NLRB rules against NCAA

[HuskyHawk]

When Boston U. got rid of football, their metrics in student applicants etc. shot through the roof. These 2 things are not related. But it's an example of how little schools in much of the country will notice they're gone. Only donors, alumni and politicians seem to care. Down south and midwest, it's a different story.

BUT I note things are changing a little bit. The mayor of Las Vegas basically told the Oakland As not to come.

Maybe that's what it should be. As a fan, I see it one way. But rationally, these schools shouldn't be funding football or most of these sports. That includes UConn. Basketball is relatively cheap to fund, so we have 300+ D1 teams. Rice, Vandy, BC and Northwestern don't need football. Duke probably doesn't need football.

The Mayor of Las Vegas is a moron. She didn't want the stadium at the Tropicana site (I don't blame her). She's talking about how the A's owners want a stadium in Oakland "on the water". Alameda coliseum pretty much is on the water. It's a dump and they have no fans. The whole region favors the Giants. They have to move. Had they moved to San Jose 20 years ago (it was discussed in the 90s), they'd probably have split the Bay Area north-south. But it's too late now. Oakland has a 440k population. San Jose is twice that. Now if I owned the team, I'd have tried to move to Nashville instead. Same size as Vegas, but with way more people in the larger area around it. No teams in the southeast other than the Braves.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Why would that matter? If the act of being a student athlete is employment, why would labeling that activity being a club sport be any different?

I'm saying the model of the school giving money to students in exchange for playing those sports is gone. If the students want to continue to compete in that sport, they'll be able to do so. They just won't have scholarships, paid coaches, facilities, travel budgets and everything else which goes in to fielding an NCAA sanctioned D1 sport.

 

[upstater]

I'm saying the model of the school giving money to students in exchange for playing those sports is gone. If the students want to continue to compete in that sport, they'll be able to do so. They just won't have scholarships, paid coaches, facilities, travel budgets and everything else which goes in to fielding an NCAA sanctioned D1 sport.

This would be how it already is if only they could get around Title 9.

But... the conferences would also have to break up so that schools wouldn't be required to field a minimum number of teams.

 

[StllH8L8ner]

We're talking about D1 here. The Ivy League is irrelevant. But everyone knows the Ivy bball players receive full tuition remission plus r&b. It's not a secret.

Plus a select few get to join…The Skulls.

This is all so wild.

 

[auror]

Why would that matter? If the act of being a student athlete is employment, why would labeling that activity being a club sport be any different?

There's a difference in the school sponsoring the sport and giving scholarships, paying for coaches, travel etc. and the kids organizing themselves, coaching themselves and paying for their own travel.

There's an easy distinction you can make there. One is student athletes playing a sport FOR the school, the other is student athletes playing a sport AT the school.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Chasm64]

Manure

 

[CL82]

I'm saying the model of the school giving money to students in exchange for playing those sports is gone. If the students want to continue to compete in that sport, they'll be able to do so. They just won't have scholarships, paid coaches, facilities, travel budgets and everything else which goes in to fielding an NCAA sanctioned D1 sport.

Yeah I think you're going the wrong way with that what the Regional labor relations board has said Is that the act of playing sports on behalf of a school creates an employee/employer relationship. I'm not confident that paying an employee less, Or "nothing"'has ever been viewed as a remedy by a NRLB board. as you know, club sports to receive a modicum of support from the university.

Assuming that distinction is as meaningless as I suspect it is then the question becomes whether other members of clubs would also have employee status. Much like the transfer portal has benefited some athletes at the cost of others scholarships, the unionization of athletes may benefit some at the largest, but it will come in a cost of undercutting many others.

 

[CL82]

There's a difference in the school sponsoring the sport and giving scholarships, paying for coaches, travel etc. and the kids organizing themselves, coaching themselves and paying for their own travel.

There's an easy distinction you can make there. One is student athletes playing a sport FOR the school, the other is student athletes playing a sport AT the school.

If the premise is that a student participating in an activity if they receive any benefit from the school means that they are an employee, then how does that change if the benefits smaller, absent a deminimus carve out.

 

[giddyup]

Laughable. My kids need economic justice from out of control tuitions.

 

[auror]

If the premise is that a student participating in an activity if they receive any benefit from the school means that they are an employee, then how does that change if the benefits smaller, absent a deminimus carve out.

There is no benefit from the school to the athlete for club sports, so I'm not sure what you're saying. There is no relationship between a school and a club sports team other than the fact that the membership is voluntarily made up of a population of local college students.

 

[Spaceman213J]

Now, if this ever holds up, who is going to cough up the money for dues to cover lawyers, registration, records and etc.. Aside from the big sports, players don't make money aside from tuition and a few stipends. You know guys like Cooper are not going to want to use the NIL money next year to pay for the lack of union dues by others. Or will there by union by sports and this will just be a way for lawyers and agents to take some of the players NIL money?

 

[CL82]

There is no benefit from the school to the athlete for club sports, so I'm not sure what you're saying. There is no relationship between a school and a club sports team other than the fact that the membership is voluntarily made up of a population of local college students.

It that the test for employment? Whether it benefits one side? Club teams do have funds allocated to the them. The difference is one of extent.

 

[mussels]

It that the test for employment? Whether it benefits one side? Club teams do have funds allocated to the them. The difference is one of extent.

“"Because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men's basketball team, and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation, I find that the petitioned-for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the (National Labor Relations) Act," NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks wrote.”(underlining mine)

So the test is apparently whether the university can control the “work” (practices and games presumably) performed, and the players receive compensation. Clubs wouldn’t seem to meet eitner criteria. (but I am scratching my head over what compensation the non-scholarship Ivy League players are receiving, since I thought colleges couldn’t directly pay kids)

 

[huskymedic]

Dartmouth (Ivy League) does not give athletic scholarships. What are the players being paid?

“Monday's ruling determined otherwise. Dartmouth players, like all athletes across the Ivy League, don’t receive athletic scholarships. Sacks determined that they receive compensation in the form of lodging, food and other expenses and that the program treats them as if they are employees.”

 

[superjohn]

“Monday's ruling determined otherwise. Dartmouth players, like all athletes across the Ivy League, don’t receive athletic scholarships. Sacks determined that they receive compensation in the form of lodging, food and other expenses and that the program treats them as if they are employees.”

This is so stupid.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

“"Because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men's basketball team, and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation, I find that the petitioned-for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the (National Labor Relations) Act," NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks wrote.”(underlining mine)

So the test is apparently whether the university can control the “work” (practices and games presumably) performed, and the players receive compensation. Clubs wouldn’t seem to meet eitner criteria. (but I am scratching my head over what compensation the non-scholarship Ivy League players are receiving, since I thought colleges couldn’t directly pay kids)

Yeah, can’t imagine this comes close to touching clubs for that reason. Club membership does their own scheduling, sets practice schedules, etc. They may get some funding from university but are not directed by them on any way.

 

[giddyup]

There is no benefit from the school to the athlete for club sports, so I'm not sure what you're saying. There is no relationship between a school and a club sports team other than the fact that the membership is voluntarily made up of a population of local college students.

Actually these clubs get thrown a few bucks by the schools. It’s called placate kids that want to do sports but we have no interest in supporting. Ski teams, equestrian, rugby, bowling, etc.

 

[auror]

Actually these clubs get thrown a few bucks by the schools. It’s called placate kids that want to do sports but we have no interest in supporting. Ski teams, equestrian, rugby, bowling, etc.

Yeah, but if that would be the difference of having to pay people as employees and not, they would no longer.

 

[freescooter]

This has nothing to do with NIL. This has to do with union wages and union benefits. They will need to cap practice time, and it could -- at the bigger schools -- eat into those $5k stipends.

Once you join a union, you also have to pay taxes on your income. Stipends aren't stipends anymore. In addition, depending on the parties in power, congress has gone after tuition remission as income in the past for paid employees. This is a very different thing than work-study.

Nothing to do with being in a union or not being in a union. If your scholarship is determined to be income for tax purposes, it taxable. Right now it mostly is not. One wonders what the impact might be on other scholarships if athletic ones are ruled taxable income.

 

[superjohn]

“"Because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men's basketball team, and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation, I find that the petitioned-for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the (National Labor Relations) Act," NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks wrote.”(underlining mine)

So the test is apparently whether the university can control the “work” (practices and games presumably) performed, and the players receive compensation. Clubs wouldn’t seem to meet eitner criteria. (but I am scratching my head over what compensation the non-scholarship Ivy League players are receiving, since I thought colleges couldn’t directly pay kids)

What about the Universities and their non athlete students? Kids get free educations, room and board, food and they are obligated to take classes where professors set the schedules and the work the students have to do so that they keep getting that free education, room and board, food etc.

 

[upstater]

Nothing to do with being in a union or not being in a union. If your scholarship is determined to be income for tax purposes, it taxable. Right now it mostly is not. One wonders what the impact might be on other scholarships if athletic ones are ruled taxable income.

To the contrary. It's a NLRB case about the right to unionize. The vast majority of campus workers in the country fall under the same umbrella as faculty and are therefore covered by the same agreements. In some states you can ask out of the union, but that still means you get union wages and benefits.

 

[upstater]

“"Because Dartmouth has the right to control the work performed by the Dartmouth men's basketball team, and the players perform that work in exchange for compensation, I find that the petitioned-for basketball players are employees within the meaning of the (National Labor Relations) Act," NLRB Regional Director Laura Sacks wrote.”(underlining mine)

So the test is apparently whether the university can control the “work” (practices and games presumably) performed, and the players receive compensation. Clubs wouldn’t seem to meet eitner criteria. (but I am scratching my head over what compensation the non-scholarship Ivy League players are receiving, since I thought colleges couldn’t directly pay kids)

First, the NLRB has ruled on this multiple ways in the past, and none of the rulings seem to have convinced other directors as to which way to vote.

But at this point, players do receive some compensation over and above scholarships and room & board. They receive about $5k.

 

[upstater]

What about the Universities and their non athlete students? Kids get free educations, room and board, food and they are obligated to take classes where professors set the schedules and the work the students have to do so that they keep getting that free education, room and board, food etc.

The NLRB actually ruled against the petition of Brown U. grad assistants to unionize because it determined they were not workers, even though they received these forms of compensation.

 

[huskymedic]