lacrosse, and baseball players that didn't take those classes, so the argument that "UNC" didn't actually provide the value of the scholarship -- the responsibility lies with the athlete that CHOSE to take the fake class.

I believe that there are valid complaints about some aspects of the treatment of athletes: full cost scholarships should be allowed, medical expenses should be 100% covered, scholarships should be for 4 years. But I draw the line at "paying them" (beyond the full cost scholarship). It will be interesting to watch what happens with the O'Bannon case. A loss by the NCAA will result in massive changes, but they aren't what the media thinks they will be (everyone is assuming the semi-pro / D4 scenario). There is a completely different scenario that will likely occur, and the B1G has hinted at it.

The talent level will regress greatly, but the games will be a lot more fun - because it will be true interscholastic sports at the college level. There may not even be TV, since the on field product won't match the D4 teams - but those that want to root for their schools will still go, still tailgate, and still cheer.

This is close to my view as well. It surprises me when all of these radical changes toward professionalism are discussed that scant consideration is given to the thought that many schools may realize that this new model is such an obvious far cry from what was intended as an extra-curricular activity and so far from their purported purpose that significant numbers may simply drop out.

Assuming even the most prestigious schools go along, I still don't think anything resembling "professional" college sports will generate interest and revenue anywhere near what the "amateur student athlete" model does. I'm picturing a press conference where a hot-shot HS senior, after weeks of tense negotiations between his agent and several schools, signs a multi-million dollar contract to play for UK. I can promise you that I will be out long before we reach that degree of capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt I'm alone.

[alteran]

If they are ruled to be employees and they continue to receive scholarships, then surely the cost of the scholarships will be deemed to be income that is taxable. This would especially be painful for schools like Duke with high tuition costs.

Gotcha.

That actually happened to my grandparents in the 70s. They were working in Saudi in the 70s. Housing was provided as part of the job that was significantly higher in value than the salary for the job. (The housing wasn't particularly special, but the location near the university was.)

The IRS sent a representative to explain the new interpretation of the compensation clause. My grandfather was one of many to complain that they would be losing money to stay there. The IRS guy's non-ironic response was that they could get a loan.

The IRS ultimately backed down, however. My guess is there would be a similar outcome here. Like the Saudi gov't, the schools are well-connected politically and I imagine they'd push back against such an interpretation, should the IRS go there.

[sagegrouse]

Are you seriously arguing that players should regard 1) getting paid, and having to hand a fraction of that away to a union and for taxes, is less financially advantageous than 2) not getting paid at all?

All I can say to that is that not all players go to UNC, my friend.


Paging Greybeard! (He has more experience in this arena than he has in Feldenkrais...)

-jk

Lessee.... For players to get the right to organize in the labor-union sense, the DoL or the regulatory agencies of either the US or Illinois has to decide they are employees. Then, one supposes, the athletic scholarships (worth $60K a year at Northwestern and Duke) would be recognized as compensation, which would then be taxable. Also, as non-exempt employees (not management), wouldn't they be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA? Anyway, if this issue catches on, it will be a national civics lesson about differences and similarities between college sports and the recognized workplace.

[alteran]

Lessee.... For players to get the right to organize in the labor-union sense, the DoL or the regulatory agencies of either the US or Illinois has to decide they are employees. Then, one supposes, the athletic scholarships (worth $60K a year at Northwestern and Duke) would be recognized as compensation, which would then be taxable. Also, as non-exempt employees (not management), wouldn't they be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA? Anyway, if this issue catches on, it will be a national civics lesson about differences and similarities between college sports and the recognized workplace.

Got it. I think I already addressed this above. To be clear, I'm just speculating on what would happen in this hypothetical case.

Should any one of these case/actions end up with players being ruled employees and the IRS needs to rule on compensation, the IRS will either:

1) rule tuition as compensation that is NOT taxable as income
2) rule tuition as compensation that IS taxable as income and destroy college revenue sports

I really, really, really don't think it will be the latter. JMHO, IANAL, YMMV, M-O-U-S-E.

[ChillinDuke]

This is close to my view as well. It surprises me when all of these radical changes toward professionalism are discussed that scant consideration is given to the thought that many schools may realize that this new model is such an obvious far cry from what was intended as an extra-curricular activity and so far from their purported purpose that significant numbers may simply drop out.

Assuming even the most prestigious schools go along, I still don't think anything resembling "professional" college sports will generate interest and revenue anywhere near what the "amateur student athlete" model does. I'm picturing a press conference where a hot-shot HS senior, after weeks of tense negotiations between his agent and several schools, signs a multi-million dollar contract to play for UK. I can promise you that I will be out long before we reach that degree of capitalism. Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt I'm alone.

Yeah, I think I agree with you.

Which is why I don't think this will ever happen.

In this day and age, the bottom line is revenue-generation and cash flows. If "college sports" goes down the route you describe above, there would be massive revenue destruction (IMO) on the whole. Good players may make more money - depending on how much actual interest there is in these "professional" college leagues. Bad players would most certainly make less money (in whatever form). TV would likely make less money - if for no other reason than less product to broadcast. Schools will make less money as they drop revenue sports (some will). Other students will lose scholarships due to Title IX considerations and dropping revenue sports, such as football. And I think college experiences, in general, would suffer for the vast majority of young students if for no other reason than less sports options at their respective schools for them to choose to enjoy and follow.

I understand the pay-the-players view that some have, from a micro case-by-case stand point at the high end of the skill distribution. But from a macro perspective, I just think the negative consequences of that singular decision would affect many, many parties and would net out to a much worse situation than we are in right now.

- Chillin

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Lessee.... For players to get the right to organize in the labor-union sense, the DoL or the regulatory agencies of either the US or Illinois has to decide they are employees. Then, one supposes, the athletic scholarships (worth $60K a year at Northwestern and Duke) would be recognized as compensation, which would then be taxable. Also, as non-exempt employees (not management), wouldn't they be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA? Anyway, if this issue catches on, it will be a national civics lesson about differences and similarities between college sports and the recognized workplace.

How about non-athletic scholarships? Would those get taxed too?

Seems like a complicated ball of twine to start unravelling. How about walk-ons with existing financial assistance or aid? How many loopholes can motivated schools find?

I think this union is a good thing, as it forces the issues to be discussed somewhere other than message boards and SportsCenter.

I also believe that college sports as we have known them are on life-support, and 12-15 years from now will be unrecognizeable, and that is a shame. I like to think that Duke will maintain whatever integrity there is left to hold on to, but with so much money at stake, it is tough.

Go Duke

[DrChainsaw]

I think there may be some interesting parallels with attempts by graduate student teaching assistants attempting to unionize. One of more interesting things (IIRC) was that "employees" of public vs. private schools are covered by different regulations and it was much easier for the TAs to unionize at public universities.

[77devil]

Lessee.... For players to get the right to organize in the labor-union sense, the DoL or the regulatory agencies of either the US or Illinois has to decide they are employees. Then, one supposes, the athletic scholarships (worth $60K a year at Northwestern and Duke) would be recognized as compensation, which would then be taxable. Also, as non-exempt employees (not management), wouldn't they be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and OSHA? Anyway, if this issue catches on, it will be a national civics lesson about differences and similarities between college sports and the recognized workplace.

Not necessarily as there are forms of employee non cash compensation that are not taxable or largely deferred. The only thing we can certain of if this issue moves ahead is that the boys on K Street will have a lot of new business.

[A-Tex Devil]

Seems like a complicated ball of twine to start unravelling. How about walk-ons with existing financial assistance or aid? How many loopholes can motivated schools find?

I think this union is a good thing, as it forces the issues to be discussed somewhere other than message boards and SportsCenter.

I also believe that college sports as we have known them are on life-support, and 12-15 years from now will be unrecognizeable, and that is a shame. I like to think that Duke will maintain whatever integrity there is left to hold on to, but with so much money at stake, it is tough.

Go Duke

This. Again -- when inertia is really the main thing keeping the current system in place, there are real problems. But when things start to unwind, it could all fall apart quickly I don't disagree with those above that say they'd never support local teams of college aged players in the same way they support their alma mater. The scenario I laid out in the previous post was kind of a brainstormed nuclear option if the "unions" get any kind of traction and *someone* has to pay the players.

The players, though, are fighting a steep, steep, uphill battle because they aren't around long enough to adequately stand up for themselves and get through the legal process, barring another O'Bannon type lawsuit. The NFL, the colleges, television, the non-revenue sports, the coaches, the fans, etc. are all reaping the benefits of the massive amount of money coming in for football, and there is much more permanence with all of those institutions.

[lotusland]

If you listen to the Bilas interview on the linked page he is not really on board with the union concept. He refers to the players right to earn their "market value" which IMO would be much more detrimental to college sports than a collective bargaining union approach which might produce an equal stipend for scholarship athletes in revenue sports versus each athlete finding out how much they are worth to various alumni associations and shoe companies.

I think revenue sports might fair much better under former than the latter.

[A-Tex Devil]

I understand the pay-the-players view that some have, from a micro case-by-case stand point at the high end of the skill distribution. But from a macro perspective, I just think the negative consequences of that singular decision would affect many, many parties and would net out to a much worse situation than we are in right now.

- Chillin

I don't disagree with this. But as more and more Johnny Manziels and Jameis Winstons individually generate millions upon millions of revenue for their schools and the NCAA, with no option to turn pro, I guess that's their sacrifice? They have no other options to cash in on that, so I guess they owe their conference/school/NCAA/ESPN the opportunity for the exposure.

But I still have a hard time not siding with a guy who has 70K fans in the stands wearing his number, off which the University makes a boatload, and he can't see a dime. And yes, I realize the slippery slope/infinite loop holes that would create for boosters, agents and that ilk, but it still strikes me as wrong.

[ChillinDuke]

I don't disagree with this. But as more and more Johnny Manziels and Jameis Winstons individually generate millions upon millions of revenue for their schools and the NCAA, with no option to turn pro, I guess that's their sacrifice? They have no other options to cash in on that, so I guess they owe their conference/school/NCAA/ESPN the opportunity for the exposure.

But I still have a hard time not siding with a guy who has 70K fans in the stands wearing his number, off which the University makes a boatload, and he can't see a dime. And yes, I realize the slippery slope/infinite loop holes that would create for boosters, agents and that ilk, but it still strikes me as wrong.

I see where you're coming from, qualitatively. The problem, as I've stated before, lies in quantification. How many of those fans wearing his jersey are doing so in support of him versus his/their school? In your example, 70K are wearing his jersey. Would 35K of them just wear a different jersey if he weren't on the team while 35K stay home? Would all 70K just wear a different jersey? Therein lies the problem. And frankly I've never heard anyone (on this board or anywhere else - although I probably have higher regard for this board than "anywhere else" on these topics) able to clearly articulate how to solve this problem.

I agree schools shouldn't clearly and directly profit off of a player. In your example, they probably shouldn't sell jerseys with Winston's number and definitely not with his name (I assume this is already outlawed). But to the degree the school is marketing/profiting/making money off of their own brand and their own identity, I find it very difficult to prove to what degree the players are quantitatively backing those cash inflows. Would you still watch if the pool of players on your team were 12 completely different kids (in the case of basketball)? My answer is yes. Others may disagree - which is fine. But in my case, how can you then quantify that the players are the ones that I'm paying for? I'm not saying snub them completely - but they're also not getting snubbed (as a whole) as it stands.

And my point in my previous post was that a lot of people talk about paying "market value" to the players (a la Bilas). Once you start attacking the system as it currently stands with a complete overhaul like "market value" without answering this very difficult quantitative question discussed above, then if it falls apart you are doing a lot more harm than good to a lot of people and a lot of invested parties.

A union is an interesting attempt at addressing this. The permanence part of it seems to be a barrier at first blush.

- Chillin

[Jarhead]

Does anyone have a solution? None that would work, so it must not be a problem. For any career path there are students, interns, and apprentices. Are football and basketball players outside of that structure? I don't think so. However, for all those people, students, interns, and apprentices, a little help in covering their day to day expenses and training costs is a fair approach. But that's all. Unions are for professionals.

[Thurber Whyte]

Some random thoughts:

All of this turns on the definition of “employee.” What may be surprising, but is typical of Employment Law statues generally, is that that word was never defined in the original National Labor Relations Act. For a while, courts generally used something called the economic realities test, which purported to be “realist” test. Later, Congress specified that the common law definition of the word was to be used, which is based on agency principles. Realist or not, both tests are similar and are mainly used to distinguish employees from contractors rather than get at the essence of what it means to be employed. They are not particularly helpful in this context. To the extent they are, they seem to cut against the idea of student athletes as employees.

The idea of amateur athletics is that athletes compete and bring glory to themselves and, in the process, their patrons. Is the U.S. Olympic Committee or any of its allied sports federations employers? Coaches, at least in the context of amateur team sports, would seem to be an additional benefit provided to athletes rather than an employee/boss relationship. Coaches are provided to help the athletes realize their full potential. Many professional athletes in individual sports hire their own coaches/trainers/managers/caddies. In a university context, coaches would also seem to be akin to professors: students pay them to learn through their tuition (and universities as patrons pay the tuition).

Approaching it from the other direction, sports are fun, but traditionally they are seen as part of the University’s larger educational mission, which incorporates Greek notions of a strong body going hand in hand with a strong intellect. It begs the question about who is performing a service for whom when a university subsidizes or facilitates athletic competition. Some universities, a fraction of the 4,500 or so degree granting institutions in this country the vast majority of which have athletics, do make money off of sports. However, nonprofits are allowed to make money. That is not the issue. Nonprofits must use that money for their own purposes rather than pay it out to investors. Universities do that. They money they make off of revenue sports either covers costs or supports the rest of their athletics department’s budget. Some schools lose money even on revenue sports.

One of the attractions of going the labor law route is that working conditions and compensation are what are called “mandatory subjects” under the NLRA, meaning that employers cannot refuse to bargain over those issues. They have to come to the table and bargain in good faith and can be sanctioned by the National Labor Relations Board if they do not. If a student players’ union gets certified, then a university cannot refuse to negotiate in order to take a principled stand against compensation for athletes as a general matter.

As someone pointed out, government agencies are not covered by the NLRB, meaning public universities would seem to be exempt. However, the value of tuition at a private university is usually much higher than public universities so private school athlete employees would not seem to be in a position to haggle over compensation because the going rate for their services would seem to be less than what they are already making. Mandatory bargaining would seem to be a Phyrric victory.

States have their own labor laws for public employees though so unionization might still a possibility for pubic university student athletes.

In the private sector, wage bills for companies tend to be inelastic so unions have to choose between maximizing employment for their members and maximizing wages. They cannot do both. Over the years, unions have overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Athletic Department budgets are already break even affairs. Even if the conceptual problems are overcome, the net effect of unionization for student athletes would be to increase compensation for some and reduce opportunities for others.

To amplify Mountain Devils’s point, universities give scholarships for all sorts of reasons. Some of them require service of one kind or another in return but others do not. Does any sort of service requirement make scholarship students employees? Are A.B. Duke Scholars employees? It seems that they are paid to come to our university and be awesome.

[A-Tex Devil]

Does anyone have a solution? None that would work, so it must not be a problem. For any career path there are students, interns, and apprentices. Are football and basketball players outside of that structure? I don't think so. However, for all those people, students, interns, and apprentices, a little help in covering their day to day expenses and training costs is a fair approach. But that's all. Unions are for professionals.

I get all of this. But at the end of the day, *why* are we trying to salvage big time college football (I'll set aside basketball for a moment) as an amateur sport, as opposed to recognizing it as constructive minor leagues?

The reasons are pretty superficial ---> the fandom, tradition, money for the schools, a little fear of change, etc. Not to mention a minor league with no operating costs for the NFL. But what of the actual players playing the sport? I imagine a good portion of the elite (let's say, the top 300 recruits out of high school per year, which makes 900 players that can't play in the NFL yet -- 15 60 player teams) would prefer to start getting paid right away, even if it is in obscure minor leagues. Why is it OK for baseball and hockey for kids, who may not be that well off, to forgo a full ride and toil away in the minor leagues, but it seems to be verboten in football: "gotta get them that education."

I really don't have a solution either. But I just find a lot of the reasons why players shouldn't be paid to be hollow. If the players get what they want, I agree that could blow up big time college football as we know it between schools participating in the arms race, and those that decide to pack it in and devalue or drop football. But I sympathize with the players, whose temporary position and, frankly, lack of organizing power, will continue to put them at a disadvantage, while making lots of other people rich.

[ChillinDuke]

I get all of this. But at the end of the day, *why* are we trying to salvage big time college football (I'll set aside basketball for a moment) as an amateur sport, as opposed to recognizing it as constructive minor leagues?

The reasons are pretty superficial ---> the fandom, tradition, money for the schools, a little fear of change, etc. Not to mention a minor league with no operating costs for the NFL. But what of the actual players playing the sport? I imagine a good portion of the elite (let's say, the top 300 recruits out of high school per year, which makes 900 players that can't play in the NFL yet -- 15 60 player teams) would prefer to start getting paid right away, even if it is in obscure minor leagues. Why is it OK for baseball and hockey for kids, who may not be that well off, to forgo a full ride and toil away in the minor leagues, but it seems to be verboten in football: "gotta get them that education."

I really don't have a solution either. But I just find a lot of the reasons why players shouldn't be paid to be hollow. If the players get what they want, I agree that could blow up big time college football as we know it between schools participating in the arms race, and those that decide to pack it in and devalue or drop football. But I sympathize with the players, whose temporary position and, frankly, lack of organizing power, will continue to put them at a disadvantage, while making lots of other people rich.

I, for one, am not.

Selfishly, I like college football. I admit that up front.

That admission out of the way, my belief is that this vague "market value" approach is very simply removing the "college" aspect from "college football". That's it and that's all. Once you are paying market-based salaries then the rules of the game are completely different, the incentive structure is completely different, it's just apples and oranges. In my opinion.

The market value approach would simply destroy college football. The only way I see it playing out is in the inevitable creation of a new football league (perhaps somehow loosely affiliated with colleges, at least in the beginning - you actually alluded to this concept a few posts ago). Think of it as the minor leagues or whatever floats your boat. That league would then have to stand on its own. For the first few years, there would probably be enough residual fandom from college fans to keep it going. But 10 years down the road, would people really care about this 2nd tier league?

Do people really care about minor league baseball? Minor league hockey? Arena Football? Clearly, nowhere near as much as college football.

Meanwhile, removing college football from campuses would ruin the scholarship balance of Title IX. How would 60 female scholarships survive this change? Inevitably, how would some of these would-be female student athletes afford to go to school? Not to mention the lesser would-be college football players that wouldn't sniff an NFL roster. Do they then play a year, tear their ACL, then have no college to fall back on? TV contracts would dry up in a hurry as I doubt anywhere near the amount of eyeballs that want to watch Penn State play Notre Dame would care about (10-year-down-the-road) Middle Pennsylvania vs Rural Indiana football on FSN 7. Net net, it's possible the NFL even suffers from such a move - although the hypotheticals are getting too hard to predict at that point.

Listen, I'm using a ton of hypotheticals, I know. But a lot of them, at least in the short term, seem to be, at worst, reasonable possibilities. So it's not a fear of change for me. It's a lack of proven viewpoints that seem to add enough weight to the counter-arguments in this situation to back a "market value" approach to college football. That's it. Yeah - Johnny Football may get paid more but Johnny Pots-n-Pans somewhere else would get jack.

There's a lot going on here and it's being oversimplified to look at the cream of the crop's "unfortunate" or "unfair" situation. But I'm not sure they'd even be in that situation if it weren't for all the other factors around them. And if you give them their cake, their seat at the table may be pulled out from under them before they can even eat it.

- Chillin

[arnie]

I get all of this. But at the end of the day, *why* are we trying to salvage big time college football (I'll set aside basketball for a moment) as an amateur sport, as opposed to recognizing it as constructive minor leagues?

The reasons are pretty superficial ---> the fandom, tradition, money for the schools, a little fear of change, etc. Not to mention a minor league with no operating costs for the NFL. But what of the actual players playing the sport? I imagine a good portion of the elite (let's say, the top 300 recruits out of high school per year, which makes 900 players that can't play in the NFL yet -- 15 60 player teams) would prefer to start getting paid right away, even if it is in obscure minor leagues. Why is it OK for baseball and hockey for kids, who may not be that well off, to forgo a full ride and toil away in the minor leagues, but it seems to be verboten in football: "gotta get them that education."

I really don't have a solution either. But I just find a lot of the reasons why players shouldn't be paid to be hollow. If the players get what they want, I agree that could blow up big time college football as we know it between schools participating in the arms race, and those that decide to pack it in and devalue or drop football. But I sympathize with the players, whose temporary position and, frankly, lack of organizing power, will continue to put them at a disadvantage, while making lots of other people rich.

I disagree with some of your ideology - but totally agree with the concept of a pro football minor league. As we have seen with the Heels, many of their players would have preferred no classes, no education, etc. There is no reason they should should be attending college to solely develop their football skills. I don't know how we "force" the NFL to provide minor leagues, but that would be a great solution. I; however, have the strong belief that the college football/basketball players should not be paid and their benefit limited to free tuition, room, meals, books, etc. The fans are cheering for their school and we will be there regardless of whether player A or player B is the quarterback.

Its interesting that Jay Bilas, Dick Davenzio (sp?) and others that had no pro career possibilities are often the ones harping on "pay for players" in college. I may have missed it, but I don't recall Michael Jordan, Bill Walton, Charles Barkley, Jay Williams, Grant Hill saying they should have been paid during college.

[A-Tex Devil]

Good posts, everyone. I definitely struggle with what my ideal outcome is here. My initial reaction to paying players is negative, because the domino effect it would have on the college game and potentially other sports. And I like college football, and am excited for the playoff starting next year.

But when i dig deeper, I also can't fault a group of people that collectively are the *reason* a bunch of other people are getting rich, for wanting more. This isn't analogous to a corporation or even the academic structure. The consumer is paying to watch the people that are, in a lot of ways, benefitting the least from that consumer's dollar, or at least any significant benefit the players have is pretty indirect.

Maybe the status quo, with a move to division 4 is the only way to go, hoping the house of cards stays up. But based on the NCAA's recent impotence the last 10 years, the impossibility of reigning in the $1,000 handshakes (inflation, yo), and the increasing facilities arms races, college football will likely become more semi-pro than it already is, only with the under the table money continuing to grow. Is that better? Perhaps that's the Faustian deal that has to be made to keep the other sports afloat.

[lotusland]

I get all of this. But at the end of the day, *why* are we trying to salvage big time college football (I'll set aside basketball for a moment) as an amateur sport, as opposed to recognizing it as constructive minor leagues?

The reasons are pretty superficial ---> the fandom, tradition, money for the schools, a little fear of change, etc. Not to mention a minor league with no operating costs for the NFL. But what of the actual players playing the sport? I imagine a good portion of the elite (let's say, the top 300 recruits out of high school per year, which makes 900 players that can't play in the NFL yet -- 15 60 player teams) would prefer to start getting paid right away, even if it is in obscure minor leagues. Why is it OK for baseball and hockey for kids, who may not be that well off, to forgo a full ride and toil away in the minor leagues, but it seems to be verboten in football: "gotta get them that education."

I really don't have a solution either. But I just find a lot of the reasons why players shouldn't be paid to be hollow. If the players get what they want, I agree that could blow up big time college football as we know it between schools participating in the arms race, and those that decide to pack it in and devalue or drop football. But I sympathize with the players, whose temporary position and, frankly, lack of organizing power, will continue to put them at a disadvantage, while making lots of other people rich.

From the standpoint of the NCAA and it's member institutions, football IS the same as baseball. It's the respective pro leagues that treat them different and I don't think their motive has anything to do with educating the players. Why then should the NCAA be radically reformed? Shouldn't the law suits and unions be directed at the NBA and NFL?

[A-Tex Devil]

From the standpoint of the NCAA and it's member institutions, football IS the same as baseball. It's the respective pro leagues that treat them different and I don't think their motive has anything to do with educating the players. Why then should the NCAA be radically reformed? Shouldn't the law suits and unions be directed at the NBA and NFL?

And that's why the Big 5 conferences want to exit the NCAA, at least for football. It's a charade to treat football the same as the other sports at this point. But that's a whole different discussion.

As far as suing NFL/NBA, Maurice Clarett tried and lost, and I don't know how college students can unionize against an unrelated entity (from a corporate perspective). You can't enjoin the NFL to create a minor league system. If Goodell, et al. thought it was a financially sound idea, I'm sure they'd do it. But why create the cow when they get the milk for free? The NFL has no motivation outside an upstart league that actually gets traction (and we've seen how futile that is) to create a minor league system at this point.

[Indoor66]

I have been a huge basketball fan since the 1950's. I have slight interest in football. This year I watched all of the Duke games on TV or the Internet (as available). I watched the football because Duke was competitive AND the name on the jersey was Duke. If all of the juggling, suing, negotiating, etc. results in non-student athletes playing basketball, football, LAX, baseball, etc., I will not pay attention any more. It will no longer be intercollegiate athletics it will be semi-pro. I can watch pro players all day long with no emotional involvement and, as a result, no interest.

IMO, if they go to paid players, college athletics will die on the vine and they will kill a great deal of the interest from Alum and serious fans. I became a Duke fan long before I went to Duke. My fan status ties to Duke - not Jabari, not Grant, not Tinkerbell, not Howard Hurt or any other single players. If you make them loyal to their union, their contract, their paycheck rather than loyal to Duke, you lose me - day one.

[Duvall]

And that's why the Big 5 conferences want to exit the NCAA, at least for football. It's a charade to treat football the same as the other sports at this point. But that's a whole different discussion.

It's genuinely hilarious that football is going to destroy college sports just before the sport itself goes the way of bear-baiting.

[throatybeard]

Do I remember this correctly? I want to say ESPN's Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame did an episode on why you can't blame the NCAA for not paying players. I think one of the main ones was Title IX. Football has to pay for the nonrevenue sports, including all women's sports except perhaps WBB at a few schools (UConn, Tennessee).

I can't remember the other four reasons. One was probably the scholarship-is-already-pay argument.

[throatybeard]

It's genuinely hilarious that football is going to destroy college sports just before the sport itself goes the way of bear-baiting.

I'll take this bet. In 2035, if energy austerity hasn't yes brought us to our knees, but probably even if it has, American football will be as popular or more popular than it is now, in the US.

Now, that doesn't mean well-off people are going to send their sons out for this insanity. (I'm reminded of what Allen Murray said--I enjoy football, but only if I don't think about it too much). Football will increasingly be staffed by kids from low-income families. This is already happening. A lottery ticket seems more plausible if you have less to lose. I know a bunch of poor young guys in Mississippi who honestly thought they'd work their way from community college to the NFL, until their bodies started falling apart at age 19 or 21. But there are like 315M people in this country. Young males in particular feel invulnerable and are comfortable with risk. The population will be greater in 2035. They'll be able to find enough young males to hit each other.

I think another factor that will strengthen football or at least keep it from going the way of bear-baiting is one that everyone mentions as a threat to the NFL, but one that may become a strength. Guys on ESPN radio like to ululate about how the NFL really needs to think carefully about how almost everyone would rather watch on their flat-panel than go to the games. ESPN ran a poll a little while back. 82% watch at home, 9% sportsbar, 9% stadium. Oh dear, the NFL will die. Yeah, no. That would be a massive problem for the NFL if it depended on ticket sales as much as the NHL, but it doesn't. And the way that TV makes the violence seem virtual instead of real--I think that keeps people ON board, not off.

I remember my first semester at Mississippi State. (I never went to an NFL game before I came to StL, and even then I've only been to like three Rams games). I'm a good little school spirit guy, and I get my season tickets for Sylvester Croom's first season while I'm still writing my diss at Duke. I'm excited. First AfAm head coach in the SEC's premiere sport. Wooo. Bad team (3-8), but hey, they upset Florida.

I was shocked at the violence. I couldn't believe it. People will say the SEC is way more fierce than the ACC, but I think the bigger factor was that silly track around the football field at Wade. You're five miles from the action. As faculty, I got a discount at MSU and my seats were sweet, and I could not believe what these guys were doing to each other. It was the sound, really, not the visuals. I've never played football, so it was really the un-amplified sounds of the collisions that freaked me out. And this protection that distance gives you is what the TV does for you as well. There's a cognitive disconnect that protects you when you watch the NFL on TV. You see they guy jacked up, but you don't feel it the same way as you do when you're twelve yards from the action. (Remember that segment ESPN used to do about hard hits called JACKED UP? Notice how they've eliminated it since the concussion concerns got taken seriously). My second year, I made pals with the Associate Dean, and he gave me a ticket in club level. I came for the A/C, but I stayed for the fact that I could watch other games on TV, and the game I was at was like watching it on TV because I was up in the air conditioned glass haven.

TV makes the insane violence of this sport more palatable, not less. The NFL has never done better on TV. As TV and the NFL french kiss each other on a massive pile of our money, we viewers are desensitized to how awful the violence in this game is.

If I'm alive, I'll be paying for pay TV so I can see Thomas Bundchen Belichick Brady Jr, a 2032 graduate of the University of Michigan, lay waste to the 2037 Rams' defense.

[cf-62]

I get all of this. But at the end of the day, *why* are we trying to salvage big time college football (I'll set aside basketball for a moment) as an amateur sport, as opposed to recognizing it as constructive minor leagues?

The reasons are pretty superficial ---> the fandom, tradition, money for the schools, a little fear of change, etc. Not to mention a minor league with no operating costs for the NFL. But what of the actual players playing the sport? I imagine a good portion of the elite (let's say, the top 300 recruits out of high school per year, which makes 900 players that can't play in the NFL yet -- 15 60 player teams) would prefer to start getting paid right away, even if it is in obscure minor leagues. Why is it OK for baseball and hockey for kids, who may not be that well off, to forgo a full ride and toil away in the minor leagues, but it seems to be verboten in football: "gotta get them that education."

I really don't have a solution either. But I just find a lot of the reasons why players shouldn't be paid to be hollow. If the players get what they want, I agree that could blow up big time college football as we know it between schools participating in the arms race, and those that decide to pack it in and devalue or drop football. But I sympathize with the players, whose temporary position and, frankly, lack of organizing power, will continue to put them at a disadvantage, while making lots of other people rich.

As with our annual discussions about the one-and-done vs. none-and-done kids, you're talking about such a SMALL set of kids associated with the sport, even within the proposed D4.

There are 224 kids drafted into the NFL every April. That includes players from all NCAA divisions, but let's focus on D1 (124 current schools, going to 128). That's 10,880 scholarships.

If you evenly spread out over 5 years, that's 2,176 scholarships per year. So about 10% of the kids will get drafted, about 1% will make a roster. Of those 25 kids, maybe 5 will be stars, 1 or 2 superstars. And entering school, they KNOW this. Thus, the VAST VAST VAST majority of football players in DI are there to leverage football as a way to enter college (or get in a better college) to get a degree.

Even within the proposed D4, IF (and it's a big IF) all NFL prospects played within D4, then you're still talking about 20% and 2%.

If I were FORCED to pay a market value to the kids for what they CONTRIBUTE to the profits made by the school, first you would remove the residual value inherent in the school (and NCAA) brand ALREADY!!! In other words, Jameis Winston doesn't get to claim any of the value of the FSU brand created by Charlie Ward, Deion Sanders, Bobby Bowden, etc. He only gets to claim the value HE brings to FSU.

That may actually be considered a large amount, but you could argue that scholarship numbers 21 - 85 don't add ANY inherent value to the program. This is the problem with the "market value" proposals. The stars are what people want to talk about, and today's social media outlets make it worse, but when we talk about "changing the system" to fix it, we're talking about "fixing" it for the very privileged few.

I'll reiterate the idea that players have some valid concerns: full cost scholarships, 4 year scholarships, complete medical coverage. But a DI football player CHOOSES to play Football ANDDDD they CHOOSE their school. So in this world, saying they NEED representation as a collective group is bogus. They can choose to leave Northwestern. If they DON'T WANT to leave Northwestern (because there is inherent value in attending Northwestern), then they are being "fairly compensated" for their choices. They are choosing to play football in poorer conditions than at another school, in exchange for a degree from a Top 10 university.

[lotusland]

I'll take this bet. In 2035, if energy austerity hasn't yes brought us to our knees, but probably even if it has, American football will be as popular or more popular than it is now, in the US.

Now, that doesn't mean well-off people are going to send their sons out for this insanity. (I'm reminded of what Allen Murray said--I enjoy football, but only if I don't think about it too much). Football will increasingly be staffed by kids from low-income families. This is already happening. A lottery ticket seems more plausible if you have less to lose. I know a bunch of poor young guys in Mississippi who honestly thought they'd work their way from community college to the NFL, until their bodies started falling apart at age 19 or 21. But there are like 315M people in this country. Young males in particular feel invulnerable and are comfortable with risk. The population will be greater in 2035. They'll be able to find enough young males to hit each other.

I think another factor that will strengthen football or at least keep it from going the way of bear-baiting is one that everyone mentions as a threat to the NFL, but one that may become a strength. Guys on ESPN radio like to ululate about how the NFL really needs to think carefully about how almost everyone would rather watch on their flat-panel than go to the games. ESPN ran a poll a little while back. 82% watch at home, 9% sportsbar, 9% stadium. Oh dear, the NFL will die. Yeah, no. That would be a massive problem for the NFL if it depended on ticket sales as much as the NHL, but it doesn't. And the way that TV makes the violence seem virtual instead of real--I think that keeps people ON board, not off.

I remember my first semester at Mississippi State. (I never went to an NFL game before I came to StL, and even then I've only been to like three Rams games). I'm a good little school spirit guy, and I get my season tickets for Sylvester Croom's first season while I'm still writing my diss at Duke. I'm excited. First AfAm head coach in the SEC's premiere sport. Wooo. Bad team (3-8), but hey, they upset Florida.

I was shocked at the violence. I couldn't believe it. People will say the SEC is way more fierce than the ACC, but I think the bigger factor was that silly track around the football field at Wade. You're five miles from the action. As faculty, I got a discount at MSU and my seats were sweet, and I could not believe what these guys were doing to each other. It was the sound, really, not the visuals. I've never played football, so it was really the un-amplified sounds of the collisions that freaked me out. And this protection that distance gives you is what the TV does for you as well. There's a cognitive disconnect that protects you when you watch the NFL on TV. You see they guy jacked up, but you don't feel it the same way as you do when you're twelve yards from the action. (Remember that segment ESPN used to do about hard hits called JACKED UP? Notice how they've eliminated it since the concussion concerns got taken seriously). My second year, I made pals with the Associate Dean, and he gave me a ticket in club level. I came for the A/C, but I stayed for the fact that I could watch other games on TV, and the game I was at was like watching it on TV because I was up in the air conditioned glass haven.

TV makes the insane violence of this sport more palatable, not less. The NFL has never done better on TV. As TV and the NFL french kiss each other on a massive pile of our money, we viewers are desensitized to how awful the violence in this game is.

If I'm alive, I'll be paying for pay TV so I can see Thomas Bundchen Belichick Brady Jr, a 2032 graduate of the University of Michigan, lay waste to the 2037 Rams' defense.

You would not be betting on the American public's appetite for violence. Big time college and pro football demands a massive training apparatus in primary education and even pop Warner leagues. The further down the chain you the less economic impact. Pop Warner and junior high school football are not profitable. The risks are no longer debatable but the costs are currently being calculated. A judge just said the half billion dollar NFL settlement is not enough. They will be establishing actuarial tables to determine the cost. These non profitable lower tier leagues need insurance no? It could snow ball in ways we cannot imagine now and I'm inclined to believe it will.

[A-Tex Devil]

I'll reiterate the idea that players have some valid concerns: full cost scholarships, 4 year scholarships, complete medical coverage. But a DI football player CHOOSES to play Football ANDDDD they CHOOSE their school. So in this world, saying they NEED representation as a collective group is bogus. They can choose to leave Northwestern. If they DON'T WANT to leave Northwestern (because there is inherent value in attending Northwestern), then they are being "fairly compensated" for their choices. They are choosing to play football in poorer conditions than at another school, in exchange for a degree from a Top 10 university.

First -- although I've used Manziel and Winston as examples throughout, I don't like the "open market value" solution at all, at least if we are going to maintain the illusion of student-athlete/amateurism. Anything open market requires a disconnect from the university system, in my opinion. I lean to the idea that the money in the system has increased so extraordinarily, such that we even have million dollar assistant coaches and athletic directors, strength coordinators making $500K, etc. that football players, at least in the big money conferences, are owed a piece of that too. Perhaps a portion of the TV contract for a conference is distributed ratably among players, with seniors getting more than, juniors, on down the line... There are obviously flaws there, but something along those lines seems right. Maybe make it completely merit based -- wins, bowl wins, championships, all paid from a pool of TV money. Unfortunately, that probably opens up the "employee" pandora's box, and a whole other range of issues/loopholes/problems. Again -- I don't have a great answer here (luckily I'm not getting paid to find one), and like any complicated solution, whatever finally happens is both (1) going to tick a large group of people off, and (2) have unintended consequences.

Switching gears, I think the more general, obviously unanswerable, question becomes would FBS football be as lucrative if the NFL had a minor league system that allowed the most talented kids to jump straight out of high school, like baseball does, such that a large majority (let's say 75%) of the top 300-500 high school kids every year bypassed college.

If the answer is "YES" or "ALMOST", then I concede all concerns I have about the players' stake in the exponentially increasing value of college football. If the answer is a resounding "NO," then why, again, shouldn't the actual entertainers (when you get right down to it) reap some of the ever-increasing reward?

[cf-62]

Switching gears, I think the more general, obviously unanswerable, question becomes would FBS football be as lucrative if the NFL had a minor league system that allowed the most talented kids to jump straight out of high school, like baseball does, such that a large majority (let's say 75%) of the top 300-500 high school kids every year bypassed college.

If the answer is "YES" or "ALMOST", then I concede all concerns I have about the players' stake in the exponentially increasing value of college football. If the answer is a resounding "NO," then why, again, shouldn't the actual entertainers (when you get right down to it) reap some of the ever-increasing reward?

I'll ignore the "Complicated Solutions" statements, as I will no doubtedly regress into political discussion.

But what you've written here is the crux of the - er - misunderstanding by "SPORTS" writers and the reality of college athletics. Assuming Title IX aside -- which is the GIANT elephant in the room of any decision to pay ANYBODY -- is the idea of non-student athletes representing the schools. There are two specific talking points that seem to be coming out of this.

1) The players make the school millions of dollars
2) UNC proves that they aren't student athletes already

1) The PROGRAM makes the schools the money, and a BIG PART of that money is the donations from alumni. There are lots of reasons to give money, but the biggest is because of the connection we feel with our soon-to-be-fellow-alumni, and how much we marvel at their ability to cut it at our school while also committing themselves to success on the football field.

Now, Duke has funded their other sports with football for decades with none of the top 300 players in the country committing to them. So the answer to your question - do alumni care if their football team doesn't have 10 - 50 potential NFL players on the team? That is a RESOUNDING NO. They will continue to go to games, and continue to watch the games. I will make the trip to South Bend even if Notre Dame is awful (and if we are awful) because the pageantry of a Notre Dame football game is the same, whether it's Joe Montana at QB or some guy we'll never hear of again.

2) My favorite current problematic arguments are guys that infer from the AFAM scandal at UNC that football players aren't student athletes, so "let's stop the charade." This torks me for several reasons. First, it buys into the Heels weak argument that "everybody does this. We just got caught" mantra. The truth is that for decades, UNC was able to put together a successful football program with student athletes, but paid the Butch Davis piper to try to get into the elite tier.

Whether you're talking about the kids that signed up for bogus classes, or the kids that probably shouldn't have been admitted to UNC in the first place, the problem is fixed by acting ethically on the academic side (not admitting kids that have no business being there / treating athletes as students, even if they're bad students). This isn't fixed by saying "interscholastic sports shouldn't exist." It's fixed by making sure the scholastics actually occur - and holding schools accountable when they're not.

[BigWayne]

As with our annual discussions about the one-and-done vs. none-and-done kids, you're talking about such a SMALL set of kids associated with the sport, even within the proposed D4.

There are 224 kids drafted into the NFL every April. That includes players from all NCAA divisions, but let's focus on D1 (124 current schools, going to 128). That's 10,880 scholarships.

If you evenly spread out over 5 years, that's 2,176 scholarships per year. So about 10% of the kids will get drafted, about 1% will make a roster. Of those 25 kids, maybe 5 will be stars, 1 or 2 superstars. And entering school, they KNOW this. Thus, the VAST VAST VAST majority of football players in DI are there to leverage football as a way to enter college (or get in a better college) to get a degree.

Even within the proposed D4, IF (and it's a big IF) all NFL prospects played within D4, then you're still talking about 20% and 2%.

If I were FORCED to pay a market value to the kids for what they CONTRIBUTE to the profits made by the school, first you would remove the residual value inherent in the school (and NCAA) brand ALREADY!!! In other words, Jameis Winston doesn't get to claim any of the value of the FSU brand created by Charlie Ward, Deion Sanders, Bobby Bowden, etc. He only gets to claim the value HE brings to FSU.

That may actually be considered a large amount, but you could argue that scholarship numbers 21 - 85 don't add ANY inherent value to the program. This is the problem with the "market value" proposals. The stars are what people want to talk about, and today's social media outlets make it worse, but when we talk about "changing the system" to fix it, we're talking about "fixing" it for the very privileged few.

I'll reiterate the idea that players have some valid concerns: full cost scholarships, 4 year scholarships, complete medical coverage. But a DI football player CHOOSES to play Football ANDDDD they CHOOSE their school. So in this world, saying they NEED representation as a collective group is bogus. They can choose to leave Northwestern. If they DON'T WANT to leave Northwestern (because there is inherent value in attending Northwestern), then they are being "fairly compensated" for their choices. They are choosing to play football in poorer conditions than at another school, in exchange for a degree from a Top 10 university.
This and many of the other well thought out posts here illustrate how unionizing the players (the original topic here) is almost farcical. The idea of compensation above and beyond scholarships can only be justified for the top percentage of players. The overwhelming majority of the players are already receiving a payout through scholarships that is way above their value. Look at the compensation in pro sports and compare the minimum salaries to the headline makers. It's a very steep curve at some point in the equation. How a union can help is beyond me. If there had been a union in place all these years, it would have most likely advocated for a system like what we have where all players get more or less the same compensation. While they may continue to advocate for a similar flat system if they get certified, they are basically poking the bees nest and there is an extremely high chance it settles out completely differently in the end than what they are hoping for.

[vick]

Now, Duke has funded their other sports with football for decades with none of the top 300 players in the country committing to them. So the answer to your question - do alumni care if their football team doesn't have 10 - 50 potential NFL players on the team? That is a RESOUNDING NO. They will continue to go to games, and continue to watch the games. I will make the trip to South Bend even if Notre Dame is awful (and if we are awful) because the pageantry of a Notre Dame football game is the same, whether it's Joe Montana at QB or some guy we'll never hear of again.

This doesn't make much economic sense to me as an argument against paying players, because if alumni go to and watch games at the same rate as before, the market-clearing wage for players will be $0--why would a school pay more if player quality doesn't impact interest?

[cf-62]

This doesn't make much economic sense to me as an argument against paying players, because if alumni go to and watch games at the same rate as before, the market-clearing wage for players will be $0--why would a school pay more if player quality doesn't impact interest?

Don't confuse "interest in going to the game / watching the team / rooting for your school" with a COACH'S desire / need to WIN GAMES!!!!!!!!!!

The facilities arms race, the cheating that does occur, etc. etc. etc. goes to feed the coaches. If I were a coach, I would be asking for amenities, the facilities upgrades, etc. Anything I can to legally make life better for my kids puts me at an advantage for recruiting. Which comes back full circle to a kid CHOOSING where they play.

Would you still advocate the pay scenario if there were NO FREE AGENTS, but a 64 team draft instead?

[throatybeard]

You would not be betting on the American public's appetite for violence. Big time college and pro football demands a massive training apparatus in primary education and even pop Warner leagues. The further down the chain you the less economic impact. Pop Warner and junior high school football are not profitable. The risks are no longer debatable but the costs are currently being calculated. A judge just said the half billion dollar NFL settlement is not enough. They will be establishing actuarial tables to determine the cost. These non profitable lower tier leagues need insurance no? It could snow ball in ways we cannot imagine now and I'm inclined to believe it will.

I'm not saying there aren't liability concerns. But this is a country where you can make a movie about killing hundreds of people, and it gets a PG-13 rating. But if one single boob makes an appearance, it has to have an R rating, because God forbid anyone under 17 see one single boob. When I was eleven years old, we were on a school trip, sitting in a hotel room, watching some Steven Seagal movie on free televsion. We counted how many people he killed in the movie. I think it was 35. I was eleven. No one seemed to have a problem with this.

Many Americans adore violence. MMA is huge now. The NHL still lets the players have fights during the game, for Pete's sake. We've even got sports that didn't used to be very violent and have gotten more so (basketball).

Don't the lower-tier levels already have insurance? Don't the parents have to sign waivers? (I'm asking--I don't know).

[JasonEvans]

There are 224 kids drafted into the NFL every April. That includes players from all NCAA divisions, but let's focus on D1 (124 current schools, going to 128). That's 10,880 scholarships.

If you evenly spread out over 5 years, that's 2,176 scholarships per year. So about 10% of the kids will get drafted, about 1% will make a roster. Of those 25 kids, maybe 5 will be stars, 1 or 2 superstars. And entering school, they KNOW this. Thus, the VAST VAST VAST majority of football players in DI are there to leverage football as a way to enter college (or get in a better college) to get a degree.

Whoa... hold on a sec. I just want to point out some real fallacies in your above numbers. You seem to be stating that only 1/10th of the kids who get drafted will make a NFL roster. That is just plain wrong. Heck, it is not even close to correct.

It is exceedingly rare for a kid drafted in the first 4 rounds to not make the team. Heck, almost all 1st - 3rd rounders are expected to start or be significant rotation players from day one (not QBs, who sometimes take longer and QB is the one non-rotational position on a team). For most teams, all their drafted players end up making the roster.

I looked at few NFL rosters and here is what I found in terms of rookies on the roster (includes injured reserve and practice squad as these are all guys making a pretty nice living from playing football).

Falcons - 19
Pats - 25
Seahawks - 17
Broncos - 10
Saints - 13
Panthers - 12
Jags - 17

That is a heck of a lot bigger number than 1% of all college football players. Granted, some of these guys are not immediately removed from college and may have been playing in the CFL or parking cars or whatever before they got their NFL break, but the vast majority of them are brand spanking new out of college and direct to earning an NFL paycheck. It is a muuuuch higher number than 1% of last year's Division 1 college football players who had exhausted their eligibility.

A little more research -- Alabama had 39 former players on NFL rosters in 2012. It had 35 in 2013. Ohio State also had 35 alums in the NFL in 2013. Now, I know that not all BCS level programs are the NFL-producing machines that Bama and tOSU are, but it is clear that the top level BCS conference schools are putting something like a quarter to a third of their senior class into the NFL each year. I bet that even lower-level BCS teams are putting about 5% of their seniors into the NFL each year.

I am not sure where I am going with all this except to say that the notion that only a tiny percentage of college football players will end up earning a pro football paycheck is just not something that is supported by the facts.

-Jason "I don't like the idea of unionization, but I think strong reforms are needed and these players should be compensated for their efforts" Evans

[lotusland]

I'm not saying there aren't liability concerns. But this is a country where you can make a movie about killing hundreds of people, and it gets a PG-13 rating. But if one single boob makes an appearance, it has to have an R rating, because God forbid anyone under 17 see one single boob. When I was eleven years old, we were on a school trip, sitting in a hotel room, watching some Steven Seagal movie on free televsion. We counted how many people he killed in the movie. I think it was 35. I was eleven. No one seemed to have a problem with this.

Many Americans adore violence. MMA is huge now. The NHL still lets the players have fights during the game, for Pete's sake. We've even got sports that didn't used to be very violent and have gotten more so (basketball).

Don't the lower-tier levels already have insurance? Don't the parents have to sign waivers? (I'm asking--I don't know).

I don't know from experience as my kids don't play football but I'm sure that football leagues do have insurance. I imagine this is a very fluid situation at the moment. The known risks are greater now than in the past so I expect the cost and availability of insurance to change accordingly. That could dramatically affect the cost of participation by these lower income kids who would play. The MMA model won't work for football. MMA isn't a school sport anyway and it's only participants are adults and they don't represent anyone but themselves. You cannot field a professional football team with adults who have not been playing in school their whole lives. There is also the matter of public schools whose primary mission allegedly is to promote learning, simultaneously promoting a sport that is known to cause brain damage especially in adolescents. So maybe some parents will be willing to sign a waiver agreeing to allow their kids to risk permanent brain damage but do they, as parents, even have that right?

[cf-62]

Whoa... hold on a sec. I just want to point out some real fallacies in your above numbers. You seem to be stating that only 1/10th of the kids who get drafted will make a NFL roster. That is just plain wrong. Heck, it is not even close to correct.

It is exceedingly rare for a kid drafted in the first 4 rounds to not make the team. Heck, almost all 1st - 3rd rounders are expected to start or be significant rotation players from day one (not QBs, who sometimes take longer and QB is the one non-rotational position on a team). For most teams, all their drafted players end up making the roster.

I looked at few NFL rosters and here is what I found in terms of rookies on the roster (includes injured reserve and practice squad as these are all guys making a pretty nice living from playing football).

Falcons - 19
Pats - 25
Seahawks - 17
Broncos - 10
Saints - 13
Panthers - 12
Jags - 17

That is a heck of a lot bigger number than 1% of all college football players. Granted, some of these guys are not immediately removed from college and may have been playing in the CFL or parking cars or whatever before they got their NFL break, but the vast majority of them are brand spanking new out of college and direct to earning an NFL paycheck. It is a muuuuch higher number than 1% of last year's Division 1 college football players who had exhausted their eligibility.

A little more research -- Alabama had 39 former players on NFL rosters in 2012. It had 35 in 2013. Ohio State also had 35 alums in the NFL in 2013. Now, I know that not all BCS level programs are the NFL-producing machines that Bama and tOSU are, but it is clear that the top level BCS conference schools are putting something like a quarter to a third of their senior class into the NFL each year. I bet that even lower-level BCS teams are putting about 5% of their seniors into the NFL each year.

I am not sure where I am going with all this except to say that the notion that only a tiny percentage of college football players will end up earning a pro football paycheck is just not something that is supported by the facts.

-Jason "I don't like the idea of unionization, but I think strong reforms are needed and these players should be compensated for their efforts" Evans

Thanks J,
But if we're going to include practice squads (I can't argue with your logic. They are being paid to play football every day), then can you really include only D1 schools. Shouldn't all ~350 schools be included?

A quarter to a third of the senior class is 5 - 8 kids. We're really going to say the system is COMPLETELY FLAWED because of 20 - 30 kids at about a dozen schools? It's the same reason I don't get too wound up over the "early entry NBA draft rules." We're talking about 20 kids out of 4000. In this, we're still only talking about 10% of graduates any given year getting drafted. When you throw in the non D1 schools, that moves into the 2 3% range.

And now let's throw in TITLE IX. If the Federal Courts ruled that Football scholarships must be matched by expenditures in female sports, why does everyone think that those courts will now go "ooooooh, you want to PAY them to play." Okay, since it's FOOTBALL, we won't make you follow the same interpretation of Federal law that we used in determining scholarship numbers?

Here's a Hint. They won't. Whatever is paid out to football players will have to be matched in amplitude, if not kind, to women's programs.

And it will impact women's ability / opportunity to even PLAY a sport. Today, because of scholarship matching, women's sports operate on bare bones teams. If they have to pay them even more, you can bet that they'll figure out something else since it's likely that every female varsity athlete will pickup a paycheck.

[vick]

Thanks J,
But if we're going to include practice squads (I can't argue with your logic. They are being paid to play football every day), then can you really include only D1 schools. Shouldn't all ~350 schools be included?

A quarter to a third of the senior class is 5 - 8 kids. We're really going to say the system is COMPLETELY FLAWED because of 20 - 30 kids at about a dozen schools? It's the same reason I don't get too wound up over the "early entry NBA draft rules." We're talking about 20 kids out of 4000. In this, we're still only talking about 10% of graduates any given year getting drafted. When you throw in the non D1 schools, that moves into the 2 3% range.

And now let's throw in TITLE IX. If the Federal Courts ruled that Football scholarships must be matched by expenditures in female sports, why does everyone think that those courts will now go "ooooooh, you want to PAY them to play." Okay, since it's FOOTBALL, we won't make you follow the same interpretation of Federal law that we used in determining scholarship numbers?

Here's a Hint. They won't. Whatever is paid out to football players will have to be matched in amplitude, if not kind, to women's programs.

And it will impact women's ability / opportunity to even PLAY a sport. Today, because of scholarship matching, women's sports operate on bare bones teams. If they have to pay them even more, you can bet that they'll figure out something else since it's likely that every female varsity athlete will pickup a paycheck.

I'm not sure Title IX says this, to be honest. Overall spending is not equal between men's and women's sports now. The law requires that spending on financial aid (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/bowlgrn.html) be "substantially proportionate" between men's and women's sports, not spending in general. It's certainly not obvious to me that player stipends will be looked at like financial aid rather than, say, weight rooms and coaches' budgets (and I think pretty clearly it should not be, but that's just my opinion), which have been allowed to be unequal.

[A-Tex Devil]

But what you've written here is the crux of the - er - misunderstanding by "SPORTS" writers and the reality of college athletics. Assuming Title IX aside -- which is the GIANT elephant in the room of any decision to pay ANYBODY -- is the idea of non-student athletes representing the schools. There are two specific talking points that seem to be coming out of this.

1) The players make the school millions of dollars
2) UNC proves that they aren't student athletes already

1) The PROGRAM makes the schools the money, and a BIG PART of that money is the donations from alumni. There are lots of reasons to give money, but the biggest is because of the connection we feel with our soon-to-be-fellow-alumni, and how much we marvel at their ability to cut it at our school while also committing themselves to success on the football field.

Now, Duke has funded their other sports with football for decades with none of the top 300 players in the country committing to them. So the answer to your question - do alumni care if their football team doesn't have 10 - 50 potential NFL players on the team? That is a RESOUNDING NO. They will continue to go to games, and continue to watch the games. I will make the trip to South Bend even if Notre Dame is awful (and if we are awful) because the pageantry of a Notre Dame football game is the same, whether it's Joe Montana at QB or some guy we'll never hear of again.



My comment about UNC being prescient up thread was tongue in cheek, and frankly, the UNC scandal is almost irrelevant to the heart of this discussion. The "charade" I believe needs to be addressed, and Title IX certainly perpetuates things and I agree it's a stumbling block, is that football should be treated like all other sports. The economics of it don't make sense anymore.

Obviously, the status quo is probably what most people would prefer. I know I probably do. It's best for everyone except perhaps the football players, who still are hardly getting a raw deal. But with the O'Bannon case, Division 4, this NW thing, and all of the other recent rumblings, change is on the horizon. My gun to the head guess is the solution will be Division 4 for football, with some type of limited pay that will drive the Hana Highway through labor law and Title IX to get there.

As to your bolded statement -- without getting into the weeds, it assumes an awful lot, considering most of the football money comes from a collective contract, which may not be as lucrative if the talent level drops significantly. Again -- in my view, it's an unanswerable question.

[greybeard]

I am happily for several years now and forever no longer a labor lawyer, have lost a taste for it:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes, everybody knows

Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows


That said, the tide seems to point pretty much in favor of big-time college athletes in major sports to win the right to organize. The NLRB has long held that medical intern and residents qualify as employees and seems poised to hold similarly in the case of graduate students. Several state courts have already done so with regard to graduate students at state universities and colleges, and the right to be represented has been won where, before it always had been before the NLRA was enacted to insure employee rights, yeah right, that would be, in the streets. A case has been Teed Up before the NLRB to address the issue whether football players at a major football school are employees. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwestern-wildcats-football-players-trying-join-labor-union. Like I said, I am out, but it seems to me that there is at least as strong a case for revenue sport athletes to be found to be employees.

The argument that student athletes can not be found to be employees because they are under no compulsion to work at football to earn seems to me to fall of its own weight, but what do I know. It is always the case that individuals have the right to chose, that employment in the state of nature, is an "at will arrangement," and why this circumstance should be different escapes me, but I have given no thought to the matter from a legal perspective, and doubt I will. That argument will unquestionably be decided by the NLRB in the pending graduate student case; it has been rejected in several state court decisions involving state employment questions over which the NLRB has no jurisdiction.I should add that even cases that espouse broad policy are subject to factual distinction and that the role of giving due deference to extant precedent is often given no respect. So the policy/legal landscape can change, and, in the modern era, change quite quickly.

In the end, support by statutory construction or no, the ability of college athletes to organize and get a little something for themselves, or a bigger something, will depend entirely by the play of economic weaponry. One thing to keep in mind is, while Big Time football programs are incredibly powerful, they also compete for the best-of-the-best, and to be the best, in zero sum games. On the other hand, athletic teams will have to be organized on a program by program basis, and, if pursued through a government supervised election, the mandate for collective bargaining can routinely be tied up for years. Also, in the end, economic pressure by players is, to my mind, gossamer--boys do oh so love their games.

Antitrust lawsuits in the beginning and now seem player compensation's only hope. How viable that is? If the players are found to be employees, under my understanding of the law, zero from that point on. Which would beg the question, why is anybody fighting about this to begin with.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

[greybeard]

Surprising to see this in a magazine like Forbes, but there it is and here it is:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/01/30/21-reasons-why-student-athletes-are-employees-and-should-be-allowed-to-unionize/2/

[throatybeard]

I'm not saying there aren't liability concerns. But this is a country where you can make a movie about killing hundreds of people, and it gets a PG-13 rating. But if one single boob makes an appearance, it has to have an R rating, because God forbid anyone under 17 see one single boob. When I was eleven years old, we were on a school trip, sitting in a hotel room, watching some Steven Seagal movie on free televsion. We counted how many people he killed in the movie. I think it was 35. I was eleven. No one seemed to have a problem with this.

Many Americans adore violence. MMA is huge now. The NHL still lets the players have fights during the game, for Pete's sake. We've even got sports that didn't used to be very violent and have gotten more so (basketball).

Don't the lower-tier levels already have insurance? Don't the parents have to sign waivers? (I'm asking--I don't know).

This isn't news, but on the other hand, it sort of isn't not news:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-finds-60-of-parents-too-busy-with-divorce-to,35132/

[blUDAYvil]

Great article summing up Bilas' thoughts on paying NCAA athletes

http://www.syracuse.com/orangebasketball/index.ssf/2014/02/espn_commentator_jay_bilas_no_one_says_we_dont_wan t_you_you_dirty_professional.html

[-jk]

I love Bilas, but he has to recognize that unlimited endorsements are the wet dreams of Phil Knight and T Boone Pickens.

-jk

[fisheyes]

There was an interesting discussion about paying NCAA athletes on Meet the Press this morning. On the panel was the NCAA president Mark Emmert, Secty of Education and Harvard basketball player Arne Duncan, and Reggie.

There seems to be some movement on the issue of paying players a stipend for certain things like meals on off days for away games, travel for family emergencies, and travel expenses for family members to see games, etc. It appears that the NCAA will take another vote on this issue soon. The president of the NCAA seemed to imply that the issue would be resolved before the start of the next academic year.

Personally, I do not favor unionization of the athletes or paying them a salary for playing, but I do favor paying for reasonable expenses and allowing them to participate in the financial gains of their own marketing.

I couldn't find a video link, but here is the write up in Politico...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/03/duncan-tie-ncaa-coaches-pay-to-athletes-academic-performance-185573.html?hp=l12

[toughbuff1]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/us/northwestern-football-union/index.html

[Tripping William]

A colleague sent me the link with the words "game changer." National Labor Relations Board says Northwestern football players can unionize:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/college-athletes-unionize-federal-agency-23070004

[Duvall]

That five-year commitment by Krzyzewski could get awkward when he realizes that three of those years will be spent at a Division III school.

[Atlanta Duke]

Link to the decision below - the NLRB apparently did not buy into the student-athlete argument

Obviously, the players are also required to spend time studying and completing their homework as they have to spend time practicing their football skills even without the direct orders of their coaches. But it cannot be said that they are “primarily students” who “spend only a limited number of hours performing their athletic duties.”...

The fact that the players undoubtedly learn great life lessons from participating on the football team and take with them important values such as character, dedication, perseverance, and team work, is insufficient to show that their relationship with the Employer is primarily an academic one. Indeed, as already discussed above, this relationship is an economic one that involves the transfer of great sums of money to the players in the form of scholarships.

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-director-region-13-issues-decision-northwestern-university-athletes

[TampaDuke]

Just a few notes about today's decision:

The "NLRB" did not find that the players were employees, only one of the NLRB's regional directors did. The next step is to the National Labor Relations Board itself. As a labor attorney, I didn't think the RD's decision was that surprising. There is a reason that the union filed this petition at this time and in this location. That said, given the political leanings of the current Board, my guess is that it will affirm the RD's decision.

Assuming the NLRB affirms the decision, there are still many steps left for the players to successfully unionize and force the university to bargain, with each of the next few steps are likely to be more daunting. This is particularly true with respect to appeals to the federal appellate courts, which have not been very supportive of recent NLRB decisions attempting to break new legal ground.

Although it's a necessary first step for the athletes to become unionized, coverage of today's decision, in my opinion, is overblown. At a minimum, it will be 5 or 6 years before the employees would be able to actually require collective bargaining, assuming the matter is contested at each stage.

[-jk]

Just a few notes about today's decision:

The "NLRB" did not find that the players were employees, only one of the NLRB's regional directors did. The next step is to the National Labor Relations Board itself. As a labor attorney, I didn't think the RD's decision was that surprising. There is a reason that the union filed this petition at this time and in this location. That said, given the political leanings of the current Board, my guess is that it will affirm the RD's decision.

Assuming the NLRB affirms the decision, there are still many steps left for the players to successfully unionize and force the university to bargain, with each of the next few steps are likely to be more daunting. This is particularly true with respect to appeals to the federal appellate courts, which have not been very supportive of recent NLRB decisions attempting to break new legal ground.

Although it's a necessary first step for the athletes to become unionized, coverage of today's decision, in my opinion, is overblown. At a minimum, it will be 5 or 6 years before the employees would be able to actually require collective bargaining, assuming the matter is contested at each stage.

For those more knowledgeable than I: If NU's football players are, after appeal, still found to be employees, will they owe income tax on the value of their scholarships?

Maybe even back taxes starting from about this lawsuit?

The Ivy model - purely need-based - might come into play. And schools would scramble to set up massive need-based scholarship resources.

This is getting fun!

-jk

[A-Tex Devil]

For those more knowledgeable than I: If NU's football players are, after appeal, still found to be employees, will they owe income tax on the value of their scholarships?

Maybe even back taxes starting from about this lawsuit?

The Ivy model - purely need-based - might come into play. And schools would scramble to set up massive need-based scholarship resources.

This is getting fun!

-jk

Not only that, but would the universities be on the hook for massive amounts of unpaid payroll taxes? Or more realistically, if this isn't overturned, will federal and state governments start looking to the universities to get W-4s on these players. This is crazy.

[hudlow]

Maybe they can strike for better officiating?

[Atlanta Duke]

Just a few notes about today's decision:

The "NLRB" did not find that the players were employees, only one of the NLRB's regional directors did.

Agree that when I provided the link to the regional director's decision I should have specified it was the regional director's decision rather than use the shorthand term NLRB and also noted this is the first step in a long process.

Since the regional director's decision will be appealed, I am interested if you think there was a tactical advantage to seeking to have players at a private university in Region 13, which is headquartered in Chicago, fill out union cards as opposed to elsewhere or whether that simply is where a receptive group of players was located. Given that I read the views of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page on the current NLRB I am aware why this might be regarded as an appropriate time to seek to organize the players, as opposed to after 2016 in a potentially less favorable environment (not trying to make this a public policy discussion, just agreeing NLRB rulings often are very partisan)

FWIW the SI.com legal analyst said the consensus was the players would lose. He also discusses anticipated next steps.

http://college-football.si.com/2014/03/26/northwestern-nlrb-union-kain-colter/

No surprise regarding the reaction by the NCAA

While not a party to the proceeding, the NCAA is disappointed that the NLRB Region 13 determined the Northwestern football team may vote to be considered university employees. We strongly disagree with the notion that student-athletes are employees.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/press-releases/ncaa-disagrees-union-decision

[Atlanta Duke]

This is crazy.

I think college athletic directors apply that term to a lot of litigation developments these days

[Tripping William]

Not only that, but would the universities be on the hook for massive amounts of unpaid payroll taxes? Or more realistically, if this isn't overturned, will federal and state governments start looking to the universities to get W-4s on these players. This is crazy.

Thanks to Tampa Duke for the helpful refinements. Could this also be a recruiting advantage for private schools (like Duke), i.e., our (future, hypothetical) basketball players' union can & has collectively bargained for better terms & conditions of employment than, say, UNC/UK/KU?

[A-Tex Devil]

Thanks to Tampa Duke for the helpful refinements. Could this also be a recruiting advantage for private schools (like Duke), i.e., our (future, hypothetical) basketball players' union can & has collectively bargained for better terms & conditions of employment than, say, UNC/UK/KU?

Ummmm... I think it's the other way around. Private schools are probably more likely to just opt out altogether from big time college athletics than add another layer of employees.

[TampaDuke]

Thanks to Tampa Duke for the helpful refinements. Could this also be a recruiting advantage for private schools (like Duke), i.e., our (future, hypothetical) basketball players' union can & has collectively bargained for better terms & conditions of employment than, say, UNC/UK/KU?

I haven't thought that through, but my initial thought was that if the players are ultimately determined to be employees following appeals, then the NCAA will likely have to pursue some sort of universal collective bargaining agreement across institutions to maintain any control and for some semblance of competitiveness. Not sure if that would be doable, though, under current antitrust laws or if there would need to be legislative action.

[TampaDuke]

Since the regional director's decision will be appealed, I am interested if you think there was a tactical advantage to seeking to have players at a private university in Region 13, which is headquartered in Chicago, fill out union cards as opposed to elsewhere or whether that simply is where a receptive group of players was located.

I'd bet there were strategic considerations in the decision where to file the petition. The supporting unions could no doubt find a willing group of students in any region of the country. Not sure that other Regional Directors would not have reached the same conclusion, but I'd be willing to bet they targeted this region because they knew they could at least overcome the initial hurdle of having an election ordered.

[TampaDuke]

One other critical point that I forgot to mention is that the National Labor Relations Act, under which this union petition was filed, does not apply to public employers. This decision, again assuming that it survives appeals, would only apply to private colleges.

Public institutions are governed by the labor law of the State in which they are located. You can only imagine the complexities that could add to the college sports environment. California labor law ain't exactly the same as say Georgia labor law, for example.

[LobstersPinchPinch]

Very proud be to an NU undergrad alum. If you've read the ruling, the amount of control the school has over athletes makes it clear that the players are treated as employees. If you've read informed opinion, it's very unlikely this will be overturned on appeal.

[Tripping William]

Ummmm... I think it's the other way around. Private schools are probably more likely to just opt out altogether from big time college athletics than add another layer of employees.

Certainly a possibility as well, no question. Was just thinking out loud, in one (perhaps naive, but somewhat hopeful). As with so much of this right now, I think it's still "too early to call."

[DevilYouKnow]

1) If this allows players to receive lifetime medical coverage for injuries sustained while playing collegiate sports, plus catastrophic disability insurance for lost projected wages due to injury sustained while playing collegiate sports, then this is a good thing.

2) if this allows players to be paid employees of universities and continues the erosion of the student athlete, then this is a bad thing.

3) The fact that public universities will have a harder time unionizing to bring about these benefits would be an interesting twist, presumably playing in Duke's favor.

[cspan37421]

1) If this allows players to receive lifetime medical coverage for injuries sustained while playing collegiate sports, plus catastrophic disability insurance for lost projected wages due to injury sustained while playing collegiate sports, then this is a good thing.



While that may be right and just, the potential medical costs may put an end to football as we know it. As for disability insurance, well, that's a thorny issue. Pretty hard to judge what 60% of earnings might have been had they not been injured. If the athletes get paid in college, then they could figure that, but the thing is, the college pay would only be for 4 years max.

Let's not forget the whole Title IX thing too.

As for student-athlete, well, this development seems to me to bring more into focus the reality of what we have. It's more of a sharp change in legal and tax treatment than how student athletes go about their day to day business. Unless, if they become employees, will they no longer have to go to class and pass courses to be eligible.

What saddens me is that it seems like it could just devolve into a bidding war for talent. The richest alumni base (alumni x average giving) will be able to fund the most talented teams. Smaller schools and schools with lower average disposable income among alumni simply won't be able to compete unless there is something to force competitive balance via externally applied rules, like pro leagues do (to a greater or lesser degree).

[DevilYouKnow]

While that may be right and just, the potential medical costs may put an end to football as we know it. As for disability insurance, well, that's a thorny issue. Pretty hard to judge what 60% of earnings might have been had they not been injured. If the athletes get paid in college, then they could figure that, but the thing is, the college pay would only be for 4 years max.

Let's not forget the whole Title IX thing too.

As for student-athlete, well, this development seems to me to bring more into focus the reality of what we have. It's more of a sharp change in legal and tax treatment than how student athletes go about their day to day business. Unless, if they become employees, will they no longer have to go to class and pass courses to be eligible.

What saddens me is that it seems like it could just devolve into a bidding war for talent. The richest alumni base (alumni x average giving) will be able to fund the most talented teams. Smaller schools and schools with lower average disposable income among alumni simply won't be able to compete unless there is something to force competitive balance via externally applied rules, like pro leagues do (to a greater or lesser degree).

Good points.

Although I'd argue if college sports can't afford to compensate athletes for lifetime disabilities incurred on its watch, then the athletes are getting screwed.

[mph]

Ummmm... I think it's the other way around. Private schools are probably more likely to just opt out altogether from big time college athletics than add another layer of employees.

If that happens at all, it will involve a very few private schools that are locked out of the major conferences. Northwestern generated $239 million in football revenue from 2003 to 2012. Foregoing that kind of money to avoid another employee union is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not going to happen. While the revenue numbers for private schools in other major conferences might be smaller or larger, it's still big, big money.

Here (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses") are the football revenue and expense numbers for last year's pre-season top-25. (I was going to copy the numbers into this post but couldn't format them in a way that was easy to read.

Football and basketball also have significant indirect impacts on a university's financial health. Media exposure and the quality of campus life are important factors in driving application rates.

The bottom line is major conference private universities might opt out of olympic sports and other non-revenue generators, but it's hard to see the logic in eliminating football and basketball.

[Atlanta Duke]

An increasingly renowned NCAA nemesis on the decision

“It’s another brick being taken out of the castle the N.C.A.A. has constructed,” said the ESPN analyst Jay Bilas, a former college basketball player. “It’s not going to stand forever, and we’re getting closer and closer to it tumbling.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/sports/ncaafootball/national-labor-relations-board-rules-northwestern-players-are-employees-and-can-unionize.html

[Duke79UNLV77]

This would suggest no.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Withholding-Federal-Income-Tax-on-Scholarships,-Fellowships,-and-Grants-Paid-to-Aliens

[Lar77]

It's an interesting course of events and could lead to a ton of unintended adverse consequences. Among them:

Taxing the "compensation" received by scholarship athletes (or, for that matter, any scholarship recipient)
Schools dropping athletic scholarships, presumably diminishing access to college education
Losing the "charitable contribution" status of donations earmarked for athletics
Schools dropping sports, except at the club level

As a previous poster stated, this could take years to sort through the appeals process. By then, the O'Bannon case may be resolved. It certainly would have gone through the trial level.

Ultimately, this may wind up in Congress' lap, since you now have labor law, tax, and interstate commerce (plus a lot of pressure from supporters of college athletics, many of whom sit in Congress). Maybe someone there will ask the question: are the athletes getting an opportunity for a real education?

[-jk]

This would suggest no.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Withholding-Federal-Income-Tax-on-Scholarships,-Fellowships,-and-Grants-Paid-to-Aliens

But those regs are about scholarships for studies. This NU case is that the scholarship is really a payment for playing football. Completely different things.

-jk

[Atlanta Duke]

Ultimately, this may wind up in Congress' lap, since you now have labor law, tax, and interstate commerce (plus a lot of pressure from supporters of college athletics, many of whom sit in Congress). Maybe someone there will ask the question: are the athletes getting an opportunity for a real education?

I agree this ends up with Congress

This SI.com article suggests the NCAA is losing on too many fronts and needs to strike a deal

Donald Remy was disappointed Wednesday. This has become somewhat of a theme for the NCAA's chief legal counsel. In fact, if the fictional Soggy Bottom Boys are stumped for their next hit, they should consider writing "Man of Constant Disappointment" and dedicate it to Remy.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140327/ncaa-athletes-union-ruling-northwestern/#ixzz2xAqr7QDH

So under existing federal laws the NCAA appears to be losing? The answer probably is to try and change the laws.

I think the NCAA will find a receptive audience in Congress

“Imagine a university’s basketball players striking before a Sweet Sixteen game demanding shorter practices, bigger dorm rooms, better food, and no classes before 11 a.m. This is an absurd decision that will destroy intercollegiate athletics as we know it.” — U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/reaction-to-ruling-on-college-athletes-union/2014/03/26/e9cf685e-b54e-11e3-bab2-b9602293021d_story.html

It is not as if Congress will need to worry that it is taking an unpopular stand by riding to the rescue of the NCAA

Large majority opposes paying NCAA athletes, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds

Only 33 percent support paying college athletes. At 64 percent, opposition is nearly twice as high as support, with 47 percent strongly against the idea. Nearly every demographic and political group opposes it except non-whites, for whom 51 percent support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/large-majority-opposes-paying-ncaa-athletes-washington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2014/03/22/c411a32e-b130-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html

[dukelifer]

This would suggest no.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Withholding-Federal-Income-Tax-on-Scholarships,-Fellowships,-and-Grants-Paid-to-Aliens

My understanding is that it is not taxable but Congress could change this- or maybe the IRS- but it is doubtful. Other benefits that come from this could be taxable. The bigger issue here in opening the tax question is whether college sports is subject to taxation. This is going to force some hands and may change the landscape of college sports in the next 5-10 years. My understanding is that this only applies to Private schools as states schools need to deal with individual states. So Duke will be part of this story whether it wants to or not.

[Duke79UNLV77]

But those regs are about scholarships for studies. This NU case is that the scholarship is really a payment for playing football. Completely different things.

-jk

I hadn't looked into this before, but I imagine the players and their attorneys must have felt they could make a good argument for gaining unionization rights without sacrificing financially through a big tax hit. Time will tell.

Here's another reg that mentions athletic scholarships. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html#en_US_2013_publink1000255742

Here's an article that seems helpful. http://budgeting.thenest.com/athletes-pay-taxes-scholarships-27080.html

[toooskies]

I think this is just a necessary first step-- the players in college need to be able to act and negotiate for their own interests in a meaningful way, and this ruling lets them do that.

Negotiation for wages is one way it could go. But there's a whole laundry list of things that a unified voice could/would argue for outside of pure cash:
- Long-term health insurance related to sports injury
- Guaranteed 4-year scholarships
- Clear, consistent, and perhaps eased rules on transferring, redshirting, and offseason athletic competition
- Easing or rules prohibiting compensation for activities not related to the school
- A reasonable appeals process for the above
- Targeted educational curricula for aspiring professional athletes, like "how to live your life off of what you make in 5 years playing pro sports"
- Modified recruiting practices that consider the impacts on student athletes
- Leveraging college resources for concussion studies, nutritional studies, etc.
- Olympic-model amateurism
- If there is an insistence on amateurism, then demands for the NCAA to run sports like amateur enterprises; stop paying coaches millions, stop selling sponsorships to clothing manufacturers, stop charging so much for its "product" (i.e. tickets to games, broadcast licenses, etc.); effectively, an end to the hypocrisy inherent in the amateurism stance

But for any of these items, the NCAA gets to say "this is best for us" and there is no unified body to say to them "that's not fair." Perhaps a union isn't the best type of organization for it. Perhaps this isn't the ideal organization (the NFLPA and NBAPA would be better-suited, but politics come into play with them in the short term.) But joining up with an established group to handle infrastructure for the group assembly is kind of necessary. What I mean is, you can't have a grassroots student-athlete organization emerge when:
- It is only relevant to people for, at most, 4 years of their life. (For the most recognizable, much less.)
- It is only relevant to people who are entering their first years of adult life, and haven't had time to figure out "how things work".
- It is only relevant to people who, by definition, don't yet have college educations, and thus will be at a disadvantage when it comes to legal arguments.
- It is only relevant to people who, by NCAA rule, don't have significant income.
- It is only relevant to people who, because of managing athletic and academic workloads already, don't have a lot of free time to start or manage the organization.
- Any negotiation or litigation that would be necessary would take multiple years to complete at a minimum.
- Regardless of how you feel about how college athletes are compensated, it's not at all clear-cut that they are legally entitled to more. A grassroots organization would get eaten alive by NCAA lawyers if push ever came to shove. Union lawyers on the other hand? That's a fair fight.

So, really, the only thing they could meaningfully do is exactly what they did-- align themselves with a bigger union that can manage the long-term interests of a transient membership group.

[-jk]

I hadn't looked into this before, but I imagine the players and their attorneys must have felt they could make a good argument for gaining unionization rights without sacrificing financially through a big tax hit. Time will tell.

Here's another reg that mentions athletic scholarships. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html#en_US_2013_publink1000255742

Here's an article that seems helpful. http://budgeting.thenest.com/athletes-pay-taxes-scholarships-27080.html

All the current law is based under the (soon to be former?) presumption that scholarship athletes are "students" choosing to play a sport. As "employees", whose scholarships are remuneration for work performed, it may well be revisited, and with potentially ugly consequences for the athletes. Ohr said "the players' football-related duties are unrelated to their academic studies unlike the graduate assistants whose teaching and research duties were inextricably tied to their graduate degree requirements." This is new territory.

Walkons are also specifically excluded from being "employees". What about need-based scholarships, such as all Ivy League schools offer athletes? I could see that as a possible way around it. (And I guess "we really need this kid" to be insufficient need for this purpose.)

Another fun twist: As seasonal employees, will they be eligible for unemployment benefits off-season (for those states that still have them; I seem to recall them getting axed here and there during the recession)?

-jk

[Mudge]

I agree this ends up with Congress

This SI.com article suggests the NCAA is losing on too many fronts and needs to strike a deal

Donald Remy was disappointed Wednesday. This has become somewhat of a theme for the NCAA's chief legal counsel. In fact, if the fictional Soggy Bottom Boys are stumped for their next hit, they should consider writing "Man of Constant Disappointment" and dedicate it to Remy.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140327/ncaa-athletes-union-ruling-northwestern/#ixzz2xAqr7QDH

So under existing federal laws the NCAA appears to be losing? The answer probably is to try and change the laws.

I think the NCAA will find a receptive audience in Congress

“Imagine a university’s basketball players striking before a Sweet Sixteen game demanding shorter practices, bigger dorm rooms, better food, and no classes before 11 a.m. This is an absurd decision that will destroy intercollegiate athletics as we know it.” — U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/reaction-to-ruling-on-college-athletes-union/2014/03/26/e9cf685e-b54e-11e3-bab2-b9602293021d_story.html

It is not as if Congress will need to worry that it is taking an unpopular stand by riding to the rescue of the NCAA

Large majority opposes paying NCAA athletes, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds

Only 33 percent support paying college athletes. At 64 percent, opposition is nearly twice as high as support, with 47 percent strongly against the idea. Nearly every demographic and political group opposes it except non-whites, for whom 51 percent support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/large-majority-opposes-paying-ncaa-athletes-washington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2014/03/22/c411a32e-b130-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html

I think Brandon Jennings (who left Oak Hill to play in Europe right out of high school, before returning to play-- and star-- in the NBA) proved that anyone (who wants them) has alternatives to spending a year in the purgatory of "unpaid college servitude" (said sarcastically, as if that absurd notion were true)-- I think Jay Bilas is a very educated and intelligent man, but he is completely wrong from a philosophical viewpoint on this issue-- no one is holding a gun to anyone's head, and compelling them to sign up for the copious array of payments and benefits that NCAA Division I scholarship athletes are currently given, for accepting a Div. I scholarship... If you don't like the deal, don't sign an athletic grant-in-aid-- take your talents somewhere else (Europe, Asia, Canada, the Circus, the Globetrotters, whatever) where they will pay you in cold hard cash on the barrelhead for your wondrous skills...

For once, the dullards that are the American public seem to have "gotten their mind right" (to quote Cool Hand Luke's warden, Strother Martin) about an issue, if they are largely of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason/need to be paying college athletes... if you don't like the offer, don't accept-- it's no different than if you don't like what's on television-- don't watch.

[Duke79UNLV77]

All the current law is based under the (soon to be former?) presumption that scholarship athletes are "students" choosing to play a sport. As "employees", whose scholarships are remuneration for work performed, it may well be revisited, and with potentially ugly consequences for the athletes. Ohr said "the players' football-related duties are unrelated to their academic studies unlike the graduate assistants whose teaching and research duties were inextricably tied to their graduate degree requirements." This is new territory.

Walkons are also specifically excluded from being "employees". What about need-based scholarships, such as all Ivy League schools offer athletes? I could see that as a possible way around it. (And I guess "we really need this kid" to be insufficient need for this purpose.)

Another fun twist: As seasonal employees, will they be eligible for unemployment benefits off-season (for those states that still have them; I seem to recall them getting axed here and there during the recession)?

-jk


Huma laughed at the argument that players wouldn't want to unionize because they might be taxed on their current compensation. "They're already taxed on room and board," he said. Huma is confident the IRS would not tax the tuition portion of the scholarship. That could be tricky if the players prevail. According to the IRS, the tuition portion of athletic scholarships are not taxable. (Though a look at the necessary worksheet suggests that if athletes are considered employees, the IRS might consider their situations differently.)

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140327/ncaa-athletes-union-ruling-northwestern/#ixzz2xBNeRKue

[lotusland]

Good points.

Although I'd argue if college sports can't afford to compensate athletes for lifetime disabilities incurred on its watch, then the athletes are getting screwed.

Would you argue that for all sports or just revenue sports? Doe you think those athletes would be less screwed if schools determined the cost too great and eliminated certain sports and the associated scholarships?

Seems like having the choice about whether or not to accept the risk would be better in that case.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I agree this ends up with Congress

This SI.com article suggests the NCAA is losing on too many fronts and needs to strike a deal


Of course they are losing on many fronts.

The NCAA lives in its own world and with its own world view that largely has no basis in reality today. Not sure if it ever did.

The NCAA seems to think that students who are also athletes chose a school based primarily on the students academic interests. The schools are primarily interested in educating the student/athlete and provide free tuition room and board and only ask that students take a little time off to practice and play a game. The school administrators first job is to see that the student/athletes get a first class education. Some sports make a little money which is spent on the other sports.

The reality is the college football and basketball are big business. Many of the athletes chose a school based on athletics first and everything else second. The schools are primarily interested in winning games which fills seats and brings in TV and other revenue. Some athletes have ridiculous demands on their time. The huge revenues from football and basketball provide salaries that make coaches the highest paid people on campus and in some states the highest paid state employees. For many athletes and coaches academics are something that must be endured in order to play the games.

The NCAA does nothing as more and more athletes finish college uneducated, as coaches salaries soar, as AD's get bonuses from success on the field, as school offer sham classes to keep athletes in school and on the road to graduation.

Every move the NCAA makes is aimed seems to be much more concerned about money and the athletes.

I could go on and on.

Congrats the NW football guys. Maybe something will wake up the stooges running the NCAA.

SoCal

[lotusland]

Of course they are losing on many fronts.

The NCAA lives in its own world and with its own world view that largely has no basis in reality today. Not sure if it ever did.

The NCAA seems to think that students who are also athletes chose a school based primarily on the students academic interests. The schools are primarily interested in educating the student/athlete and provide free tuition room and board and only ask that students take a little time off to practice and play a game. The school administrators first job is to see that the student/athletes get a first class education. Some sports make a little money which is spent on the other sports.

The reality is the college football and basketball are big business. Many of the athletes chose a school based on athletics first and everything else second. The schools are primarily interested in winning games which fills seats and brings in TV and other revenue. Some athletes have ridiculous demands on their time. The huge revenues from football and basketball provide salaries that make coaches the highest paid people on campus and in some states the highest paid state employees. For many athletes and coaches academics are something that must be endured in order to play the games.

The NCAA does nothing as more and more athletes finish college uneducated, as coaches salaries soar, as AD's get bonuses from success on the field, as school offer sham classes to keep athletes in school and on the road to graduation.

Every move the NCAA makes is aimed seems to be much more concerned about money and the athletes.

I could go on and on.

Congrats the NW football guys. Maybe something will wake up the stooges running the NCAA.

SoCal
Maybe hold off on the congratulations until we see how this plays out. I can envision unintended consequences that benefit no one including the athletes.

[Atlanta Duke]

I think Brandon Jennings (who left Oak Hill to play in Europe right out of high school, before returning to play-- and star-- in the NBA) proved that anyone (who wants them) has alternatives to spending a year in the purgatory of "unpaid college servitude" (said sarcastically, as if that absurd notion were true)-- I think Jay Bilas is a very educated and intelligent man, but he is completely wrong from a philosophical viewpoint on this issue-- no one is holding a gun to anyone's head, and compelling them to sign up for the copious array of payments and benefits that NCAA Division I scholarship athletes are currently given, for accepting a Div. I scholarship... If you don't like the deal, don't sign an athletic grant-in-aid-- take your talents somewhere else (Europe, Asia, Canada, the Circus, the Globetrotters, whatever) where they will pay you in cold hard cash on the barrelhead for your wondrous skills...

For once, the dullards that are the American public seem to have "gotten their mind right" (to quote Cool Hand Luke's warden, Strother Martin) about an issue, if they are largely of the opinion that there is absolutely no reason/need to be paying college athletes... if you don't like the offer, don't accept-- it's no different than if you don't like what's on television-- don't watch.

Not certain if you were giving the thumbs down to me or my links - but given your description of the American public as "dullards" I guess I am in good company if you do not think much of my views:)

The fact that the NCAA has not been able to get the O'Bannon antitrust case dismissed would appear to indicate there is at least some uncertainty as to the extent of the alternatives to playing ball for NCAA institutions if you want to go to the pros.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Maybe hold off on the congratulations until we see how this plays out. I can envision unintended consequences that benefit no one including the athletes.

The colleges and universities need to figure out that they need to make some structural changes and not let the courts or a labor board or Congress dictate it to them.

SoCal

[Lar77]

The colleges and universities need to figure out that they need to make some structural changes and not let the courts or a labor board or Congress dictate it to them.

SoCal

The problem is the genie is out of the bottle. Regardless of what the NCAA does, someone is going to say it is not enough.

Unlike the pro sports, there is not a unified group to bargain with whose constituents have more than a short time frame to be concerned. And is the NCAA the right party to negotiate with? What about the conferences? Individual schools? Even pro sports took almost 100 years and several court cases before the current system started to take hold.

The O'Bannon case may provide the impetus for change. I hope it won't be the colleges deciding to take players' names off of jerseys.

[53n206]

I can envision a new federal agency, politically staffed, many employees, created to guarantee athletic equality.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The problem is the genie is out of the bottle. Regardless of what the NCAA does, someone is going to say it is not enough.

Unlike the pro sports, there is not a unified group to bargain with whose constituents have more than a short time frame to be concerned. And is the NCAA the right party to negotiate with? What about the conferences? Individual schools? Even pro sports took almost 100 years and several court cases before the current system started to take hold.

The O'Bannon case may provide the impetus for change. I hope it won't be the colleges deciding to take players' names off of jerseys.

that the colleges and the NCAA did nothing to stop the continuing and apparently growing exploitation of student athletes.

Of course the other problem is that there is so much money involved.

I would think that without negotiation colleges could guarantee scholarships for 4 years if the player was in good academic standing and the colleges should be doing their best to ensure that the each player really is a college student and is getting an education. Education needs to be more of a priority. When the NCAA T expanded beyond 64 teams, the additional teams were the 65th, then up to the 68th seeded teams. They had almost no chances of a deep and played a max of 3 games the first week and I don't think any went any further. Now they made the first four games the first four and have 11 seeds in there. These teams can make the FF and VCU did. (UTenn could this year as I write this.) So they had one week of essentially no school and then two more weeks of difficult travel and very little or no school. A group putting education first would not have changed the tournament.

What does a college football playoff have to do with education?

I could go on and on. Congrats to the guys at NW, change is coming, it might not be all good for all student athletes but overall I think it will be better than what we have now.

SoCal

[Lar77]

that the colleges and the NCAA did nothing to stop the continuing and apparently growing exploitation of student athletes.

Of course the other problem is that there is so much money involved.

I would think that without negotiation colleges could guarantee scholarships for 4 years if the player was in good academic standing and the colleges should be doing their best to ensure that the each player really is a college student and is getting an education. Education needs to be more of a priority. When the NCAA T expanded beyond 64 teams, the additional teams were the 65th, then up to the 68th seeded teams. They had almost no chances of a deep and played a max of 3 games the first week and I don't think any went any further. Now they made the first four games the first four and have 11 seeds in there. These teams can make the FF and VCU did. (UTenn could this year as I write this.) So they had one week of essentially no school and then two more weeks of difficult travel and very little or no school. A group putting education first would not have changed the tournament.

What does a college football playoff have to do with education?

I could go on and on. Congrats to the guys at NW, change is coming, it might not be all good for all student athletes but overall I think it will be better than what we have now.

SoCal

You are absolutely right. The NCAA should do more about promoting educational quality and safety, which it can do without lawsuit or unionization. But it shows little inclination as an organization to do so.

[Mudge]

Not certain if you were giving the thumbs down to me or my links - but given your description of the American public as "dullards" I guess I am in good company if you do not think much of my views:)

The fact that the NCAA has not been able to get the O'Bannon antitrust case dismissed would appear to indicate there is at least some uncertainty as to the extent of the alternatives to playing ball for NCAA institutions if you want to go to the pros.

I was not trying to thumb you down (or in the eye), when I re-quoted your post; your data on the opinions of the American public about paying college athletes were simply a good segue for me to air my strongly held view that the argument that athletes should (or need to) be paid does not hold water. The idea that the alternatives available to these athletes are not plentiful (and "fair", whatever that widely abused word means) is absurd-- the arguments I have heard to support paying athletes sound like pronouncements from the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. Now, if you want to argue in favor of allowing 18-year old adults to pursue their chosen career with any number of professional franchises that would willingly sign them up to lucrative contracts (if it weren't for the interference of [in my view] the highly ethically and Constitutionally dubious restraints of trade imposed by collective bargaining agreements), then I have a lot of time for you.

Somehow, numerous sports have found ways to afford lucrative professional careers to young athletes (often at ages far younger than 18) without either an athletic scholarship from a college-- or (perversely) the claim that the lack thereof has somehow hindered or prevented them from having such a career... skiers (Mikaela Shiffrin, Bode Miller), runners (Usain Bolt, Allyson Felix, Mary Cain), soccer players (Freddy Adu, Landon Donovan), tennis players (Serena Williams, Chris Evert, Andre Aggassi, Pete Sampras), snowboarders (Shaun White, Hannah Teter), swimmers (Michael Phelps, Michael Andrew), golfers (Rory McElroy, Tommy Gainey, Lee Trevino), figure skaters (Tara Lipinski, Sarah Hughes), chess masters (Magnus Carlsen), gymnasts (Mary Lou Retton, Nastia Liukin), baseball players (Mike Trout, Mickey Mantle, Johnny Bench), basketball players (Dirk Nowitzki, Brandon Jennings, Ricky Rubio), football players (Eric Swann, Ray Seals, Vince Papale, Darren Bennett) all come to mind to prove the point...

As for the O'Bannon lawsuit, my contempt of court(s) for the machinations of the modern American legal system leaves me neither surprised nor impressed that this case is still hanging around like Norman Bate's mother more than decade after it first surfaced (decide it already-- what the heck are the waiting for anyway?)

As for the American public, I tend to side with H.L. Mencken in his famous assessment of the benefits to be gained from underestimating their intelligence.

[-jk]

From an AP story (http://m.live5news.com/#!/newsDetail/25106346): "Even though college sports, mainly just at the football and men's basketball division level, have become very commercialized, I don't think that justifies professionalizing college sports," said Matt Mitten (http://law.marquette.edu/faculty-and-staff-directory/detail/2200657), a law school professor and director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University.

"It would be interesting to see how the Northwestern football players would vote. Would a majority of them want the union or not? Because by saying yes, that would make the economic value of their scholarships equivalent to wages. And they would have to pay federal income tax on that, which would be very substantial," Mitten said. "That's one of the possible downsides. Right now, athletic scholarships are not taxed."

-jk

[buddy]

If athletes are employees, such that they can unionize, I fail to see how that makes them any different in a tax sense from any other employee of a university. The IRS might issue regulations that would prevent taxation, but they might not. And the fact that the NLRB can only rule with respect to private universities creates a significantly uneven playing field.

In the end, see the big losers being non-revenue men's sports. Unionization will increase costs to the university. In some cases of small schools athletic programs may disappear entirely. At larger institutions, if costs increase, "adjustments will have to be made". Football and men's basketball will remain, because they bring in all the money. Title IX will ensure that at least a sufficient amount of women's sports survive to meet the gender equity "quota." Cost cutting will hit men's non-revenue sports disproportionately (as is already happening). The Law of Unintended Consequences in unrelenting and not subject to repeal. As we shall soon see.

[SoCalDukeFan]

If athletes are employees, such that they can unionize, I fail to see how that makes them any different in a tax sense from any other employee of a university. The IRS might issue regulations that would prevent taxation, but they might not. And the fact that the NLRB can only rule with respect to private universities creates a significantly uneven playing field.

In the end, see the big losers being non-revenue men's sports. Unionization will increase costs to the university. In some cases of small schools athletic programs may disappear entirely. At larger institutions, if costs increase, "adjustments will have to be made". Football and men's basketball will remain, because they bring in all the money. Title IX will ensure that at least a sufficient amount of women's sports survive to meet the gender equity "quota." Cost cutting will hit men's non-revenue sports disproportionately (as is already happening). The Law of Unintended Consequences in unrelenting and not subject to repeal. As we shall soon see.

The end of free agency was going to be the end of major league baseball or something.

It is doing just fine.

Structural change is hard to contemplate and the effects are not known until the change is made and all of the ramifications happen. Actually I don't know if unionization and employee status is best for the student athlete but I do know the current system has fundamental problems.

SoCal

[Mudge]

It has been regularly noted that the recent Chicago NLRB decision regarding Northwestern athletes unionizing only applies (at most) to private schools, as the public schools are not governed by the same laws-- in fact, they are governed by state laws that tend to vary from state to state-- so at the moment, only private schools would be subject to this decision-- and then the article I was looking at said "only 16 private schools are in FBS conferences"-- now, putting aside the obvious oversight that this might eventually apply not just to football-playing schools, but also to non-football (but NCAA Division I basketball-playing) schools-- which obviously includes vastly more than 16 private school-- I was trying to see if I could enumerate the 16 private schools that play "FBS" football... it appears to me that the ACC could be hugely, disproportionately affected by this decision, as nearly half of those schools play games in the ACC:

Duke
Wake Forest
Boston College
Miami
Syracuse
Notre Dame

Others (that I can think of):
Northwestern
Vanderbilt
Stanford
Southern Cal
Baylor
Texas Christian
Brigham Young
Rice
Tulane
Southern Methodist

Is that all of them then? Seems like there would be some others that I have overlooked...

[OldSchool]

UConn’s Napier: ‘We do have hungry nights’ (http://ctmirror.org/uconns-napier-on-altheletes-unionizing/)


Shabazz Napier, point guard for The University of Connecticut's men's basketball team, recently told reporters he understands why athletes at Northwestern need a union, as he sometimes has to go to bed "starving" because he cannot afford food....

Napier, who heads into the NCAA Championship match-up against the University of Kentucky tonight, told reporters that it's hard for him to see his jersey getting sold while he struggles to eat.

"To some credit, you feel like you want something in return… Like I said, there are hungry nights that I go to bed and I am starving. So something can change, something should change. But if it doesn't, at the end of the day, we've been doing this for so long, so ...," he said.

A UConn spokesman said in an emailed statement that Napier is provided food....

UConn's Student Athlete Handbook outlines that UConn's athletes with a meal plan have access to the all-you-can-eat dining facilities that are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Heart-rending story. Can we send him a tray of Jabari Bars? Or would that be an NCAA violation?

[uh_no]

UConn’s Napier: ‘We do have hungry nights’ (http://ctmirror.org/uconns-napier-on-altheletes-unionizing/)



Heart-rending story. Can we send him a tray of Jabari Bars? Or would that be an NCAA violation?

right. i'm sure they go to bed right at 7pm and never have evening practice....wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that any snacks or delivery pizza probably has to come out of the players own pockets....but hey, when has DBR ever missed a chance to rip uconn player?

that said, I'm sure he'd love some jabari bars...tasty.

[OldSchool]

right. i'm sure they go to bed right at 7pm and never have evening practice....wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that any snacks or delivery pizza probably has to come out of the players own pockets....but hey, when has DBR ever missed a chance to rip uconn player?

that said, I'm sure he'd love some jabari bars...tasty.

Ollie provides no training table on practice and game nights because he likes his players to play 'hungry.'

Anyway, UConn is finishing up a new $32 million basketball practice facility. I imagine there will be food to be found somewhere in the vast new complex.

[OldSchool]

From ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10758585/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-says-subsidizing-ncaa-athletes-possibility):


"Rather than focusing on a salary and thinking of them as employees, I would go to their basic necessities," [NBA Commissioner Adam] Silver said. "I think if [Connecticut Huskies guard] Shabazz Napier is saying he is going hungry, my God, it seems hard to believe, but there should be ample food for the players."

Silver said he could envision the league potentially contributing to make up the actual cost of attendance gap above what the players get for their scholarships and getting involved in a more complete insurance plan, which could include total disability insurance should an athlete return to school and injure himself so badly he could never play again.

Glad to hear that Adam is a compassionate man -- I would expect no less from a Duke alum. Clearly the situation of the University of Connecticut men's basketball team touches his heart as much as it does mine. One can only imagine these hungry young men tossing and turning in their beds at night, perhaps dreaming of eating a giant marshmallow only to wake up with a mouth full of feathers.

Nevertheless, it strikes me that Adam's proposal for the NBA to to provide monetary subsidies to universities with budding pro basketball players goes more in the direction of thinking of them as employees than not. Is the problem really that a basketball program like the one at the University of Connecticut cannot find enough revenue to provide adequate food for the team?

Let the NBA spend its money further developing the D-League as a system of farm teams where basketball players in high school can go who would rather be paid a salary for their play than attend college and be subject to the rules on amateurism imposed by colleges. If that reduces the talent in Division I basketball, so be it.

[greybeard]

From an AP story (http://m.live5news.com/#!/newsDetail/25106346): "Even though college sports, mainly just at the football and men's basketball division level, have become very commercialized, I don't think that justifies professionalizing college sports," said Matt Mitten (http://law.marquette.edu/faculty-and-staff-directory/detail/2200657), a law school professor and director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University.

"It would be interesting to see how the Northwestern football players would vote. Would a majority of them want the union or not? Because by saying yes, that would make the economic value of their scholarships equivalent to wages. And they would have to pay federal income tax on that, which would be very substantial," Mitten said. "That's one of the possible downsides. Right now, athletic scholarships are not taxed."

-jk

Scholarships can be made net, net--which is to say, the school pays the taxes such that the players are left with the amount of their scholarships. Many organizations pay on a net, net basis, the World Bank for one. I know next to nothing about tax law, but there is one rationale that comes to mind that the IRS might determine makes the income the athletes receive not income for tax purposes. We all know that football and basketball players on scholarship are payed to play, even to the point of, can't play, no pay, but are made to go to college in order to play. Thus, the scholarship is imposed on the school by the NCAA's requirement that athletes be students; if they didn't have to be students, the need for scholarships, or most of the money associated with them, evaporates. If the NCAA removes the student requirement, we'll talk about taxes.

[Bluedog]

right. i'm sure they go to bed right at 7pm and never have evening practice....wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that any snacks or delivery pizza probably has to come out of the players own pockets....but hey, when has DBR ever missed a chance to rip uconn player?

that said, I'm sure he'd love some jabari bars...tasty.

At Duke, food delivery (from like 30+ offsite merchants) can be purchased with "food points." And there are at least a few places open 24 hours. (Not to mention the fact that some on-campus eateries have extended hours....the only completely 24 hour place was McDonald's when I was there though...) The Duke basketball players get an absurd number of food points that they couldn't possibly use in a semester (more than athletes in other sports who still get plenty). So, if Shabazz actually is hungry, I think his beef is with UConn and not the NCAA. ;)

[greybeard]

All the current law is based under the (soon to be former?) presumption that scholarship athletes are "students" choosing to play a sport. As "employees", whose scholarships are remuneration for work performed, it may well be revisited, and with potentially ugly consequences for the athletes. Ohr said "the players' football-related duties are unrelated to their academic studies unlike the graduate assistants whose teaching and research duties were inextricably tied to their graduate degree requirements." This is new territory.

Walkons are also specifically excluded from being "employees". What about need-based scholarships, such as all Ivy League schools offer athletes? I could see that as a possible way around it. (And I guess "we really need this kid" to be insufficient need for this purpose.)

Another fun twist: As seasonal employees, will they be eligible for unemployment benefits off-season (for those states that still have them; I seem to recall them getting axed here and there during the recession)?

-jk

The majority of universities and colleges in the United States provide football and basketball scholarships sufficient to field teams. The Ivies don't. They are still standing. The Ivies will provide football players with health insurance coverage if other colleges and universities do and probably will even if others do not if unionization efforts keep the issue in the forefront long enough for school Trustees see the need and fairness of it. In fact, they will probably do the same for non scholarship athletes, perhaps with a modest fee by the true student athletes that is subsidized by their school's huge endowments. How Long? Not Long.

As for non-revenue sports, they can go back to the old days when they played schedules that were reachable by bus, and had no "national championships." Presumably, the gear companies would continue supplying most of them with free product, lots of it, because, you know, it sells even more product.

Players striking before bowl games, put forth by a member of the United States Senate, is just so much nonsense. First of all, any sane university, assuming that public pressure in favor of player interests is too much for administrators to do what the law permits, that would be, to delay elections through interminable hearings to resolve ridiculous issues that could otherwise take a one day hearing to resolve, during which time the administrators can make all kinds of threats and promises which are unlawful under the NLRA (the courts find many reasons to find that threats and promises aren't what they seem) that will convince employees, the athletes, not to vote for the union because the administrators just might do what they threatened or promised, and even if the athletes vote for unionization, they face years of litigation before a court tells the administrators to do what the NLRB ordered them to--that would be, to recognize the results of a secret ballot election. Yes, folks, sound like an "election" held in, let's say, for instance,; but it actually is in the good old USA. Say, how come unions have been in decline. Another matter.

Back to the issue, these strikes before bowl games. Really? College athletes are going to do that? Not likely. It would in fact be unlawful and enjoinable to strike if there was a collective bargaining agreement in place that contained no-strike and arbitration clauses which most all such agreements do. So, the universities hold the key to the jail, if you will, and there is not the slightest suggestion that the athletes would not be asking for anything that the schools or the public should have any legitimate grounds. Mandatory health insurance continuing after one leaves school (pre connections can be negotiated for the continuing part), revenue sharing for likeness sales, two days per week of actual hitting in practice, perhaps training and playing games in August which is when players who die on the field usually do and also get injured in senseless practices, unless your school insists on scheduling games when it is too damn hot to play, etc.

There is not the slightest indication that unionized athletes would be unwilling to compromise significantly to reach a fair agreement. Heck, these young men love to play, and it is a dream come true to play college ball, especially in the big time. They don't want no stinking strike.

They, in reality, are only looking for benefits that the NCAA should have mandated on its own years ago. Instead, it sanctions schools for such nonsense as a basketball coach hosting recruits in his on-campus home, making contacts with recruits too early, for graduation rate deficiencies when one-and-done for the stars that bring in the revenue in basketball is just fine. There is no push back by the NCAA by rules that require football players to go to NCAA schools for what often amounts to 3 years because, hey, the NCAA makes money off these guys. If they blow out a knee and lose their scholarships, life ain't fair now is it. If they blow out that knee and you are a fungible player, bye, do not get your injury paid for and don't let the door hit you when the scholarship is withdrawn. No health insurance for these young men is a scandal, and the insurance should continue long after their playing days. It should continue because these athletes have paid with their bodies to earn their schools big bucks, and they should continue or guess what--these wounded ducks, who will need new knees and hips by the time they are 40, if that long, guess who pays for that. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, my brothers, or better still, worry about it tomorrow, after Obamacare, that inadequate compromise the bad guys forced upon us, is repealed and your insurance premiums go up because they are part of the insured pool your insurance policy covers, unless you want the ducks to be cut out because, hey, pre-existing conditions, baby.

The only way unionization has a chance of working is if public pressure forces universities and colleges to allow and abide by a free and fair vote that is held with expedition and then bargain in good faith. Fat chance of that.

This discussion, while interesting, is quite irrelevant. Trust me on this one.

[OldSchool]

Well that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

So how long after Big Labor gains control of our college "sports workers" do we turn on our no-longer-made-in-the-USA TVs to watch our football championship game and find the Shanghai Crimson Tide playing the Guangdong Trojans?

[cspan37421]

Well that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

So how long after Big Labor gains control of our college "sports workers" do we turn on our no-longer-made-in-the-USA TVs to watch our football championship game and find the Shanghai Crimson Tide playing the Guangdong Trojans?

Where's your sense of optimism? By then, Duke Kunshan University will surely be playing in the title game.

[sagegrouse]

Well that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

So how long after Big Labor gains control of our college "sports workers" do we turn on our no-longer-made-in-the-USA TVs to watch our football championship game and find the Shanghai Crimson Tide playing the Guangdong Trojans?

Labor unions, whether "big" or not, have only one in nine workers today (11%) vs. one in five (20%) 30 years ago. So, what's with the union bashing? I don't see labor controlling very much of anything.

Kindly, Sage

[Atlanta Duke]

Jon Stewart took a whack at the NCAA piñata last night

“Since when do unions belong in college sports?” Stewart said. “Unions are socialist and communist collectives. Sports are about people coming together as a group, working towards a common goal from each according to his abilities, putting the team ahead of the — Oh my God! Wait a minute!”

http://college-football.si.com/2014/04/11/jon-stewart-daily-show-ncaa-video/?eref=sihp

Link to video (end of first part rolls over to part two) which ends with a takeoff on one shining moment

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/bwjj0i/sports-disparity?utm=playershare_twitter

[OldSchool]

Jabari weighs in (http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10768716/jabari-parker-duke-blue-devils-uncertain-nba-draft-decision)


Adande: Would the opportunity to make even say six figures in college [from jersey sales and image licensing] influence your decision?...

Jabari: "Not really. I think the NCAA just needs to help us be comfortable in any aspects. I think that I can defend Shabazz on the interview that he had, that sometimes we go to bed starving. I just want there to be even fair play amongst a lot of Divsion I schools but also having that leisure and having those chances to give us things that we really need...."

Adande: "... A lot of people say how possibly with all the food and board provided do you go to bed hungry? Explain how that works?..."

Jabari: "They only can provide two meals a day. I'm just trying to get a third meal, that's all I ask. But I'm not trying to down talk the NCAA by any means, I just want a way we can be comfortable on campus."

If the University of Connecticut men's basketball team has to eat their own toenail clippings to survive the night, that's one thing. Heck, they can always sprinkle salt on 'em.

But if our guys are missing meals, that of course is a different matter entirely!

How about a new NCAA rule permitting midnight pizza for all universities which since 1990 have won at least four Division I basketball championships and during which time have not been banned from postseason play?

[Bluedog]

^Wait, what? I'm confused. Maybe Duke has its personal cooks for the basketball team give them two meal a day, but the food points they get can be used for whatever they want whenever they want any place on campus or vendors in the system off campus that deliver.. Am I wrong? I knew non scholarship fencers who even got money to pay for meals.... anybody a Duke scholarship athlete?

[greybeard]

Labor unions, whether "big" or not, have only one in nine workers today (11%) vs. one in five (20%) 30 years ago. So, what's with the union bashing? I don't see labor controlling very much of anything.

Kindly, Sage

Sage perspective. I agree.

[Gargoyle]

Northwestern players reportedly to reject unionization:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/04/12/emma-unity-too-strong-for-northwestern-unionization/

[Atlanta Duke]

Northwestern players reportedly to reject unionization:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/04/12/emma-unity-too-strong-for-northwestern-unionization/


Northwestern players reportedly to reject unionization:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/04/12/emma-unity-too-strong-for-northwestern-unionization/

Thanks for the link

No surprise the union probably will be voted down with the coach aggressively lobbying for a no vote (which Coach Fitzgerald has every right to do). But the columnist writing the linked story appears to more of a cheerleader than a reporter.

Northwestern is simply the wrong test case for a union in college athletics...

Trust is the key to Northwestern’s tight-knit chemistry. It starts in the recruiting process, in which Fitzgerald and his staff go the extra mile to find the right guys. There’s a close bond between teammate and teammate, teammate and coach. It has been tested throughout the process of evaluating a players’ union, but it won’t be broken.

I guess the columnist thinks a significant number of the "right guys" were wrong when at least 30% of them signed union cards until they were "educated" on the dangers of a union. Given the coach who controls playing time has come out against the union, no surprise the only players' voices being heard prior to the secret ballot election are those opposing a union.

[Senior QB Trevor] Siemian, who opposes forming a union, said he felt misled by the initial pitch from Mr. Colter and CAPA and that many players “weren't informed like they are now.”

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140412/BLOGS04/140419927/nu-football-players-study-up-before-union-vote

My observation is not made in support of a pro-union vote, just to note this is just another union organizing effort where the employer is asserting its legitimate statutory right to play hardball against those employees seeking to organize.

Meanwhile the O'Bannon case heads to trial in June with the District Court's linked order denying cross-motions for summary judgment having been issued on Friday. Lots of interesting (at least to me:)) issues discussed in the order, which analyzes the NCAA as a business rather than as an idealized guardian of "amateur" sports. The NCAA presumably is not pleased that partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of justifying restraints upon players being compensated for use of their likenesses in order to support women's sports and men's sports other than the big two. Given that ruling, that justification cannot be used at trial.

The NCAA’s fourth asserted justification for the challenged restraint is that it increases NCAA member schools’ athletic budgets and, therefore, enables them to provide greater financial support to women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports. This is not a legitimate procompetitive justification. ...

Thus, the NCAA cannot restrain competition in the “college education” market for Division I football and basketball recruits or in the “group licensing” market for Division I football and basketball teams’ publicity rights in order to promote competition in those markets for women’s sports or less prominent men’s sports....

Accordingly, the challenged restraint is not justified by the NCAA’s claimed desire to support women’s sports or less prominent men’s sports. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication of this issue.

http://www.hausfeldllp.com/content_documents/16/NCAAOrderonCross-MotionsforSummaryJudgment.pdf

[TampaDuke]

Back to the issue, these strikes before bowl games. Really? College athletes are going to do that? Not likely. It would in fact be unlawful and enjoinable to strike if there was a collective bargaining agreement in place that contained no-strike and arbitration clauses which most all such agreements do. So, the universities hold the key to the jail, if you will, and there is not the slightest suggestion that the athletes would not be asking for anything that the schools or the public should have any legitimate grounds. Mandatory health insurance continuing after one leaves school (pre connections can be negotiated for the continuing part), revenue sharing for likeness sales, two days per week of actual hitting in practice, perhaps training and playing games in August which is when players who die on the field usually do and also get injured in senseless practices, unless your school insists on scheduling games when it is too damn hot to play, etc.

There is not the slightest indication that unionized athletes would be unwilling to compromise significantly to reach a fair agreement.


Of course, transit workers, teachers, etc., only want what is "fair" and are "willing to compromise," too. That must mean we've never seen a strike just prior to the holidays or the school year, right?

[TampaDuke]

Labor unions, whether "big" or not, have only one in nine workers today (11%) vs. one in five (20%) 30 years ago. So, what's with the union bashing? I don't see labor controlling very much of anything.

Kindly, Sage

While true Sage, might I respectively suggest a review of union funding and influence on politics if you want a full look at union influence.

[-jk]

Let's please keep this about unions and the college athletics, not a more general policy discussion.

thanks,

-jk

[TampaDuke]

Thus, the scholarship is imposed on the school by the NCAA's requirement that athletes be students; if they didn't have to be students, the need for scholarships, or most of the money associated with them, evaporates. If the NCAA removes the student requirement, we'll talk about taxes.

The requirement to also be a student is precisely what the university argues makes these employees "not employees," regardless of benefits provided or control by the college. It didn't seem to matter to the Regional Director, though.

An alternative to dropping the requirement that student-athletes actually be students (which will never happen), Congress can just amend the tax code to exempt income from student-athlete/employees. Of course, they'd likely also need to similarly amend the Affordable Care Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, ERISA, Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, GINA, the FLSA, COBRA, etc. Then we'll need all 50 states to amend their workers' compensation laws, restictive covenant laws, and various other employment-related laws.

In other words, tax implications are but one small side-effect of labeling students as employees. If that's the direction we're headed, there are literally hundreds of other implications that will need to be addressed. That reason alone, together with the fact that for probably a hundred years no one has ever understood that student athletes were actually employees, demonstrates the fallacy of the Regional Director's results-oriented decision. Don't you think the IRS would have sought taxes from one of these "employees" sometime during the last few decades if they thought they were employees?

[TampaDuke]

Let's please keep this about unions and the college athletics, not a more general policy discussion.

thanks,

-jk

Apologies -jk. If my recent posts stray over the line, please delete as deemed necessary.

[greybeard]

The requirement to also be a student is precisely what the university argues makes these employees "not employees," regardless of benefits provided or control by the college. It didn't seem to matter to the Regional Director, though.

An alternative to dropping the requirement that student-athletes actually be students (which will never happen), Congress can just amend the tax code to exempt income from student-athlete/employees. Of course, they'd likely also need to similarly amend the Affordable Care Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, ERISA, Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, GINA, the FLSA, COBRA, etc. Then we'll need all 50 states to amend their workers' compensation laws, restictive covenant laws, and various other employment-related laws.

In other words, tax implications are but one small side-effect of labeling students as employees. If that's the direction we're headed, there are literally hundreds of other implications that will need to be addressed. That reason alone, together with the fact that for probably a hundred years no one has ever understood that student athletes were actually employees, demonstrates the fallacy of the Regional Director's results-oriented decision. Don't you think the IRS would have sought taxes from one of these "employees" sometime during the last few decades if they thought they were employees?

Couldn't being a student, an NCAA requirement in order to play football, make the scholarship exempt from taxation, aka, paying tuition for an engineer's going to business school to serve his employer in any number of more business related capacities. That said, academic.

An NLRB election victory will yield current players nothing. Even assuming a majority of current players voted for unionization, it is questionable that seniors would even have a chance to vote before the season ended. And, all the players would likely be long gone before an election victory would be given effect by a reviewing court.

The only way players will get to unionized or get the benefits that they seek is there was a groundswell of public support behind them. The public doesn't care and the coach and Northwestern do. Let the games begin; those who are about to be seriously injured salute you. Just the way it goes.

[Atlanta Duke]

The requirement to also be a student is precisely what the university argues makes these employees "not employees," regardless of benefits provided or control by the college. It didn't seem to matter to the Regional Director, though.

Just because an argument is rejected does not necessarily mean it did not matter to the decisionmaker.

I do not practice labor law, but it appears one of the closest cases on point regarding whether or not students are "employees" under the NLRA is a case involving the issue of whether graduate assistants at Brown University were employees. In his decision, the Regional Director stated one of the key findings in the Brown case was that “students serving as graduate student assistants spend only a limited number of hours performing their duties, and it is beyond dispute that their principal time commitment at Brown is focused on obtaining a degree and, thus, being a student.”

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-director-region-13-issues-decision-northwestern-university-athletes

I do know State universities are not subject to the NLRA. But assuming the University of Kentucky was subject to the NLRA, would your position be that the freshmen starters for UK this past Monday night were primarily focused upon obtaining a degree and that was the primary commitment of their time?

[TampaDuke]

Couldn't being a student, an NCAA requirement in order to play football, make the scholarship exempt from taxation, aka, paying tuition for an engineer's going to business school to serve his employer in any number of more business related capacities. That said, academic.

I'm definitely no expert on tax law, but I believe scholarships used toward tuition, books, board and the like are not taxable and scholarships in excess of what is needed for that is taxed. That's the way it used to be anyway. The problem here is that the NLRB (or RD in this case) is essentially saying that this is payment of a wage when it comes to student athletes. Does that change the equation for tax purposes? I don't know, but it is an issue that would need to be addressed. My view is that it is not payment of a wage, it's a scholarship. The fact that the college gets something in return (in substantial amount) shouldn't change that.



An NLRB election victory will yield current players nothing. Even assuming a majority of current players voted for unionization, it is questionable that seniors would even have a chance to vote before the season ended. And, all the players would likely be long gone before an election victory would be given effect by a reviewing court.

Completely agree. This issue, if it moves forward, will play out over 8-10 years in all likelihood. The graduate assistant issue has been ongoing for more than that. For unionization of student athletes to work given the temporary nature of college player commitments would require the NLRB to also institute special rules governing these bargaining units. The NLRB does that in other contexts, but nothing too similar to this in my opinion.


The only way players will get to unionized or get the benefits that they seek is there was a groundswell of public support behind them.

I don't disagree that there should be reform of the NCAA as it relates to student athletes; I just don't think calling them employees so that they can unionize under the traditional union model is a correct view of the current law. The best thing about the Northwestern case is that it has created the groundswell (or started it) and initiated the debate into needed reform of the NCAA.

[TampaDuke]

I do not practice labor law, but it appears one of the closest cases on point regarding whether or not students are "employees" under the NLRA is a case involving the issue of whether graduate assistants at Brown University were employees. In his decision, the Regional Director stated one of the key findings in the Brown case was that “students serving as graduate student assistants spend only a limited number of hours performing their duties, and it is beyond dispute that their principal time commitment at Brown is focused on obtaining a degree and, thus, being a student.”

http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-director-region-13-issues-decision-northwestern-university-athletes

It's a bit dangerous to view NLRB respect of precedence as similar to how precedent is treated in a judicial forum. The consensus is that the Brown decision will be overturned at the earliest possible opportunity. The NLRB has already solicited views as to whether to overturn it. As such, I'm not sure relying on Brown is best. The short of it is that these decisions are policy-driven. As a practitioner, it's very frustrating, but it's been that way since the formation of the NLRB.


I do know State universities are not subject to the NLRA. But assuming the University of Kentucky was subject to the NLRA, would your position be that the freshmen starters for UK this past Monday night were primarily focused upon obtaining a degree and that was the primary commitment of their time?

No, my position is that the time spent or focus of the student athlete is not an appropriate criteria at all. Nor is how much money they make for the university, their coach, or themselves (down the line). My position is much simpler -- if you voluntarily signed up to be a student athlete, which have never before been deemed employees -- then you are not an employee and cannot later claim to be simply because the commitment requires a great deal of time or you value the athlete portion of your role more than the student portion.

Should the Kentucky band members also be deemed employees if they received a scholarship? How about scholarship students who have to commit most of their time (and some of whom are not permitted to work) to maintain criteria required of the scholarship?

One thing that gets lost in the student athlete/employee analysis is that these players are not taking over a task that is traditionally done by a college employee. I can see a case for a grad student being an employee as they are doing functions that an employee would otherwise have to do. You see the same things sometimes with alleged volunteers who are sometimes deemed employees under various employment laws because they are treated as employees and performing a function that an employee would otherwise perform. This is key. If the college did not have these student athletes performing these functions, you would not have a college employee that would have to do it and in fact that is not allowed.

[Atlanta Duke]

It's a bit dangerous to view NLRB respect of precedence as similar to how precedent is treated in a judicial forum. The consensus is that the Brown decision will be overturned at the earliest possible opportunity. The NLRB has already solicited views as to whether to overturn it. As such, I'm not sure relying on Brown is best. The short of it is that these decisions are policy-driven. As a practitioner, it's very frustrating, but it's been that way since the formation of the NLRB.

No, my position is that the time spent or focus of the student athlete is not an appropriate criteria at all. Nor is how much money they make for the university, their coach, or themselves (down the line). My position is much simpler -- if you voluntarily signed up to be a student athlete, which have never before been deemed employees -- then you are not an employee and cannot later claim to be simply because the commitment requires a great deal of time or you value the athlete portion of your role more than the student portion.

Thanks for the clarification on Brown. FWIW it appears Northwestern is busting on the Regional Director for not even applying Brown correctly in its brief to the full Board requesting review of the Regional Director's decision.

http://documents.latimes.com/northwestern-appeals-nlrb-ruling-athletes-are-employees/ (I got hooked on reading source documents by Professor Anne Scott when taking her History 91 and 92 courses:))

Of course the issue of how voluntary it is to sign up to be a student athlete subject to the full bundle of NCAA requirements, including but not limited to waiving your right to compensation for use of your likeness in TV broadcasts, is perhaps the major issue in the O'Bannon antitrust case. The jury trial in that case is set to kickoff in early June, following the District Court's linked order this past Friday that denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. That order stated the following:

Plaintiffs allege that student-athletes are harmed by this restraint because it prevents them from receiving compensation -- specifically, for the use of their names, images, and likenesses -- that they would receive in an unrestrained market. ...

Plaintiffs’ evidence is therefore sufficient to support an inference that, in the absence of the NCAA’s restrictions on student-athlete pay, a market would exist
for these group licenses.

http://www.hausfeldllp.com/content_documents/16/NCAAOrderonCross-MotionsforSummaryJudgment.pdf

I agree with the posts above that state the union organizing campaigns are a slow motion, piecemeal approach for players seeking a greater say in the terms and conditions of their time spent as players in major revenue sports that the NCAAA institutions can battle indefinitely. Assuming the O'Bannon case does not settle, there will be a jury verdict in that case before the Board rules on Northwestern's appeal. The antitrust exposure appears to be the much greater threat.

NCAA should have moved to address some of these issues years ago before litigation ramped up - pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered

[-jk]

Let's keep policy and politics out of this thread.

Thanks,

-jk

[Atlanta Duke]

Let's keep policy and politics out of this thread.

Thanks,

-jk

Not certain if I was the poster to whom that was directed. If so I apologize.

[-jk]

Not certain if I was the poster to whom that was directed. If so I apologize.

More a general request. Getting into the politics of unions, and their waxing and waning, would be more public policy board material.

-jk

[PSurprise]

Forgive me if this has been covered, but how would these students do their taxes? Since they're employees, I assume they would get W-2s. (How) would the cost of the school factor in, either for the parents or the student-athletes? I would imagine this would have some serious consequences to potential student-athletes.

[greybeard]

Brown has little to do with this case, it did not involve scholarships given to football players who could lose them at will by their employer for failing to fulfill their coach's football obligations, they are part of a multimillion dollar enterprise that has nothing whatever to being a student except that being a student is what the NCAA requires in order to play. It is difficult to imagine that a thing of value given to players to play is not a form of compensation, even though it should not be taxable because it is an employer prerequisite to playing, which they don't get if they get injured or do not play to their employer's satisfaction. Compensation given to players is sufficient to make them employees under the definition of employee established in the NLRA, which the NLRB Board members have broad authority to interpret, while being a non-taxable event. Happens all the time in other contexts.

The length of time that it would take for an election victory to be legal effect by a court of appeals in the Northwestern or other football program case is no different than the time it takes to give an election victory in most NLRB election cases, minimum-wage LPNs in nursing homes. Like college football players, there is no chance that the LPNs who voted will be around when a court degree is issued, and thus union organizing will have to start afresh.

Several state courts who have considered the issue of teaching assistants' status have found them to be employees of state universities under state labor relations acts and there have been a number of schools who have voluntarily recognized unions representing such assistants based on a showing of majority status due to public pressure. Brown was out of step. The reasons underlying the Northwestern players effort to unionize have received scant attention from the media especially the health care and job security issues that are huge. It seems to me that those issue come to the fore only if the football players at many big time programs file election petitions with state labor relations boards or the NLRB and command the floor to make known their grievances regarding those these issues. Who knows, something might come of it. Absent that, I see the NCAA doing nothing. the cost of health care both in college and long term will significantly eat into the profits that the players earn, the job security issues give the abusive head coaches who drive kids to injury and then dump them produces "winners," the cheating that is ubiquitous in big time college football and basketball keeps many players out of the bind that Parker found himself in, one and done is going to be changed to two and done to satisfy the financial interests of both leagues, and the NFL has players locked into college for 3 years. The impetus for maintaining the status quo is enormous.

Those who make it to the dance will get paid for 2 or 3 years on the average, and will leave their years of football near cripples in a short number of years or unable to tell a football from a garbage can in less. Free health insurance, a thing of the past. It has no future in the world of football. The coaches say so, and they run the show.

[Atlanta Duke]

The reasons underlying the Northwestern players effort to unionize have received scant attention from the media especially the health care and job security issues that are huge. It seems to me that those issue come to the fore only if the football players at many big time programs file election petitions with state labor relations boards or the NLRB and command the floor to make known their grievances regarding those these issues. Who knows, something might come of it. Absent that, I see the NCAA doing nothing. the cost of health care both in college and long term will significantly eat into the profits that the players earn, the job security issues give the abusive head coaches who drive kids to injury and then dump them produces "winners," the cheating that is ubiquitous in big time college football and basketball keeps many players out of the bind that Parker found himself in, one and done is going to be changed to two and done to satisfy the financial interests of both leagues, and the NFL has players locked into college for 3 years. The impetus for maintaining the status quo is enormous.

Those who make it to the dance will get paid for 2 or 3 years on the average, and will leave their years of football near cripples in a short number of years or unable to tell a football from a garbage can in less. Free health insurance, a thing of the past. It has no future in the world of football. The coaches say so, and they run the show.

Union organizing efforts are not the only or for that matter best potential leverage the players have.

The O'Bannon antitrust case that is set for trial in June seeks compensation for use of the players' likenesses in video games and, more significantly TV broadcasts. If that case settles the NCAA presumably could agree to providing post-graduation health care and modifying the current one year renewable scholarship system that took hold in the 1970s as part of the settlement.

Assuming the NCAA will take its chances at trial in O'Bannon, another antitrust case seeking class action status for football and basketball players was filed against the NCAA and the five power conferences last month.

[The lawsuit] contends that NCAA member universities are acting as a cartel by fixing the prices paid to athletes, who presumably would receive offers well in excess of tuition, room, board and books if not restricted by NCAA rules.

Lead plaintiffs' counsel in that case is Jeffrey Kessler. This is not Mr. Kessler's first rodeo for high profile sports law matters.

Kessler helped bring free agency to the NFL, winning a key jury verdict for the NFL Players Association in 1992. He remains outside counsel to the NFLPA and the NBA's player union, has taken on Major League Baseball and represented star athletes including Michael Jordan and Tom Brady.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10620388/anti-trust-claim-filed-jeffrey-kessler-challenges-ncaa-amateur-model

Health insurance coverage, guaranteed scholarships, and other terms and conditions of employment could be put in play in that suit as well.

Link to the complaint filed by Kessler here

http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2014/0317/NCAA_lawsuit.pdf

[toooskies]

I think the governing issue about "what happens if scholarships are taxable" is, "is a scholarship legal reimbursement for employment". I may be way wrong here, but I don't think it is.

Currently, the NCAA treats academic standing as a requirement for employment: every athlete must be a student in good academic standing, and there are collective standards as well. As such, it cannot be considered compensation, because I'm pretty sure employers in the US can't force you to spend your compensation somewhere (specifically to the institution which grants it). So either the athletes would be exempt from being enrolled at the school or the school would have to categorize their scholarships as a non-monetary benefit.

The takeaway from that, though, is if athletes are classified as employees and their scholarships are a non-monetary benefit of their employment, then the athletes will need to be paid at least minimum wage.

Or is my interpretation of the situation wrong? If the NLRB's current decision holds, would the student-athletes' "employee" status require they receive minimum wage?

[sagegrouse]

Couldn't being a student, an NCAA requirement in order to play football, make the scholarship exempt from taxation, aka, paying tuition for an engineer's going to business school to serve his employer in any number of more business related capacities. That said, academic.



Two thoughts:


To be exempt from taxes, a student who receives a scholarship must be enrolled in a degree-granting program. The scholarship must not be in excess of costs (e.g., tuition). I expect that the tax hypothesis is far from settled if athletes are viewed as "employees" under the Fair Labor Stds. Act.

Nothing prevents the Congress from passing a law exempting athletic scholarship payments IN ANY AMOUNT from taxation. Even though the legislative climate is the worst in history, nearly 40 states have teams in major conferences.

[Atlanta Duke]

Nothing prevents the Congress from passing a law exempting athletic scholarship payments IN ANY AMOUNT from taxation. Even though the legislative climate is the worst in history, nearly 40 states have teams in major conferences.

My bet is on Congress getting involved, just as it addressed antitrust concerns to clear the NFL/AFL merger in the 1960s. Whether that is part of adjusting statutes to cover a settlement or the NCAA seeking a legislative fix to bless its practices is an open question

B10 commissioner Jim Delaney is on record as saying if the O'Bannon litigation ends badly that Congress will need to address the consequences (presumably with some guidance from Mr. Delaney's friends)

[If] we’re successful (in court), we’ll continue and maintain and modify practices. And if we’re unsuccessful, the people in Congress will have to figure out what they do with Title IX, and what they do with the anti-trust laws, and we’ll have to figure out where we fit in and where we want to be.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130806/SPORTS15/308060073/Bob-Kravitz-Big-Ten-commissioner-Jim-Delany-opines-pressing-NCAA-issues-day

[lotusland]

Am I the only one who sees a link between the NCAA relaxing their stance on pot and allowing unlimited food to players? Next up, cartoon network provided in athletic dorms.

[Atlanta Duke]

No surprise this is quite the divisive issue at Northwestern, particularly among former players

Fault Lines Appear at Northwestern Over Union Vote

The varied viewpoints were on display at a meeting on Wednesday night organized by former Northwestern football players at a civic center here. Several dozen alumni attended, most of them former football players.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/sports/ncaafootball/fault-lines-appear-at-northwestern-over-union-vote.html?ref=sports&_r=0

My guess is Chris Collins is keeping his head down and hoping to avoid making any comments on this matter

[OldSchool]

Jameis Winston issued citation for shoplifting food from Publix supermarket (http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2014/04/30/heisman-trophy-winning-qb-jameis-winston-reportedly-shoplifts-crab-legs-after-ncaa-expands-meal-allowances/)


Sheriff’s Office: Winston Issued Citation For Shoplifting $32 Worth Of Crab Legs

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (CBS Tampa/AP) — Florida State’s Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Jameis Winston has been suspended from the university’s baseball team after being issued a citation for stealing crab legs.

The Leon County Sheriff’s Office said Tuesday that Winston was caught shoplifting at a Tallahassee Publix Monday night and was issued a citation....

Winston’s reported citation comes as the NCAA approved to expand meal allowances for all athletes.

Division I schools are now allowed to provide unlimited meals and snacks to all athletes, including walk-ons.

The move came after Connecticut guard Shabazz Napier complained during the Final Four that he sometimes went to bed “starving” because he couldn’t afford food.

Schools were previously allowed to provide three meals per day or a stipend for those meals to scholarship athletes. The new rule now allows walk-ons to receive the same allowances and allows schools to provide more meals and snacks, too.


What! Now we have Heisman trophy winners forced to steal crab legs in order to make it through the night???

Surely there must be a Crab Fishermen's Union somewhere to come to the aid of Florida State football players, as the United Steelworkers did at Northwestern!