College Football Team Seeks to Form a Labor Union (1 Viewer)

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is just a matter of statutory interpretation. Frankly, the NCAA has an easy out if they're worried about being subject to the NLRA or the Sherman Act. They can just lobby Congress for a law that exempts them.

But its hard to argue that college athletes don't fit the statutory definition of an employee.

Oh please, is there a more labor oriented labor board anywhere in the USA than NLRB in Chicago?

They would hand out labor rights on a silver platter to a passing bum who claimed he was an "employee" because he earned money through panhandling.

Well, let's go to the statutory definition (which is, in fact, the common-law definition).

"an employee is a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other’s control or right of control, and in return for payment."

So let's apply those factors.

Does a college football player perform services for the university? Yes.

Is the college football player under a contract of hire? Yes, each athlete signs a tender in order to receive his scholarship.

Is the college football player subject to the University's control or right of control? They don't let the teams coach themselves. Hell, they don't let them decide where to live or eat.

Is it in return for payment? For scholarship players, yes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is just a matter of statutory interpretation. Frankly, the NCAA has an easy out if they're worried about being subject to the NLRA or the Sherman Act. They can just lobby Congress for a law that exempts them.

But its hard to argue that college athletes don't fit the statutory definition of an employee.

Oh please, is there a more labor oriented labor board anywhere in the USA than NLRB in Chicago?

They would hand out labor rights on a silver platter to a passing bum who claimed he was an "employee" because he earned money through panhandling.

Well, let's go to the statutory definition (which is, in fact, the common-law definition).

"an employee is a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other’s control or right of control, and in return for payment."

So let's apply those factors.

Does a college football player perform services for the university? Yes.

Is the college football player under a contract of hire? Yes, each athlete signs a tender in order to receive his scholarship.

Is the college football player subject to the University's control or right of control? They don't let the teams coach themselves. Hell, they don't let them decide where to live or eat.

Is it in return for payment? For scholarship players, yes.

See this is what they call a self fulfilling definition. You call it what you want and define the terms so you get what you want out of it.

However, in my view a game is not performing services. It's a game played for free. It is sport. Not a business built on sport, like the NFL, but a sport played as a sport with business going on around it. Totally different.

Signing a tender to commit to play football is not a contract. No way, no how, nowhere. Person A doesn't say they agree to play for free for Person B and then come back later and say 'oh no that was a contract for pay.' Never was, never will be.

"Control" as a test is highly variable. In Louisiana or France, something is under "guarde" so long as you can see something or be aware of it, it is a concept of right, but possession is something entirely different. Control of a coach in making a gameplan has nothing to do with having physical control over what a player does as a student, which is their actual designation at a school.

Scholarships are not payment; the education is the payment. Playing football is gratis done as an endeavor to fulfill an education that the student is paying the school for. A football player is no more an employee than is a violin prodigy under scholarship in the Music Department. Absolutely ludicrous to say a student becomes an employee because they are under scholarship.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is dumb and a bad idea.

That is all.

Why? Scared your Saturdays watching young men playing a game making universities rich will go away?

Oh, how do I count the ways.

I don't think it will ever go away, the great mawp of tv demands the games be played.

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement.

They are students, not employees.

And if you say they are not students really then I ask, why doesn't someone just start a minor league and sign any player of any age who will want a paycheck. Now they would be employees.

Seems like they are athletes first and students second to me. The graduation rate of football and basketball players for most major universities is obscenely pathetic.

This is the problem.

Why is there no minor league for pro football? If an 18 year old wants to go get paid, they can go do that, there are plenty of semi-pro teams around right now.

I agree that schools should stop taking unqualified persons to be students at their schools.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is just a matter of statutory interpretation. Frankly, the NCAA has an easy out if they're worried about being subject to the NLRA or the Sherman Act. They can just lobby Congress for a law that exempts them.

But its hard to argue that college athletes don't fit the statutory definition of an employee.

Oh please, is there a more labor oriented labor board anywhere in the USA than NLRB in Chicago?

They would hand out labor rights on a silver platter to a passing bum who claimed he was an "employee" because he earned money through panhandling.

Well, let's go to the statutory definition (which is, in fact, the common-law definition).

"an employee is a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other’s control or right of control, and in return for payment."

So let's apply those factors.

Does a college football player perform services for the university? Yes.

Is the college football player under a contract of hire? Yes, each athlete signs a tender in order to receive his scholarship.

Is the college football player subject to the University's control or right of control? They don't let the teams coach themselves. Hell, they don't let them decide where to live or eat.

Is it in return for payment? For scholarship players, yes.

See this is what they call a self fulfilling definition. You call it what you want and define the terms so you get what you want out of it.

However, in my view a game is not performing services. It's a game played for free. It is sport. Not a business built on sport, like the NFL, but a sport played as a sport with business going on around it. Totally different.

Signing a tender to commit to play football is not a contract. No way, no how, nowhere. Person A doesn't say they agree to play for free for Person B and then come back later and say 'oh no that was a contract for pay.' Never was, never will be.

"Control" as a test is highly variable. In Louisiana or France, something is under "guarde" so long as you can see something or be aware of it, it is a concept of right, but possession is something entirely different. Control of a coach in making a gameplan has nothing to do with having physical control over what a player does as a student, which is their actual designation at a school.

Scholarships are not payment; the education is the payment. Playing football is gratis done as an endeavor to fulfill an education that the student is paying the school for. A football is no more an employee than is a violin prodigy under scholarship in the Music Department. Absolutely ludicrous to say a student becomes an employee because they are under

I don't call it what I want. The statute just uses the term employee. Because Congress didn't bother to define employee for the purposes of the statute, someone had to. So the Supreme Court used the common law definition that was available at the time (keep in mind, that if Congress thinks that's wrong Congress can amend the law with their own definition of an employee tomorrow). So that's the definition. I didn't pull it out of my dictionary of choice. That's the definition that the NLRB and any reviewing court is required to use unless Congress amends the law with a new definition.

Suffice it to say that I don't find your statutory interpretation particularly convincing, but its not worth getting into. Northwestern will pay very good lawyers to make something generally akin to your argument.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Chicago, the 9th Circuit of labor boards:

The school announced plans to appeal to labor authorities in Washington, D.C.

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

Of course the actual current NLRB in DC is pretty whacked too, so we shall see.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is just a matter of statutory interpretation. Frankly, the NCAA has an easy out if they're worried about being subject to the NLRA or the Sherman Act. They can just lobby Congress for a law that exempts them.

But its hard to argue that college athletes don't fit the statutory definition of an employee.

Oh please, is there a more labor oriented labor board anywhere in the USA than NLRB in Chicago?

They would hand out labor rights on a silver platter to a passing bum who claimed he was an "employee" because he earned money through panhandling.

Well, let's go to the statutory definition (which is, in fact, the common-law definition).

"an employee is a person who performs services for another under a contract of hire, subject to the other’s control or right of control, and in return for payment."

So let's apply those factors.

Does a college football player perform services for the university? Yes.

Is the college football player under a contract of hire? Yes, each athlete signs a tender in order to receive his scholarship.

Is the college football player subject to the University's control or right of control? They don't let the teams coach themselves. Hell, they don't let them decide where to live or eat.

Is it in return for payment? For scholarship players, yes.

See this is what they call a self fulfilling definition. You call it what you want and define the terms so you get what you want out of it.

However, in my view a game is not performing services. It's a game played for free. It is sport. Not a business built on sport, like the NFL, but a sport played as a sport with business going on around it. Totally different.

Signing a tender to commit to play football is not a contract. No way, no how, nowhere. Person A doesn't say they agree to play for free for Person B and then come back later and say 'oh no that was a contract for pay.' Never was, never will be.

"Control" as a test is highly variable. In Louisiana or France, something is under "guarde" so long as you can see something or be aware of it, it is a concept of right, but possession is something entirely different. Control of a coach in making a gameplan has nothing to do with having physical control over what a player does as a student, which is their actual designation at a school.

Scholarships are not payment; the education is the payment. Playing football is gratis done as an endeavor to fulfill an education that the student is paying the school for. A football is no more an employee than is a violin prodigy under scholarship in the Music Department. Absolutely ludicrous to say a student becomes an employee because they are under

I don't call it what I want. The statute just uses the term employee. Because Congress didn't bother to define employee for the purposes of the statute, someone had to. So the Supreme Court used the common law definition that was available at the time (keep in mind, that if Congress thinks that's wrong Congress can amend the law with their own definition of an employee tomorrow). So that's the definition. I didn't pull it out of my dictionary of choice. That's the definition that the NLRB and any reviewing court is required to use unless Congress amends the law with a new definition.

Suffice it to say that I don't find your statutory interpretation particularly convincing, but its not worth getting into. Northwestern will pay very good lawyers to make something generally akin to your argument.

Just to be clear, I'm just opining, I don't hope to pretend to know or be able to predict anything about anything, it's just how I see things.

I totally believe you if you say that's the standard.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Great news.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The University should just remove the scholarships and use the Ivy League model.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

Coach - Ok guys I need to see 10 wind sprints from the end zone to 50 yard and back....GO!

Player - Coach you need to talk to my Union Rep about these wind sprints.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The University should just remove the scholarships and use the Ivy League model.

I suppose Northwestern could do that, but they'd end up getting slaughtered in the B1G.

 

[Insomniac]

Feds saying Northwestern players can form a union.

So will they get paid as much as Auburn players currently do?

Northwestern says they will drop FBS football if this goes through.

They'll walk away from all the cash they get from football and basketball? Sure they will.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The University should just remove the scholarships and use the Ivy League model.

I suppose Northwestern could do that, but they'd end up getting slaughtered in the B1G.

Possible at first, but then when the players at the other B1G schools try to unionize you'll see a lot of solidarity among the University officials. It could eventually lead to an NCAA rule that prohibits the offering of athletic scholarship.

 

[jdoggydogg]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

 

[bosoxs45]

This is dumb and a bad idea.

That is all.

Why? Scared your Saturdays watching young men playing a game making universities rich will go away?

Oh, how do I count the ways.

I don't think it will ever go away, the great mawp of tv demands the games be played.

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement.

They are students, not employees.

And if you say they are not students really then I ask, why doesn't someone just start a minor league and sign any player of any age who will want a paycheck. Now they would be employees.

These "students" can't major in real programs like engineering because football practice takes up too much of their free time. How is that fair?

 

[Snotbubbles]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Keep burning. ....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

For one thing you raise an interesting question, why aren't children who play Pop Warner to high school ball employees as well?

I said this earlier - they can go play semi-pro or even better I have no flippin' idea why someone with money doesn't just start a minor league and sign everyone from 15-45 who wants to play. Why doesn't this happen?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is dumb and a bad idea.

That is all.

Why? Scared your Saturdays watching young men playing a game making universities rich will go away?

Oh, how do I count the ways.

I don't think it will ever go away, the great mawp of tv demands the games be played.

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement.

They are students, not employees.

And if you say they are not students really then I ask, why doesn't someone just start a minor league and sign any player of any age who will want a paycheck. Now they would be employees.

These "students" can't major in real programs like engineering because football practice takes up too much of their free time. How is that fair?

The whole system is completely distorted that's the problem. Schools shouldn't be admitting people who aren't real students.

But to answer your question, anyone can go play semi-pro ball and get paid; plus only a very low percentage of the players get to turn pro. They could get an education and a degree out of it if they chose. That's worth a lot for playing a game.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The University should just remove the scholarships and use the Ivy League model.

I suppose Northwestern could do that, but they'd end up getting slaughtered in the B1G.

Possible at first, but then when the players at the other B1G schools try to unionize you'll see a lot of solidarity among the University officials. It could eventually lead to an NCAA rule that prohibits the offering of athletic scholarship.

See, that's the thing. There can't be "solidarity" between the independent universities. The Ivy League is a bit of an anomaly because they've never offered athletic scholarships. But if a bunch of schools who used to offer scholarships all decided to stop offering scholarships when the athletes threatened to unionize, that would look an awful lot like they colluded to fix the price of their labor. Which is a Sherman Act violation.

Now, they could argue that each university made an independent decision, yadda yadda yadda, but it wouldn't be a fact pattern I'd relish if I were their lawyer.

 

[Snotbubbles]

This is dumb and a bad idea.

That is all.

Why? Scared your Saturdays watching young men playing a game making universities rich will go away?

Oh, how do I count the ways.

I don't think it will ever go away, the great mawp of tv demands the games be played.

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement.

They are students, not employees.

And if you say they are not students really then I ask, why doesn't someone just start a minor league and sign any player of any age who will want a paycheck. Now they would be employees.

These "students" can't major in real programs like engineering because football practice takes up too much of their free time. How is that fair?

That is crap. The students can't major in a real program like engineering because they aren't smart enough to get through Calculus, Linear Algebra and Physics. It has nothing to do with time demands.

 

[jdoggydogg]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

They already get a free education and every variation of that statement has absolutely no place in any argument about college football.

 

[jonessed]

This is dumb and a bad idea.

That is all.

Why? Scared your Saturdays watching young men playing a game making universities rich will go away?

Oh, how do I count the ways.

I don't think it will ever go away, the great mawp of tv demands the games be played.

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement.

They are students, not employees.

And if you say they are not students really then I ask, why doesn't someone just start a minor league and sign any player of any age who will want a paycheck. Now they would be employees.

These "students" can't major in real programs like engineering because football practice takes up too much of their free time. How is that fair?

Of course they can.

Many schools bend over backwards to accommodate practice schedules, provide tutors, vary test times, etc.

 

[jonessed]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

 

[jdoggydogg]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

 

[Snotbubbles]

The University should just remove the scholarships and use the Ivy League model.

I suppose Northwestern could do that, but they'd end up getting slaughtered in the B1G.

Possible at first, but then when the players at the other B1G schools try to unionize you'll see a lot of solidarity among the University officials. It could eventually lead to an NCAA rule that prohibits the offering of athletic scholarship.

See, that's the thing. There can't be "solidarity" between the independent universities. The Ivy League is a bit of an anomaly because they've never offered athletic scholarships. But if a bunch of schools who used to offer scholarships all decided to stop offering scholarships when the athletes threatened to unionize, that would look an awful lot like they colluded to fix the price of their labor. Which is a Sherman Act violation.

Now, they could argue that each university made an independent decision, yadda yadda yadda, but it wouldn't be a fact pattern I'd relish if I were their lawyer.

Except, the B1G wouldn't create a monopoly or substantially lessen competition because a player could go to the SEC, ACC, Pac-10 whatever.

 

[jonessed]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.

If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

 

[Snotbubbles]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

The cost/benefit analysis isn't yours to make, it's the athletes.

Plus, there are benefits that athletes get that you can't put a price on. How much money would a person pay to get 4 years of individual instruction from a coach like Nick Saban.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Good point. 17 & 18 year old men are well known for making good decisions that are in their long term best interests.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Think about that. If this were such an unfair deal why would players have been signing up for college football for the last 100+ years?

Heck there are players in Div I-AA, II and III and NAIA etc., and even Div-IA like Army, AF and Navy, that have absolutely no expectation of a scholarship who do just that now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Good point. 17 & 18 year old men are well known for making good decisions that are in their long term best interests.

Don't they keep playing when they're 19-23?

 

[jonessed]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Good point. 17 & 18 year old men are well known for making good decisions that are in their long term best interests.

We aren't talking about men only.

They can stop playing at any time. They aren't locked into four-year contracts.

 

[jonessed]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Think about that. If this were such an unfair deal why would players have been signing up for college football for the last 100+ years?

Heck there are players in Div I-AA, II and III and NAIA etc., and even Div-IA like Army, AF and Navy, that have absolutely no expectation of a scholarship who do just that now.

I know it's crazy, but I think some of them actually enjoy it.

A six-figure education to play a sport you played for free most of your life. The horror!

 

[Premier]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

For one thing you raise an interesting question, why aren't children who play Pop Warner to high school ball employees as well?

I said this earlier - they can go play semi-pro or even better I have no flippin' idea why someone with money doesn't just start a minor league and sign everyone from 15-45 who wants to play. Why doesn't this happen?

Because there is nobody in the world who would watch it. Do you like to give free money away?

 

[jdoggydogg]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.

If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Millions of Americans work low paying jobs for gigantic, hugely profitable corporations with no healthcare and little worker rights. They don't have to work there, right?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

And they're not allowed to earn outside money because...?

 

[Premier]

And they're not allowed to earn outside money because...?

I think this is the part that will ultimately change, with limits placed on it.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Good point. 17 & 18 year old men are well known for making good decisions that are in their long term best interests.

We aren't talking about men only.They can stop playing at any time. They aren't locked into four-year contracts.

Student athletes participate in the established system and that participation is evidence the system is just. That's a cute argument.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Think about that. If this were such an unfair deal why would players have been signing up for college football for the last 100+ years?

Same reason kids buy guitars: so they can chase the dream of being a superstar. You're saying it's fine the way it is, and I'm saying an 20 year old isn't always qualified to recognize unfair labor practices.

 

[jonessed]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Millions of Americans work low paying jobs for gigantic, hugely profitable corporations with no healthcare and little worker rights. They don't have to work there, right?

They could always go to college. If they are lucky someone might even help pay for it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The people who hate this are exactly the same sort of folks who used to argue that the reserve clause in baseball was necessary for the good of the game and if they players didn't like it they were free not to play baseball.

And 50 years from now the NCAA will look every bit as awful as the baseball owners do in hindsight, and no one will acknowledge that they were against the new arrangement.

 

[jonessed]

But I do believe that we have crossed a rubicon of some sorts here whereby everyone is designated some classification deserving of some level of entitlement. They are students, not employees.

Astounding.

So you contend that these athletes should work for free? Risk their bodies and major head injuries with no long term healthcare? Would you feel the same if your son broke his spine in a football game?

Are you saying that the athletes get nothing from the colleges?

Chinese workers get $5 a day to work in sweatshops. Doesn't mean it's fair compensation.

And "giving" an athlete free tuition isn't a 1-to-1 swap. It's not like the university is giving any schlub off the streets free tuition to play a dangerous sport. They're paying very small sums to some of the greatest athletes in the world.

Horse####. Very, very few college players make it to the pro level in any sport. You are talking about a small handful of people.

That helps my position. Thank you. That they won't likely make the pros and will not receive any long term healthcare means they are risking their bodies while the schools make millions.

Then they don't have to take the scholarship. They aren't being forced to play.If it was such a bad deal for the students they wouldn't be doing it.

Good point. 17 & 18 year old men are well known for making good decisions that are in their long term best interests.

We aren't talking about men only.They can stop playing at any time. They aren't locked into four-year contracts.

Student athletes participate in the established system and that participation is evidence the system is just. That's a cute argument.

Thank you.For those not lucky enough to get the opportunity there's always semi-pro.

 

[roadkill1292]

Surprised at this ruling, though after reading Scooby's observations perhaps I shouldn't be.

One of the union's goals is to seek access to the same rights to procure outside income as every other college student has. This, along with the O'Bannon and Kessler lawsuits, is the real truck coming along to run over the tenets of amateurism. Of course they get compensated, that's not the issue and never has been. The issue is that they're not getting paid market value and they're being illegally restricted by the schools from realizing that value. See: Cam Newton and Reggie Bush. The schools should have been out in front of this years ago but it's like no college administrator anywhere has ever read about the Olympics.

The 17 major football-playing schools are now in an interesting position. For about two and a half million dollars a year they could afford $30,000 stipends for their football players. They might get kicked out of the crumbling NCAA for a while but they'd also dominate recruiting. Who gets the stud recruits and the TV money that comes with the highest level of play then -- Southern Cal and Miami with their well-paid stars or Alabama with their 3-star guys and that lucrative Birmingham TV market to go with it?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The issue is that they're not getting paid market value and they're being illegally restricted by the schools from realizing that value.

Perfect one-sentence summary.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The University should just remove the scholarships and use the Ivy League model.

I suppose Northwestern could do that, but they'd end up getting slaughtered in the B1G.

Possible at first, but then when the players at the other B1G schools try to unionize you'll see a lot of solidarity among the University officials. It could eventually lead to an NCAA rule that prohibits the offering of athletic scholarship.

See, that's the thing. There can't be "solidarity" between the independent universities. The Ivy League is a bit of an anomaly because they've never offered athletic scholarships. But if a bunch of schools who used to offer scholarships all decided to stop offering scholarships when the athletes threatened to unionize, that would look an awful lot like they colluded to fix the price of their labor. Which is a Sherman Act violation.

Now, they could argue that each university made an independent decision, yadda yadda yadda, but it wouldn't be a fact pattern I'd relish if I were their lawyer.

Except, the B1G wouldn't create a monopoly or substantially lessen competition because a player could go to the SEC, ACC, Pac-10 whatever.

Price (or in this case, wage) fixing doesn't require monopoly power. It is an agreement in restraint of trade and has been held to be violative of Section I of the Sherman Act, per se. If two convenience stores conspire to sell bottled water for $1.50, it doesn't matter if a third store on the block will still sell for $1.25. It's still price fixing.

Monopolizing (or attempts to monopolize) are handled under Section II of the Sherman Act.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I said this earlier - they can go play semi-pro or even better I have no flippin' idea why someone with money doesn't just start a minor league and sign everyone from 15-45 who wants to play. Why doesn't this happen?

Because the schools are the attraction, not the players. Millions of alums around the country are going to root for their universities. Put the same players on minor league teams in the same cities and no one will care.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

No one wants to spend billions of dollars trying to unseat a monopoly. That's why no one is trying to establish a rival league.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

They should play in a minor league somewhere or variations of that statement are also not a valid point in this discussion.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Feds saying Northwestern players can form a union.

So will they get paid as much as Auburn players currently do?

Northwestern says they will drop FBS football if this goes through.

They'll walk away from all the cash they get from football and basketball? Sure they will.

Do you know how much money they make from football and basketball? It's not nearly as much as you think.

 

[Guest]

No one has made an S-E-C joke yet?

Are S-E-C players now going to have to take a pay cut?