Unionization of college athletes: Somewhere Marvin Miller is smiling.
- Thread starter bankshot1
- Start date
The comments are interesting... a lot of people really want them to shut up and be grateful. God the NCAA is a cesspool.
I'd add that the "no one is forcing them to play" argument is such a canard. Big time sports are a profitiable enterprise (albeit technicaly not-for-profit) that has engaged in a vast wage fixing scheme. They've done it with full collaboration of the NBA/NFL who have also colluded to lock younger players out.
I'd add that the "no one is forcing them to play" argument is such a canard. Big time sports are a profitiable enterprise (albeit technicaly not-for-profit) that has engaged in a vast wage fixing scheme. They've done it with full collaboration of the NBA/NFL who have also colluded to lock younger players out.
jose melendez said:
Yeah, I'm genuinely curious how many NFL players there are who didn't play college football, and how many NBA players there are that haven't played in college since the NBA implemented their new age restriction.
The thread title is a bit misleading, since it's only football players organizing. It's easier for them to hit the 30% threshold if they don't include athletes from other sports, who would be effected deleteriously
I thought you've learned not to read online comments?jose melendez said:
It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, comes next. Though they have been decent lately, it is not as though NW is a football powerhouse. If Vanderbilt, Duke and Stanford follow, it has the possibility to be "those smart guys who aren't gong to the NFL," even though that would be an incorrect statement. When Oklahoma joins, then you know that kids myopically focused on football are joining in.
It seems Coulter and NW pursued this. Has anyone heard of any outsiders pushing athletes to unionize? If couches are going the extra mile (and they aren't) to keep wannabe agents and boosters away from players, do the rules have to be adjusted for some sort of accredited union rep?
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Assuming you're only asking about American born players....just one that I know of: Brandon Jennings.
Euclis20 said:
Jeremy Tyler, too. The NFL, I think, would be more interesting though because they've created a more restrictive barrier to entry.
Northwestern is a private college. How would unionization be helped (or hindered) by attempting to do this at a state school?
Well, for starters, you'll have like a 82% attendance at games, and the coaches won't be able to punish the players for no-showing.
Jeremy Tyler, too. The NFL, I think, would be more interesting though because they've created a more restrictive barrier to entry.
Just to cherry-pick this point, the age line for the NFL and NBA must be considered as separate issues. There are valid medical arguments to be made for not letting an 18-19 kid play in the NFL. It makes the proper solutions different for each league.
Just to cherry-pick this point, the age line for the NFL and NBA must be considered as separate issues. There are valid medical arguments to be made for not letting an 18-19 kid play in the NFL. It makes the proper solutions different for each league.
Here is the NCAA statement:
NCAA has very fine line to walk as they obviously want players to receive compensation but not be considered employees.
Here is a 157 page article that goes through some of the issues and appears to come down on the side that scholarship athletes are employees: http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/262/81washlrev71.pdf. Not having time to read it, I have no idea if it is correct or even makes sense but it does seem to cite the correct tests.
It should be noted (it is in the above article) that in 1953, the Colorado Supreme Court (University of Denver v. Nemeth) upheld a determination by the state Industrial Commission that Ernest Nemeth, a football player at the University of Denver, was an "employee" within the meaning of the Colorado workers' compensation statute. After that the NCAA created the term "student athlete" and the issue apparently has not reached the courts since.
If the college football players are able to unionize, they would be able to bargain for practice conditions, better medical attention, guaranteed scholarships at any private university, and even compensation.
Note - an Arent Fox alert says that the NLRA is not applicable to public universities so this would only apply to private universities. Also, there has to be a "commonality of interest" to form a nation-wide union.
It would be interesting to see if having a union would help or hurt private universities in recruiting?
NCAA has very fine line to walk as they obviously want players to receive compensation but not be considered employees.
Here is a 157 page article that goes through some of the issues and appears to come down on the side that scholarship athletes are employees: http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/262/81washlrev71.pdf. Not having time to read it, I have no idea if it is correct or even makes sense but it does seem to cite the correct tests.
It should be noted (it is in the above article) that in 1953, the Colorado Supreme Court (University of Denver v. Nemeth) upheld a determination by the state Industrial Commission that Ernest Nemeth, a football player at the University of Denver, was an "employee" within the meaning of the Colorado workers' compensation statute. After that the NCAA created the term "student athlete" and the issue apparently has not reached the courts since.
If the college football players are able to unionize, they would be able to bargain for practice conditions, better medical attention, guaranteed scholarships at any private university, and even compensation.
Note - an Arent Fox alert says that the NLRA is not applicable to public universities so this would only apply to private universities. Also, there has to be a "commonality of interest" to form a nation-wide union.
It would be interesting to see if having a union would help or hurt private universities in recruiting?
As I posted in (my derailment of) the Johnny Manziel thread, I think that the current system is tremendously exploitative, and that the players should get compensated for the billions in value they are creating for the schools, the coaches, the television networks, and the sponsors. Their "education" is certainly not compensation; it's a sham - I'm sure the recent UNC and Florida State "scandals" are standard operating procedure at big sports schools.
These teams are professional sports organizations in all but name; their facilities are Olympic-quality; their media footprint is huge; their revenue streams are massive. Except that they don't have to worry about the single biggest cost item of most professional teams - player salaries - because they are nominally composed of "students." Which is bullshit. These teams run their schools, not the other way 'round.
It's been a long time, but I read a lot about Marvin Miller's fight to unionize baseball players, and the fierce resistance he got from the old-boys-club. Many observers thought at the time that if the owners had compromised with Miller, they might have made a better deal. Instead, they fought it tooth and nail, and the result was the Curt Flood case and the arbitrators' decision that followed, which created free agency as we know it. (Of course, the value of franchises has skyrocketed along with player salaries, so who says the owners got a bad deal in the long run anyway).
I don't know if this effort to unionize will fly. Graduate students at, IIRC, NYU and Yale have recently tried and not survived legal challenges. If PhD candidates who teaches undergraduate classes can't successfully unionize, then I doubt "student athletes" can, legally. But I really think that the schools could nip this in the bud by creating even modest compensation schemes for the players.
Edit: Scrolled past wbcd's post above and didn't see it. I'm not familiar with the University of Denver case. It would be interesting to take a look at that. I'd also like to ask the folks who drafted the NCAA statement - if the whole point of playing a football schedule in the SEC is "education," why aren't they giving away the TV rights or tickets to the games? What a fucking farce. If anyone is "undermining the purpose of college: an education," it sure as hell isn't the players.
These teams are professional sports organizations in all but name; their facilities are Olympic-quality; their media footprint is huge; their revenue streams are massive. Except that they don't have to worry about the single biggest cost item of most professional teams - player salaries - because they are nominally composed of "students." Which is bullshit. These teams run their schools, not the other way 'round.
It's been a long time, but I read a lot about Marvin Miller's fight to unionize baseball players, and the fierce resistance he got from the old-boys-club. Many observers thought at the time that if the owners had compromised with Miller, they might have made a better deal. Instead, they fought it tooth and nail, and the result was the Curt Flood case and the arbitrators' decision that followed, which created free agency as we know it. (Of course, the value of franchises has skyrocketed along with player salaries, so who says the owners got a bad deal in the long run anyway).
I don't know if this effort to unionize will fly. Graduate students at, IIRC, NYU and Yale have recently tried and not survived legal challenges. If PhD candidates who teaches undergraduate classes can't successfully unionize, then I doubt "student athletes" can, legally. But I really think that the schools could nip this in the bud by creating even modest compensation schemes for the players.
Edit: Scrolled past wbcd's post above and didn't see it. I'm not familiar with the University of Denver case. It would be interesting to take a look at that. I'd also like to ask the folks who drafted the NCAA statement - if the whole point of playing a football schedule in the SEC is "education," why aren't they giving away the TV rights or tickets to the games? What a fucking farce. If anyone is "undermining the purpose of college: an education," it sure as hell isn't the players.
Well, technically, they are being compensated quite a bit because of the scholarship. Throw in the free housing and 'tutors' and they are getting 30-40k in compensation. Would it make more sense if they were paid that and just didn't have go to class? Probally.
axx said:
But then they wouldn't be students, right? I mean, if they're getting paid to play, then colleges just become minor league professional sports. And the athletes would be treated like any other employee. They get paid, and get health benefits, etc. (which, of course, they already get…Kevin Ware's broken leg was paid for by Louisville, not by Ware). But then they'd have to pay for their own housing, food, parking, etc.
It would completely change the relationship between schools and sports.
If they do this, but just see their scholarship and housing and food and clothing and travel and tutoring as part of their compensation package, then all that is taxable income. And without actually providing the cash to cover the taxes, you're asking athletes to come up with a lot of real money. I've calculated this before, but since I'm a Syracuse grad, I did it with my alma mater: Per year, scholarship athletes receive about $60k worth of benefits as part of being a scholarship athlete. Taxed at 15%, that's $9,000 they'd owe the federal government in taxes. Without SU throwing in that nine grand, how is a kid supposed to come up with that kind of money? I can see it for a guy like Jerami Grant, who could probably sell enough jerseys and sign enough autographs to cover it. But the last scholarship kid on the bench, especially on the football team? No chance. Of course, it's much worse for scholarship athletes on minor sports that nobody has ever heard of.
This whole thing is a gigantic minefield.
As I said in a different thread, I don't believe that we'll ever see a day where the athletes playing for a given school are not also students.
That doesn't mean that they don't deserve compensation beyond just a scholarship. The economics of the game have changed incredibly in the past decade - large Division I schools are now reaping incredible amounts of revenue from cable packages, local broadcasting rights, luxury suites, general ticket revenue, licensing deals and merchandising - and the only people who see none of it are the players. It's a sham system that is 100% exploitative, and if the NCAA (or the schools) don't move to do something about it the system will collapse.
As the father of an athlete who just finished her (Division III) athletics career, I can tell you that the unethical/corrupt nature of the NCAA extends into all sports at all levels of college. Without going into too much detail (because I don't have the time) I can tell you that the NCAA has simply lost sight of their mission. Their sole purpose now seems to be to control athletes at every level of competition through stringent eligibility requirements that have nothing to do with the purpose of being a student. They exist to allow the NCAA to keep athletes in line so they don't upset the gravy train. Because the NCAA knows that the athletic careers of young men and woman are fleeting, so these kids can be manipulated to do whatever the NCAA wants or they will be deemed ineligible, which has the effect of ending the career of a young man or woman because by the time the ruling is overturned, they have graduated and moved on with their lives.
The NCAA deserves to die. If this helps further that process, I am for it.
That doesn't mean that they don't deserve compensation beyond just a scholarship. The economics of the game have changed incredibly in the past decade - large Division I schools are now reaping incredible amounts of revenue from cable packages, local broadcasting rights, luxury suites, general ticket revenue, licensing deals and merchandising - and the only people who see none of it are the players. It's a sham system that is 100% exploitative, and if the NCAA (or the schools) don't move to do something about it the system will collapse.
As the father of an athlete who just finished her (Division III) athletics career, I can tell you that the unethical/corrupt nature of the NCAA extends into all sports at all levels of college. Without going into too much detail (because I don't have the time) I can tell you that the NCAA has simply lost sight of their mission. Their sole purpose now seems to be to control athletes at every level of competition through stringent eligibility requirements that have nothing to do with the purpose of being a student. They exist to allow the NCAA to keep athletes in line so they don't upset the gravy train. Because the NCAA knows that the athletic careers of young men and woman are fleeting, so these kids can be manipulated to do whatever the NCAA wants or they will be deemed ineligible, which has the effect of ending the career of a young man or woman because by the time the ruling is overturned, they have graduated and moved on with their lives.
The NCAA deserves to die. If this helps further that process, I am for it.
As "employees" of a public university, they would not be covered by the federal National Labor Relations Act, so their ability to form a union would be governed by state law and/or university policy. In some states they would have no ability to force the university to recognize and bargain with their union. Even states that generally provide public employees with the right to form a union and bargain collectively could pass laws that would exclude college athletes.Harry Hooper said:
Here's where it gets really interesting: If the courts ultimately determine that the NW football players are employees for the purposes of the NLRA, it could open the floodgates to the application of other employment statutes. (In fact, it's possible that these two issues will be litigated at the same time.) Most notably, college athletes have long been considered non-employees for purposes of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which generally requires the payment of minimum wage and overtime. This enforcement position of the US Department of Labor is based on the supposition that college athletes participate in intercollegiate athletics as part of their overall educational experience, and that such participation is primarily for the benefit of the student--in other words, it's not a true employment relationship. That analysis is over 30 years old. In an age where college football coaches are the highest paid employees of the universities where they coach, and TV networks get into bidding wars over broadcast rights, and Texas has its own freaking network, it's getting harder to say with a straight face that it's primarily for the benefit of the "student-athletes." If these guys are found to be employees under the FLSA they'll be entitled to minimum wage and overtime (absent an act of congress) and they'll have to be paid regardless of what the NCAA thinks. And that would affect (at least some) athletes at private AND public schools alike, the employees of which are all covered by the FLSA.
If that happens, do you treat all athletes at D1 schools the same? What about athletes on teams that operate at a loss? If you pay some and not others, do you have a Title IX issue?
It could be a mess.
MarcSullivaFan said:
It will be a mess. A colossal, gigantic, incomprehensibly bad mess. Of course, it's already a colossal, gigantic, incomprehensibly bad mess. And Average Reds is right: The NCAA deserves to die. It is a massively corrupt organization.
I don't think unionizing or paying athletes is any kind of solution, but then again, I don't know what is.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Average Reds said:
I'm right there on that wall with you, sir.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Specifically, anyone doubting that these athletes should unionize and demand benefits ought to feast on the Atlantic Monthly's lengthy, well-researched piece on this from a year ago. And if you're not yet convinced that the NCAA is a festering sore on our attempts to actually achieve the goals of higher education, have this St Joe's story for dessert.
ivanvamp said:
Pretty much. But I imagine the currency would be much more valuable to the players as opposed to an education they aren't getting right now, even when you factor in taxes and the like.
Title IX alone probably makes paying players a non-starter without dismantling the entire system.
Quite apart from the rampant corruption, the NCAA system is a slave system in which athletes get scholarhips to take gut courses while generating millions in revenue for the schools. The fact that boosters and others pay players under the table is a good thing given how these young people are exploited. And at schools like UConn, Stanford and Tennessee, the women are exploited too.
Unfortunately, I do not believe the players will win the argument that they are "employees," either under the NLRA or state labor laws. IMHO a better route for the players to take is a class action suit for unfair exploitation of their names and likenesses under state laws that protect celebrities, such as the very strong system of protection in California.
At some point a class action suit that gets past summary judgment will force the NCAA to pay athletes at least a reasonable stipend on top of their scholarships. The NCAA will then become more vulnerable to the argument that these athletes are in fact employees, which is one reason why the schools are so hesitant to do this.
Unfortunately, I do not believe the players will win the argument that they are "employees," either under the NLRA or state labor laws. IMHO a better route for the players to take is a class action suit for unfair exploitation of their names and likenesses under state laws that protect celebrities, such as the very strong system of protection in California.
At some point a class action suit that gets past summary judgment will force the NCAA to pay athletes at least a reasonable stipend on top of their scholarships. The NCAA will then become more vulnerable to the argument that these athletes are in fact employees, which is one reason why the schools are so hesitant to do this.
:barf:
I mean, does this apply to the work study kids working in the library and the cafeteria too? Do those jobs compromise their education? If anything about football compromises education it's the sheer amount of time spent on the activity.
Love that the QB was the guy who started this at Northwestern--that Colter kid is going to go places. Also love that the coach was fully supportive. Really good educators like anything that encourages students to participate in the governance of their own lives--casts quite a juxtaposition to the NCAA.
MentalDisabldLst said:
Egads. Quite a piece--thanks for the link.
The fact that a Pulitzer Prize winning civil rights historian and MacArthur genius grant recipient would consider this subject worthy of his attentions ought give us pause. That he's willing to compare it to colonialism suggests that maybe we ought to tear the whole damn building down.
FWIW, though, the larger system is even worse than what he describes. As bad as what he's looking at is, there are more "winners" in that area of NCAA college athletics than in some of the lower echelons. Like, at least those kids are on scholarship. This country is really football crazy as I think most of us know, and at a lot of small, regional schools, the students are paying and going into debt to pursue their dream of being college and eventually professional football players even though these students obviously have even less chance.
Consider this in the context of how a lot of small regional colleges work. For starters, they are really concerned about enrollments in ways that, say, Michigan is not; they don't max out enrollment but need students want to come and not get discouraged. This creates an internal systemic pressure for the existence of classes that students won't flunk out of; there need not be any explicit pressure or mandate from administration, but what we're talking about is a class market place that favors professors that offer classes that students take over those that they don't take.
Ultimately, this means a lot of schools end up offering lots of shitty classes for the athletes to take because the college cannot survive without the revenue provided by the athletes' tuition payments. Throw in the fact that many athletes are under-prepared because sports-crazy high school communities in much of the country let them slide, and what you have is sort of an abomination. And by abomination, I mean that a significant portion of our country's educational system is actually a publicly subsidized, tax-payer financed system of college athletics clubs, especially football, that throw young people into debt masquerading as schools with a little bit of education going on on the side.
And the games aren't even very good.
Really, the only feasible solution is for universities to get out of the big-time athletics business, like they do in Italy. There any athlete must complete for a club, not a school.
But there's zero chance that ever happens. Because I agree with Rev, that they need to tear this whole thing down and start from scratch.
But there's zero chance that ever happens. Because I agree with Rev, that they need to tear this whole thing down and start from scratch.
Brickowski said:
Which athletes? Everyone that plays a varsity sport? Or just those on teams that make money like football and basketball? All athletes or just those on full scholarships? Title IX comes into play here too. How does Johnny Manziel, who makes Texas A&M an absolute fortune, get a stipend similar to Brogon Horton, a freshman Horsemanship rider on the equestrian team? If they get a different stipend, how do they determine who gets what? Because Manziel must be worth many orders of magnitude more to that school than Horton (who is probably a superb athlete and a terrific kid, and who almost certainly puts in many, many hours for her sport).
Honestly, the schools should just follow the example of college rodeo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/sports/astride-rodeos-professional-and-amateur-worlds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&
ivanvamp said:
And this would be a good thing, disentangling the minor leagues from the academic pursuit. This already exists in Baseball, where players can either go to college or start in the GCL. It also exists in hockey, where players can go to the NCAA or go to professional teams that cater to 16 to 20 year olds, and earn a lot of money. There is no logical reason for players who have no interest in college being forced to go there simply because there is no alternative, and the NFL bars them from playing in the NFL (see Maurice Clarett). This would reduce significantly the North Carolina type of academic scandals that exist solely because the players have to be there.
The losers would be the universities, who lose the millions in bowl money to the private enterprise teams. The winners would be the top end players who would be paid well by those junior teams. And the vast middle class of players from 17 to 21 would vote with their feet whether they want to get an education while playing at a reduced competitive NCAA, or whether they want to cast their lot by filling out the junior teams' rosters for a wage that probably is not that much, but with the prestige of playing competitive ball and a lottery ticket chance at the NFL.
The NFL could probably have a small spring league for U-23 players, leading up to the draft, and people would eat it up. IIRC Goodell wants to move the draft to May, so they would have a lot of time between the Super Bowl and the draft to have a developmental league.
However, how many players would go to said league? 500? 1000? There are ~12,000 FBS players, so any developmental league would be a small dent in the FBS player pool
However, how many players would go to said league? 500? 1000? There are ~12,000 FBS players, so any developmental league would be a small dent in the FBS player pool
Time for a bump--interesting times ahead.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-northwestern-union-bid-20140326,0,6454823.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-northwestern-union-bid-20140326,0,6454823.story
NLRB says Northwestern players can form a union. http://tracking.si.com/2014/03/26/northwestern-nlrb-employees-capa-college-football-ncaaf/
The school is appealing. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-northwestern-disappointed-by-nlrb-ruling-20140326,0,4343581.story
The school is appealing. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-northwestern-disappointed-by-nlrb-ruling-20140326,0,4343581.story
I don't really buy the university's argument that it "believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students." They are essentially the same as a TA, they receive accommodation, tuition, and a stipend in exchange for a service, just like TA's and TA's have been unionizing for years.
I do some antitrust work, but not in the sports context, so I don't know the details of the NCAA's status for antitrust purposes, but I thought there was precedent to the effect that NCAA athletes are not engaged in commerce. That's how the NCAA was able to maintain their price fixing cartel.
Assuming I'm not just remembering wrong (which is possible), I'm curious to see how these positions will be reconciled as this proceeds through the court system.
Assuming I'm not just remembering wrong (which is possible), I'm curious to see how these positions will be reconciled as this proceeds through the court system.
bowiac said:
I'm not sure what you are referring to. The NCAA lost a case where they tried to fix the salaries of assistant coaches - to the tune of $66M - and as I understand it, the lower court decision (SCOTUS did not rule) explicitly said that the NCAA was engaged in illegal price-fixing.
Perhaps you are referring to Stevens' comment in the Oklahoma case - which struck down the NCAA's limits on how many times a school could appear on TV. In his opinion, Stevens wrote:
"The NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of football—college football. The identification of this “product” with an academic tradition differentiates college football from and makes it more popular than professional sports to which it might otherwise be comparable, such as, for example, minor league baseball. In order to preserve the character and quality of the “product,” athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like."
That was 1984. We've come a long way since then so it will be interesting to see how much this one paragraph applies to the various lawsuits that have been filed - O'Bannon, Northwestern, and Kessler's recent class action (more info here) alleging that the NCAA and the top five conferences are illegally colluding to restrict the earnings of top collegel athletes.
Without really looking into the issues, my instinct tells me that the NCAA is on thin ice and the legal landscape is going to shift pretty dramatically in the next five to ten years.
Perhaps some of you legal types with relevant experiences could speculate for us layman what this could mean, if college athletes are employees of the universities, might this then entail wages, benefits etc in addition to the scholarship and non-cash compensation,.And would all athletes be treated the same? ie, is a starting QB on full scholarship "paid the same" as a swimmer or fencer?
swiftaw said:
Not that clear, actually. I was unionized as a graduate student at the University of California, but the NLRB has found that private institutions (NYU was test case) do not need to recognize graduate student unions.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Bowiac, if you want a pretty good assessment of the NCAA with respect to antitrust suits, collusion, and the origin of the term "student-athlete" in order to protect universities and the NCAA, I encourage you to read the Atlantic Monthly's long-form piece, The Shame of College Sports, if you haven't already.
While I think the system in hockey where the college route is only taken by those who, you know, actually belong in college, is better than basketball and football where college is more or less a mandatory stop on the way to a pro career, the pay at the Major Junior level is pretty nominal. Players get billeted with a family that receives $300-$500 a month to house and feed the athlete, and they get something like $50 a week in spending money.Steve Dillard said:
There is also talk of under-the-table bonuses and generous post-game "handshakes" from time to time, and many games are played in pro-like arenas (and in some cities, IN the NHL arena), in front of large crowds (not much else to do on a winter Saturday night in Medicine Hat), and especially in the smaller towns, the kids are local celebrities (and needless to say, get a TON of tail), but for the most part, Major Junior hockey is hardly a professional league where 16-20 year olds "earn a lot of money"...and least officially.
I wonder what this means for international students recruited to play for colleges - like Sebastian Vollmer playing at Houston. While I suppose it's on-campus employment, international students are supposed to be limited to 20 hours per week of on-campus employment.