Unionization of college athletes: Somewhere Marvin Miller is smiling.

[OCST]

Spin the teams off as for-profit entities.
License the school name, logo, colors to the for-profit entities (for a very hefty sum that makes a lot of money for the schools).
Charge the teams rent for use of school facilities.
Pay the players.  Let them elect to take classes if they want, but end the fucking charade.
Let the gravy train roll on.
 
I'm sure I'm overlooking some troublesome detail, but I don't see why something like this wouldn't be workable.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

I think you also have to seriously consider how many athletes this applies to. For most part, as far as I know, only two sports are across-the-board revenue generating sports; football and men's basketball. Other than that which other sports operate out of the red? I think there are some isolated instances of men's ice hockey (and how the costs of operating a rink are allocated can make a difference), women's basketball and maybe baseball, but that's all I can think of.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

I think you also have to seriously consider how many athletes this applies to. For most part, as far as I know, only two sports are across-the-board revenue generating sports; football and men's basketball. Other than that which other sports operate out of the red? I think there are some isolated instances of men's ice hockey (and how the costs of operating a rink are allocated can make a difference), women's basketball and maybe baseball, but that's all I can think of.

How would paying athletes and title IX work?

 

[axx]

I think you also have to seriously consider how many athletes this applies to. For most part, as far as I know, only two sports are across-the-board revenue generating sports; football and men's basketball. Other than that which other sports operate out of the red? I think there are some isolated instances of men's ice hockey (and how the costs of operating a rink are allocated can make a difference), women's basketball and maybe baseball, but that's all I can think of.

 
I think if this goes though, most schools will just dump the non-revenue sports. Most schools just use the revenue from the two sports to pay for the entire athletic department; so if that money is going to the players, there isn't going to be anything left to support non-revenue sports.

 

[Fred not Lynn]

How would paying athletes and title IX work?

That's a whole other can of worms, I wasn't going near that...

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

That's a whole other can of worms, I wasn't going near that...

Haha, yea, I don't think I've ever heard anyone explore how that would work.

 

[bankshot1]

That's a whole other can of worms, I wasn't going near that...

I think thats where we're going. And thats why I asked if all student-athletes-union employees would be treated equally. 

 

[Fred not Lynn]

You could argue that by giving the athletes a certain percentage of their sport's profits, you're treating them equally...

 

[Fred not Lynn]

...and if 30% of women's soccer's zero profits = $0.00, that's just the market speaking.

Of course, it would especially suck if players had to cover 30% of their sport's loss...actually, no, that's still a 70% subsidy, and a pretty sweet deal anyway.

 

[bankshot1]

You could argue that by giving the athletes a certain percentage of their sport's profits, you're treating them equally...

You'd end up with the SEC and maybe the BIG(10) playing college football. And a highly sought after high-school lineman could end up making more at Alabama than a Oakland Raider lineman. .
 
Seems fair.
 
I could see the end of athletic scholarships at most schools.

 

[Gash Prex]

My god the lawsuits over this will be incredible...

 

[IdiotKicker]

Based on what I've read on Title IX, paying athletes shouldn't have any effect as long as the opportunities are still equal. A lawyer should be able to confirm this, but Title IX only dictates equal opportunity in terms of participation and facilities, and says nothing about compensation. Of course, compensation has never even been part of college athletics, so we're in new territory here.

If this wall comes down, I don't think anyone can quite describe what will happen after, other than the fact that the NCAA will effectively cease to exist as an entity of any influence. The only power it really has right now is to enforce amateurism. If that's gone, get ready for some serious changes.

 

[McBride11]

Lawyers help me out. Reading back it seemed that this would not affect state schools because the NLRB doesnt cover state employees? Soo if Stanford and Duke and NW can unionize but Bama, Mich, and Oregon can't, are we expecting a large drop-off in talent at these state schools. Why would these stud recruits go to UNC when they can instead go to Duke and get paid? (Yes this is looking ahead somewhat.)

 

[bankshot1]

Lawyers help me out. Reading back it seemed that this would not affect state schools because the NLRB doesnt cover state employees? Soo if Stanford and Duke and NW can unionize but Bama, Mich, and Oregon can't, are we expecting a large drop-off in talent at these state schools. Why would these stud recruits go to UNC when they can instead go to Duke and get paid? (Yes this is looking ahead somewhat.)

prevailing wage

 

[Gdiguy]

ESPN has some commentary on some of these questions (again, trust ESPN as much as you want): http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10678393/nlrb-director-decision-follows-road-map-laid-northwestern-quarterback-kain-colter-legal-team
 
In particular, the workman's comp angle is interesting - I've always thought it was ridiculous that someone paralyzed on the field during a college football game wasn't going to receive benefits, so regardless of the 'pay players' angle I'm strongly in favor of getting those types of benefits extended rapidly.

 

[SumnerH]

Of course, compensation has never even been part of college athletics, so we're in new territory here.

Someone pointed out upthread that rodeo pays the players already.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

I could see the end of athletic scholarships at most schools.

Or perhaps Ivy League style athletic scholarships - i.e. you're admitted into the school, and your commitment to athletics, but you're not forced to play to maintain your scholarship.

I don't see why this decision would necessarily lead to the shutting down of entire athletic departments - the Ivies and D3 keep sports even though the sports aren't revenue making.

 

[axx]

Huh? Division 3 doesn't give scholarships, and I was under the impression that Ivy didn't either. By scholarship I mean paying most if not the entire tuition.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Lawyers help me out. Reading back it seemed that this would not affect state schools because the NLRB doesnt cover state employees? Soo if Stanford and Duke and NW can unionize but Bama, Mich, and Oregon can't, are we expecting a large drop-off in talent at these state schools. Why would these stud recruits go to UNC when they can instead go to Duke and get paid? (Yes this is looking ahead somewhat.)

Yes and possibly no. The NLRA does not apply to state universities (or public employers generally), so this decision (assuming it's upheld by the Board and courts) has no effect on a school like UNC. However, many states have public employee bargaining laws. So, state legislatures could allow their football/basketball players to organize.

But, if the decision is upheld by the courts, the real impact could come if that precedent is relied upon by courts or the US Department of Labor (an entirely seperate agency from the NLRB) in determining that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to these players. The FLSA (which requires overtime and minimum wage) does apply to public and private schools alike.

 

[Time to Mo Vaughn]

Or perhaps Ivy League style athletic scholarships - i.e. you're admitted into the school, and your commitment to athletics, but you're not forced to play to maintain your scholarship.

I don't see why this decision would necessarily lead to the shutting down of entire athletic departments - the Ivies and D3 keep sports even though the sports aren't revenue making.

Ivy League and D3 schools can't give athletic scholarships. As a result, you'll find their athletes receiving a disproportional amount of leadership and scholastic scholarships, which is why it results in them not being tied to playing.
 
A buddy of mine received a "Leadership Scholarship" (worth about $30K/year) for being an Eagle Scout, which was actually for the fact that as a freshman he was an all-conference OL on the football team. After his freshman year, he decided he hated the coach and quit the team, but because he didn't have an athletic scholarship he kept all the money.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Huh? Division 3 doesn't give scholarships, and I was under the impression that Ivy didn't either. By scholarship I mean paying most if not the entire tuition.

 
That's a hilarious claim that the Ivys make. I know a few guys who had no business going to Harvard but got academic scholarships. Coincidentally, they were outstanding hockey players. Same at Dartmouth, Yale, Penn, you name it. The idea that Ivys don't give scholarships is amusing.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Ivan Maisel brought up a point: if the scholarship is considered income, will the athletes have to pay taxes on it?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Didn't see the decision posted yet (sorry if I missed it); it can be found here:  http://www.espn.go.com/pdf/2014/0326/espn_uniondecision.PDF
 
The broad outlines addressing the legal basis of the decision are:

• 
  Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players Perform Services for the Benefit of the Employer for Which They Receive Compensation
  
• 
  Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players are Subject to the Employer’s Control in the Performance of Their Duties as Football Players
  
• 
  Precedent involving graduate students is not applicable because the players’ football-related duties are unrelated to their academic studies unlike the graduate assistants whose teaching and research duties were inextricably related to their graduate degree requirements, and (i) Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players are not “Primarily Students”; (ii) Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players’ Athletic Duties do not Constitute a Core Element of Their Educational Degree Requirements; (iii) the Employer’s Academic Faculty does not Supervise Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Players’ Athletic Duties; and (iv) Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Players’ Compensation is not Financial Aid
  
• 
  The Employer’s Grant-in-Aid Scholarships Players are not Temporary Employees Within the Meaning of the NLRB
  

 
From a quick read of the decision, it seems like the decision was based in good part on the amount of control that the coaching staff had over the scholarship players, and that the scholarships are contingent on meeting those rules.
 
NOTE:  the ruling only applies to current scholarship players and not walk-ons.  Walk-ons, because they do not receive any compensation, are not considered employees.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Ivan Maisel brought up a point: if the scholarship is considered income, will the athletes have to pay taxes on it?

 
Interesting question.  The two guiding documents on this are Publication 970 and Revenue Ruling 97-263.  Prior to this ruling, I believe that most accountants rely on 1977-263 to categorize athletic scholarship funds to be non-taxable, but the IRS headnote is very instructive here:
 
"Athletic scholarships. The value of athletic scholarships, which may not exceed expenses for tuition, fees, room, board, and necessary supplies, awarded to students by a university that expects but does not require the students to participate in a particular sport, requires no particular activity in lieu of participation, and does not cancel the scholarship if the student cannot participate is excludable from the recipient's gross income under section 117 of the Code."
 
If it is determined that these athletic scholarship benefits are taxable - because the students are required to participate - they are going to have to get paid because there is no way for them to pay the taxes due on the scholarships.

I wonder how much money colleges give out in scholarships every year.  It's got to be in the billions, right?
 
Revenue Ruling 1977-263 can be found here:  http://www.charitableplanning.com/document/672289.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

That's a hilarious claim that the Ivys make. I know a few guys who had no business going to Harvard but got academic scholarships. Coincidentally, they were outstanding hockey players. Same at Dartmouth, Yale, Penn, you name it. The idea that Ivys don't give scholarships is amusing.

 
Sure, they give scholarships.  While I went to one such school, I knew plenty of people who weren't as academically-qualified as the average student who got in through scholarships.  But there's two points to bear in mind at the same time:
(1) the scholarships can't be revoked if the person leaves the team (which happens often, actually, if it turns out not to be a passion of theirs), and
(2) there are nevertheless academic / qualification standards for students offered athletic scholarships to ivies.  If you read some "insider" books on the admissions system, like A is for Admission, there's a scoring system that amalgamates GPA, SAT, and (can't remember the 3rd) to make some sort of composite score, and there's an understanding among the Ivies that they won't admit anyone, even on an academic scholarship, if they don't clear a specific threshold.
 
Some of the people who would not otherwise have gotten admitted but nevertheless cleared the (lesser) threshold end up finding that they can't hack it, and transfer out (I dated one such girl, she was a championship-level fencer, but couldn't write an essay to save her life).  Most of them graduate, however, with no compromise on the academic standards of the place, so it's not like they're being put in a position to fail.  So, it's still a universe away from the darwinian farce that is D1 football-factory scholarships.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Ultimately, if this holds up, they're hoing to end up getting paid in addition to the scholarship. The current US Department of Labor and/or the Illinois department of labor are not going to allow the University to "pay" these guys solely through room, board, and an academic scholarship.

Also, even if neither of those agencies weighed in, the players can bargain to be paid on top of their scholarships. They are in no way limited to the current "compensation" scheme.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Damn, I mean "scholarships for people who were athletes" like the Ivies and D-3, and not "athletic scholarships". Ie where a student's dedication to athletic pursuits can be a factor in admission decisions but as MDL said the student cannot be forced to play any sport. Sorry for the bad phrasing.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Didn't see the decision posted yet (sorry if I missed it); it can be found here:  http://www.espn.go.com/pdf/2014/0326/espn_uniondecision.PDF
 
The broad outlines addressing the legal basis of the decision are:

• 
  Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players Perform Services for the Benefit of the Employer for Which They Receive Compensation
  
• 
  Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players are Subject to the Employer’s Control in the Performance of Their Duties as Football Players
  
• 
  Precedent involving graduate students is not applicable because the players’ football-related duties are unrelated to their academic studies unlike the graduate assistants whose teaching and research duties were inextricably related to their graduate degree requirements, and (i) Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players are not “Primarily Students”; (ii) Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Football Players’ Athletic Duties do not Constitute a Core Element of Their Educational Degree Requirements; (iii) the Employer’s Academic Faculty does not Supervise Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Players’ Athletic Duties; and (iv) Grant-in-Aid Scholarship Players’ Compensation is not Financial Aid
  
• 
  The Employer’s Grant-in-Aid Scholarships Players are not Temporary Employees Within the Meaning of the NLRB
  

 
From a quick read of the decision, it seems like the decision was based in good part on the amount of control that the coaching staff had over the scholarship players, and that the scholarships are contingent on meeting those rules.
 
NOTE:  the ruling only applies to current scholarship players and not walk-ons.  Walk-ons, because they do not receive any compensation, are not considered employees.

 
Those four points would also fit athletes in non-revenue non-revenue sports. How they would be exempted from a union? And obviously there are way more of them than there are football athletes. 

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Damn, I mean "scholarships for people who were athletes" like the Ivies and D-3, and not "athletic scholarships". Ie where a student's dedication to athletic pursuits can be a factor in admission decisions but as MDL said the student cannot be forced to play any sport. Sorry for the bad phrasing.

 
My point is that I think it's splitting hairs; "we don't give athletic scholarships!" is sort of farcical, even if you conceptualize a scholarship as a bundle of sticks. One of those sticks may be the "you lose the scholarship if you stop playing" but I think the vastly bigger sticks in that bundle are a) earning otherwise undeserved admission due to athletic prowess and b) attending for free/a discount due to that athletic prowess. Does it rise to the level of LSU football? Of course not. But there's still more than a whiff of hypocrisy when Ivys claim that they don't do that sort of thing when they plainly do.

 

[bankshot1]

This is an article (2011) about Ivy League athletic admissions and the shared candidate scoring technique called the "Academic Index" (AI)
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

 
It is a league device established to ensure transparency, but many Ivy League coaches are instructed never to discuss it publicly, which adds to the sense of mystery.
 
In the Ivy League, where the university presidents sometimes exert rigorous control of sports teams and can grow suspicious of too much athletic success, there may be no more prickly subject than the notion that athletes receive unduly preferential consideration in the admissions process. Recruited athletes are admitted from a list submitted by coaches and make up roughly 13 percent of each class, but the Academic Index was adopted for the eight institutions in the mid-1980s to make sure that each was making admissions decisions on athletes relatively consistent with its overall admissions requirements.
 
Perhaps the most talked about goal of the A.I. is the academic credential minimum it establishes, a number below which virtually no Ivy League recruit can be admitted. This summer, that floor was raised from an Academic Index of 171 to 176, which roughly translates to a B student (3.0 on a 4.0 scale) with a score of 1140 on the old two-part SAT.
 
“But in perspective, you have to realize we are dealing with a select group since Ivy League athletes are in the top 10 percent of all college applicants nationwide,” Goldberger said. “The average kid going to college across this country would have an A.I. of about 150.”
 

I think the Ivy's might use the same ball as the SEC, but play a different game.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Those four points would also fit athletes in non-revenue non-revenue sports. How they would be exempted from a union? And obviously there are way more of them than there are football athletes. 

 
I think the three things that the NCAA will have to change for non-revenue sports is:  (i) severe limits on the amount of hours it takes to participate; (ii) making sure that athletic scholarships are not tied to participation in the sport; and (iii) a reduction in the number of rules that the athlete has to follow to particpate.  In other words, make non-revenue sports more like club sports than football. 
 
And while I think it is clear that Div 1 athletes of majors sports - football, baseball, basketball, and hockey - are employees, it will be interesting to see on where the lesser sports end up:  e.g., soccer, softball, volleyball, and lacrosse (a lot like the other sports) to gymnastics, swmming, wrestling, and individual sports (like track and field.  Etc.

 

[snowmanny]

The Ivies give scholarships to everyone based on financial need.  The Ivies also give an advantage in admissions to athletes (as well as other folks with special talents).  But if you are a great athlete and your parents make $300,000/year you are not getting a full scholarship.  Also, if you quit your sport after a year the scholarship is not forfeited.
 
So, 100% true that 1000 years ago when I was in college I knew some football players and hockey players that were on scholarship and would not have had a chance to get in absent their athletic ability, but it is not at all equivalent to a athletic scholarship at, say, BC.  I also knew varsity athletes not on scholarship, and students on scholarship who would not have been admitted absent their artistic ability.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

 
My point is that I think it's splitting hairs; "we don't give athletic scholarships!" is sort of farcical, even if you conceptualize a scholarship as a bundle of sticks. One of those sticks may be the "you lose the scholarship if you stop playing" but I think the vastly bigger sticks in that bundle are a) earning otherwise undeserved admission due to athletic prowess and b) attending for free/a discount due to that athletic prowess. Does it rise to the level of LSU football? Of course not. But there's still more than a whiff of hypocrisy when Ivys claim that they don't do that sort of thing when they plainly do.

 
My experience with Ivy League athletes is that they were no more "undeserved" than people who were admitted because they had great talents in art, music, or some other skill that wasn't reflected in academic grades. And b) as noted by snowmanny isn't correct - Ivy League scholarships are linked to financial need. If your family has money, you're not getting a scholarship regardless of how much of a sports star you are; if you need the money, you're getting the money regardless of whether the reason you're in is that you're an athlete, a math whiz, or a violin prodigy (not that those things are mutually exclusive).
 
Also, apparently another difference between Ivies and D1 schools is that Ivy League athletes can't get special tuition for classes.
 
Regardless, I guess my point was wondering if D1 non-revenue sports might become more like sports at the Ivies or the D3s.

 

[OCST]

Alabama Athletics Earns More Than All 30 NHL Teams
 
http://deadspin.com/alabama-athletics-earn-more-than-all-30-nhl-teams-1560555985
 

 
The Alabama Crimson Tide athletics department earns revenues of $143 million dollars. According to Marc Edelman, a professor of sports and antitrust law at CUNY, that is more than all 30 NHL teams and 25 NBA teams. While not the craziest thing you've ever heard, it does crystallize something you've probably always known on some level: amateur sports is better business than professional sports.
 
On the whole, college athletics earns more than the aggregate of the NHL and NBA, according to Edelman. Student athletes across the country are earning more for their institutes of higher learning than professionals are for their organizations designed specifically to make money.
 
Texas is the largest athletic department, earning more than $165 million last year in revenue — with $109 million coming from football, according to Education Department data. The university netted $27 million after expenses.
Other major programs such as Florida ($129 million), Ohio State ($123 million), Michigan ($122 million), Southern California ($97 million) and Oregon ($81 million) also are grossing massive dollars. They are also spending big bucks, too.

 
There are obvious caveats here, the most obvious being that the revenue is concentrated in football, men's basketball, and a few other sports (depending on the school), and it is true that the revenue sports subsidize women's soccer and the like.
 
But let's not kid ourselves about this not being a big business.  I feel very comfortable saying that the players' share of the massive wealth they are generating should be more than it is, and if they have to unionize, so be it.  The existing system is massively corrupt, and corrupting, and is beyond defense, IMO.

 

[ivanvamp]

Alabama Athletics Earns More Than All 30 NHL Teams
 
http://deadspin.com/alabama-athletics-earn-more-than-all-30-nhl-teams-1560555985
 

 
There are obvious caveats here, the most obvious being that the revenue is concentrated in football, men's basketball, and a few other sports (depending on the school), and it is true that the revenue sports subsidize women's soccer and the like.
 
But let's not kid ourselves about this not being a big business.  I feel very comfortable saying that the players' share of the massive wealth they are generating should be more than it is, and if they have to unionize, so be it.  The existing system is massively corrupt, and corrupting, and is beyond defense, IMO.

I understand what you're saying, and it makes a lot of sense. But what about programs that lose money? Should the athletes be forced to pay money instead of earn it, simply because their "business" (say, field hockey) loses money? Shouldn't it cut both ways?

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

I understand what you're saying, and it makes a lot of sense. But what about programs that lose money? Should the athletes be forced to pay money instead of earn it, simply because their "business" (say, field hockey) loses money? Shouldn't it cut both ways?

 
I don't understand the logic behind your argument.  If a sport loses money, the university can choose to subsidize it or cancel it.  If offered by the school, athletes can always choose to play for no money (as is the case for the vast majority of college players in all sports - who are actually student-athletes in more than name).
 
But the athletes who are playing for football-factory (or basketball-factory) schools, schools which consistently earn money from their athletic programs that ranges between "redonkulous" and "obscene", should be able to fairly claim a share of the value they are quite obviously creating.  That's the argument.  The dividing line between profitable sports (and athletic departments) and unprofitable ones isn't some counterargument to this notion, and what to do with the latter is an administrative decision, not some economic "gotcha".

 

[Infield Infidel]

The vast, overwhelming majority of schools don't make money http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2014/04/08/beyond-northwestern-should-non-football-college-athletes-be-able-to-unionize/
 

Among the 125 schools that play in the D-I Football Bowl Subdivision (the top programs), only 50-60 percent had football and basketball programs that made a profit in 2012, the latest year for which there is data. Including data for other sports, only 23 schools had athletics departments that brought in more money than they spent. The median profit for an athletic department at these schools was -$12 million. In the Football Championship Subdivision (the other D-I programs), the median profit was -$10 million. The median FCS school lost money on all sports, including football and basketball.
 

 
But it doesn't really matter
 

 
As long as its workers are subject to the same structure as other athletes, it should not matter whether a sport is profitable. If a student is laboring, and their “pay” contingent upon meeting specific and special standards, then they ought to be classified as employees. This is particularly important for football players at FBS or FCS schools that do not generate net revenue.
SBNation explains it well: “In labor law, whether an employer is actually making money isn’t particularly relevant. You still have to pay the people who work for you, and the definition of whether you’re an employee doesn’t take into account your employer’s profit margin.”
 

 

Since all the athletes have to follow the same rules for eligibility, if the Northwestern football team creates a union, then the non-revenue athletes could sue for the option to join the union. And we'd basically be back at square one, except for stuff like medical benefits and safety. 

 

[Average Reds]

I would argue that even if all this ends up accomplishing is forcing the NCAA (and member schools) to recognize that they must provide medical benefits for students who are injured playing sports and/or take a greater interest in the safety  of the athletes, then we've accomplished an enormous amount.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Since all the athletes have to follow the same rules for eligibility, if the Northwestern football team creates a union, then the non-revenue athletes could sue for the option to join the union. And we'd basically be back at square one, except for stuff like medical benefits and safety. 

 
(let me preface this by saying I'm reasoning out loud, and may not know what the fuck I'm talking about - the same applies to most of my posts)
 
I don't understand why they'd necessarily have to be allowed to join the football-players' union rather than forming their own.  There's no pie to divide up in the other sports.  I mean, a hospital employs members of the American Nurses Association and the SEIU, but a janitor in the latter can't demand to become part of the former; they have totally different job descriptions.  They add different amounts of value and have very different levels of training.  An airline employs unionized Pilots and unionized electrical workers, a member of one can't just demand to join the other.
 
In other words, I don't see why you'd necessarily have to pay football players the same as what you'd have to pay volleyball players, or even why you'd have to pay the latter anything just because you're paying the former.  As with most private-sector bargains between management and labor, if labor demands too much, management always has the option to shut down the business (sport).
 
I maintain that this will be an issue only among profitable D1 football and basketball programs and players, and other sports will basically continue to run the way they always have (though Average Reds is right, the whole system might benefit from getting true insurance for injuries and medical claims suffered on the field of play).

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I don't understand the logic behind your argument.  If a sport loses money, the university can choose to subsidize it or cancel it.  If offered by the school, athletes can always choose to play for no money (as is the case for the vast majority of college players in all sports - who are actually student-athletes in more than name).
 
But the athletes who are playing for football-factory (or basketball-factory) schools, schools which consistently earn money from their athletic programs that ranges between "redonkulous" and "obscene", should be able to fairly claim a share of the value they are quite obviously creating.  That's the argument.  The dividing line between profitable sports (and athletic departments) and unprofitable ones isn't some counterargument to this notion, and what to do with the latter is an administrative decision, not some economic "gotcha".

 
Here's my thought.  The reason we are talking about paying players (which is what the unionization movement is all about) is because the university makes money off their labor.  In some cases, a LOT of money (as you rightly point out).  But if players should be compensated because they make the university money, why shouldn't players that LOSE the university money have to pay them back?  After all, a field hockey scholarship athlete whose team costs the university money is simply, according to this model, leeching off the system.  So if players should be paid for making the university money, shouldn't other players PAY for losing the university money?
 
Or, as you point out, the solution is simply to cut those other, non-revenue sports.
 
But you can't do that because of Title IX - virtually every single women's sport is a money-loser.  So the only programs you'll have left is football and (maybe) men's basketball.  And no female scholarship players.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Players who aren't playing glory sports are already paying the university, in the form of tuition, room&board and other fees, in many cases at ludicrous prices.
 
The answer to your question is, "no, the players shouldn't pay for losing the university money".  They're not part-owners in a corporation, liable for losses or something.  The "corporation" in this (admittedly flawed) analogy is the university, and it can decide what products (sports) to offer or not, based on how it feels it's pleasing its paying customers (the students).  It's a little limited by Title 9, but from my understanding, all that says is that a university has to offer the same number of varsity sports to both genders.  If UMichigan wants to offer men's bball and football and no other male sports, it can surely afford a women's (say) field hockey and soccer coach and whatever other expenses it has, to meet its regulatory requirements.  I don't think that's going to be a problem for any of the institutions we're talking about, they can afford to match # of programs.

 

[Infield Infidel]

here's a Title IX refresher
 

 
The Three-Part Test
As discussed above, OCR uses the three-part test to determine whether an institution is providing nondiscriminatory athletic participation opportunities in compliance with the Title IX regulation. The test provides the following three compliance options:

1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or 
    
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or 
    
3. Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program

 
In practice, prong 3 is obsolete, since almost all co-ed schools can find female athletes who are interested in scholarships. Prong 2 is usually a transitional phase when athletics departments expand, such as a school adding a men's sport and planning to add a women's sport a year later. Another example of Prong 2 is  when a school is moving up from one division or subdivision to another; the NCAA requires a set number of sports to qualify for each specific division (Div 1 requires a minimum of 14 sports in total for men and women, either 7 men/7 women or 6 men/8 women). A school has to set out a time-frame to comply with the NCAA minimums and Title IX.
 
Prong 1 is the biggie, and the one almost all athletics departments use for compliance. If a school has X% of female students, it has to have around ~X% of female student-athletes. Usually it's 50/50 male/female, but sometimes it's more females than male. 
 
Here are some other guidelines (listed on wikipedia)

Title IX applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports.[21]
The regulations implementing Title IX require all universities receiving federal funds to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex[22] and to provide written assurances to the Department of Education that the institution is in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use.[23] With respect to athletic programs, the Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:[24]
 
 

1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
4. Travel and per diem allowance;
5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
10. Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

 
edit- fixed NCAA minimums

 

[ivanvamp]

Players who aren't playing glory sports are already paying the university, in the form of tuition, room&board and other fees, in many cases at ludicrous prices.
 
The answer to your question is, "no, the players shouldn't pay for losing the university money".  They're not part-owners in a corporation, liable for losses or something.  The "corporation" in this (admittedly flawed) analogy is the university, and it can decide what products (sports) to offer or not, based on how it feels it's pleasing its paying customers (the students).  It's a little limited by Title 9, but from my understanding, all that says is that a university has to offer the same number of varsity sports to both genders.  If UMichigan wants to offer men's bball and football and no other male sports, it can surely afford a women's (say) field hockey and soccer coach and whatever other expenses it has, to meet its regulatory requirements.  I don't think that's going to be a problem for any of the institutions we're talking about, they can afford to match # of programs.

 
Your first sentence is true only for non-scholarship players.  Which, of course, there are plenty of.  But there are also walk-ons in the big revenue sports too.  Should they get paid?  After all, they virtually never play.  Moreover, there are plenty of full scholarship players in the sports that lose a ton of money. Yet title IX requires universities to have those kinds of sports (for women - there are also plenty of non-revenue men's sports).  
 
So if a school is going to have football, and have, say, 80 scholarships there, then title IX requires them to have women's sports equivalent to that.  So that's necessarily going to mean the university has non-revenue sports.
 
So again - if the premise is that the players in the revenue sports should get paid *because they're making the university money*, then what to do about the players that don't make the university money - that COST the university money?  Just give them free rides….because?  
 
Here's the bottom line:  the unionization of college athletes in revenue sports is going to open a pandora's box of epic proportions.  Don't get me wrong - I am NOT a fan of the NCAA and think it's a totally corrupt organization and there are lots of things that need to change.  I just think this is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and is likely to make the entire situation much worse.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

The Forbes article above raises some interesting issues, but it's a garbled mess when it comes to describing the relevant labor laws. The U.S. Department of Labor's test to determine whether "interns" of for profit enterprises are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act is not the same analysis used to determine that students participating in athletics at non profit schools are not employees under the FLSA--which also has a different standard for determining the existence of an employment relationship than the National Labor Relations Act, the statute at issue in the Northwestern case.

The FLSA is the real dynamite here. If some or all DI athletes are determined to be employees for FLSA purposes, that means that they're entitled to minimum wage and overtime. The Forbes article is correct that this determination is not based on the profitability of the enterprise--it's about the type of relationship between the worker and the putative employer. The FLSA applies to public and private institutions alike, and is application isn't dependent on the existence of a union.

By the way, the Northwestern playersight have an election sooner than many pundits think. The NLRB has complete discretion in determine whether to hear the appeal at this point. If it refuses the appeal, there will be an election in short order.

 

[Senator Donut]

The Forbes article above raises some interesting issues, but it's a garbled mess when it comes to describing the relevant labor laws.

Anything with forbes.com/sites/ in the URL is an unpaid blog entry which conveys roughly the same amount of pertinent information as a Bleacher Report article. Your post was much more useful.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

 
Your first sentence is true only for non-scholarship players.  Which, of course, there are plenty of.  But there are also walk-ons in the big revenue sports too.  Should they get paid?  After all, they virtually never play.  Moreover, there are plenty of full scholarship players in the sports that lose a ton of money. Yet title IX requires universities to have those kinds of sports (for women - there are also plenty of non-revenue men's sports).  
 
So if a school is going to have football, and have, say, 80 scholarships there, then title IX requires them to have women's sports equivalent to that.  So that's necessarily going to mean the university has non-revenue sports.
 
So again - if the premise is that the players in the revenue sports should get paid *because they're making the university money*, then what to do about the players that don't make the university money - that COST the university money?  Just give them free rides….because?  
 
Here's the bottom line:  the unionization of college athletes in revenue sports is going to open a pandora's box of epic proportions.  Don't get me wrong - I am NOT a fan of the NCAA and think it's a totally corrupt organization and there are lots of things that need to change.  I just think this is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and is likely to make the entire situation much worse.
 

 
Why do they do it now? It's not like it's just the Ohio States and Alabama's of the world that are offering free rides to the Swim team. So what would change if football and basketball players got a monthly stipend and some better health insurance? It's funny how fast all of the garbage about education, creating well-rounded citizens, and the inherent value of athletic competition and it's contributions to developing the leaders of tomorrow gets tossed out the window as soon as revenue is threatened.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
So again - if the premise is that the players in the revenue sports should get paid *because they're making the university money*, then what to do about the players that don't make the university money - that COST the university money?  Just give them free rides….because?  
 
Here's the bottom line:  the unionization of college athletes in revenue sports is going to open a pandora's box of epic proportions.  Don't get me wrong - I am NOT a fan of the NCAA and think it's a totally corrupt organization and there are lots of things that need to change.  I just think this is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and is likely to make the entire situation much worse.

 
You are conflating the union issue with Title IX.  While they intersect, you have to look at them separately.
 
If the football players are employees and can unionize, it doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the scholarship athletes.  It will be interesting to see whether the DoE/OCR requires substantially equal employment opportunities for female athletes, but whether or not they do, that doesn't impact the NLRB analysis.  So yes, if the NLRB decision is upheld and then DoE/OCR starts applying Title IX, that could result in paying female athletes despite the fact that their sports lose money, but that the fact that bad policy may result from the implementation of two disparate legal rules doesn't have any real effect.
 
However, the NLRB decision intimates that there are steps that could be taken to remove the football players from the rules governing employees.  The first step would be to guarantee scholarships, whether or not the athletes played.  The second step would be to stop controlling all of their behaviour.  Of course, this would tremendously impact big-time athletics, but it is possible.  That would probably address the questions you raise above.
 
I agree with you that within the confines of the present situation, there are going to be unforeseen consequences.  But I disagree when you say, "it's absolutely the wrong thing to do"; what I would argue is wrong is the NCAA trying to classify these athletes as students and treat them like employees.  Either treat them as students and reduce the revenue that is being generated or treat them like an employee and face the other consequences of that action.
Many of which I firmly belive will be in the positive side - such as increased safety and health care, a reduction of the ridiculous rules that the NCAA has about likeness and gifts, and getting rid of the ridiculous transfer rules.
 
BTW, while it may go without saying, I would like to reiterate for posterity that my thoughts on this subject are my own personal views and does not represent the view of any other person or entity (including my employer) and should not be attributed to any other person or entity.

 

[Reverend]

 
Your first sentence is true only for non-scholarship players.  Which, of course, there are plenty of.  But there are also walk-ons in the big revenue sports too.  Should they get paid?  After all, they virtually never play.  Moreover, there are plenty of full scholarship players in the sports that lose a ton of money. Yet title IX requires universities to have those kinds of sports (for women - there are also plenty of non-revenue men's sports).  
 
So if a school is going to have football, and have, say, 80 scholarships there, then title IX requires them to have women's sports equivalent to that.  So that's necessarily going to mean the university has non-revenue sports.
 
So again - if the premise is that the players in the revenue sports should get paid *because they're making the university money*, then what to do about the players that don't make the university money - that COST the university money?  Just give them free rides….because?  
 
Here's the bottom line:  the unionization of college athletes in revenue sports is going to open a pandora's box of epic proportions.  Don't get me wrong - I am NOT a fan of the NCAA and think it's a totally corrupt organization and there are lots of things that need to change.  I just think this is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and is likely to make the entire situation much worse.

 
I think the problem here is that the bolded is not the premise and is, in fact, a misconception of what's going on that conflates some things people say about Div1 football and basketball players with what is going on in the actual rulings. To whit:

• The ruling is not that they should get paid because they're making money for the university. The ruling is that they are employees. One can be an employee for an organization that doesn't make money. As MDL pointed out, being an employee isn't the same as being a partner. If BestBuy were to start losing money, the people in the blue shirts wouldn't have to start ponying up.
• The Northwestern football players haven't asked to be paid. The idea is that if they are employees, they can bargain for a different compensation package so even if they are now getting scholarships, they want better medical. The caveat to this is what MSF posted as to what kind of employees they would be deemed.

I also think that there's a real possibility that if this goes through it could alter the shape of Title IX law anyways, particularly since unionized athletes would be engaged in bargaining with the universities over the very conditions that Title IX covers.
 
Something to think about for any lawyers looking for a potentially lucrative niche that might be about to open up.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

The chairwoman of the NCAA executive committee and the chairman of the NCAA Division 1 board of directors (and the presidents of Michigan State and Wake Forest, respectively), offer a counterargument as an op-ed in the WSJ. (alternative link)
 
The core parts included:
 
 

We oppose the effort to bring labor unions into college sports. One group of athletes is not more hardworking, more dedicated or more driven than another. Unionization will create unequal treatment not only among student-athletes competing in different sports, but, quite possibly, even among student-athletes on the same team.



 



Our concerns about this movement extend beyond the economic and practical difficulties created by transforming the college-sports relationship into one of employer-employee. To call student-athletes employees is an affront to those players who are taking full advantage of the opportunity to get an education.
 
Do we really want to signal to society and high-school students that making money is the reason to come play a sport in college, as opposed to getting an education that will provide lifetime benefits? The NCAA's philosophy, proven by where the organization spends its money, is education first. More than 90% of NCAA revenue is redistributed to member schools, which provide $2.7 billion in athletics scholarships in addition to other direct support to student-athletes. Most member schools depend on this revenue, as only 23 out of 1,100 generated more money than they spent on athletics in the past fiscal year.

 
Even defenders of the status quo can hardly stomach the assertion that "education first" is the NCAA's motto in word and deed.  But is "equality" among athletes even desirable?  I mean, look, people are different and even those in ivory towers ought to acknowledge that some sports (and thus athletes) are more important to the school than others.  You don't see universities building multi-million-dollar projects to support the Crew team.  University Presidents aren't buddying up to big donors at the soccer game.  I don't think it would crush the volleyball players to learn that the basketball team had more financial resources devoted to it, because they already knew that from recruiting, PR, attendance at games, facilities, and a whole host of other ways that athletic departments (and universities as a whole) reveal their priorities.
 
But no, according to LouAnna Simon, all are winners, and all must have prizes.  Or something.
 

Are those seeking representation by a union raising legitimate concerns? Certainly. We already have begun addressing those concerns by:
 
• Allowing schools to provide scholarships to student-athletes to return and complete their degrees even many years after their eligibility has expired.
• Designing a new governance model that includes student-athletes—with votes—at the highest levels.
• Allowing schools latitude to provide student-athletes with resources that enhance their educational experience.

 
Oh, well, if you're giving them "resources that enhance their educational experience" - but, you know, definitely not money - I'm sure they'll be happy.  I mean, not if they get severely injured on the playing field, but whatever.  Why would you bother negotiating with those students and hearing directly what it is they want, rather than just telling them what they want?
 
I'm pretty doubtful that the "new governance model" will meaningfully change how the NCAA runs enforcement, not to mention the host of other grievances best reviewed in Taylor Branch's piece.
 
If their argument is that change can come from within the NCAA's current structure, then, you could argue, they ought to have nothing to fear from unionization, either - because the requested changes can be easily and amicably implemented.

 

[Average Reds]

It's amazing how the NCAA only deigns to offer token reforms at the point of a gun.
 
My disgust with them is so complete that I honestly don't give a damn if unionization is a good idea or not.  My feeling is that if it hurts the NCAA, I'm for it.