- Joined
- Apr 24, 2022
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction Score
- 33,695
Didn't Anthony Braxton play one of these?
National Labor Relations Board files complaint for unfair labor practices vs. NCAA, Pac-12, USC
- Thread starter Carnac
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction Score
- 2,104
This whole NIL situation is creating a somber slippery slope. If college student athletes create a union, what will this means for scholarship athletes in the long run? Just my personal opinion, I believe that scholarships will come with restrictions. Now, if a player chooses to go to a specific college, they should have the option to either accept the scholarship with restriction, or just apply to the school, and try out for the team and get accepted to the team, without any scholarship restriction. I hope I made sense. ♂️
If athletes want to be treated like employees, real employees, then couldn't their employers insist on a "no compete" clause to their contracts (scholarships)? Just about every professional that I know has a "no compete" agreement with their employer. I imagine this would end the portal. Welcome to the real world, athletes.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2021
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction Score
- 282
All that will have to be collectively bargained if they go the union route. What could happen is you end up with Football and Basketball and a whole bunch of "club" sports, or no sports. At most schools, the only people that would notice are the fans and alumni.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,689
- Reaction Score
- 13,904
Sorry ccwarrior. That came across more snarky than I intended. I apologize.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Messages
- 7,461
- Reaction Score
- 27,844
Or even better, get hurt, don't perform, whatever, and you get fired. Imagine UConn doing a season end review and going down the stats, and having to fire players that didn't put up the stats they were expected?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2022
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction Score
- 33,695
Some of these posts seem intemperate to me. Yes, seeking an employee relationship to a school is a little different from the traditional and sentimental one between students and teachers. But it's not entirely different. This is true for coaches, faculty and fans. We will still love our players as people and won't like to see them handled roughly just because they've also become employees.
I've spent the last 40 years in higher education, and the deepest value on any campus tends to be seeking the good of one's students. But one aspect of the university has been more exploitive, and it isn't right to resent the student athletes for chafing under a regime that hasn't always sought their good. This particular solution may not be well chosen, but that isn't the fault of the kids in the equation. If I blame anyone, it's the adults -- the schools, conferences, and NCAA administrators -- since they are the ones who've built careers on the current state of affairs.
I've spent the last 40 years in higher education, and the deepest value on any campus tends to be seeking the good of one's students. But one aspect of the university has been more exploitive, and it isn't right to resent the student athletes for chafing under a regime that hasn't always sought their good. This particular solution may not be well chosen, but that isn't the fault of the kids in the equation. If I blame anyone, it's the adults -- the schools, conferences, and NCAA administrators -- since they are the ones who've built careers on the current state of affairs.
As a past student-athlete and current educator in our college system, all I can say is - bingo!
All that money is included in the budgets for the programs. When you see a school like Michigan make $92mil in a year it includes money from bowls, money from sponsors like Jordan, and TV revenue. As a D1 player at a top university you travel first class, your food is better than the best fine dining and you get a top notch education. This value at some schools is $250k plus just for the school part.
NIL is enough. If you can't get money for your performance on the field then be happy with all the other perks you get as a player. At least that is how I think.
And you are free to hold that opinion.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2017
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction Score
- 1,240
If college athletes are determined to be employees, wouldn't this wipe out most of I-AA (FCS) and all of Division II & Division III sports?
Scholarship athletes have it pretty good right now. If they get too greedy, they will risk losing it all. There will come a time when schools say enough is enough.
Scholarship athletes have it pretty good right now. If they get too greedy, they will risk losing it all. There will come a time when schools say enough is enough.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2022
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction Score
- 33,695
No, probably not. But some sort of evolution would probably follow.
First, greed seems like the wrong moral rubric for assessing this, unless you mean the greed of the schools and the NCAA. Second, it's not the schools but the courts that will determine this. Schools are addicted to D-1 sports and can't afford to just walk away.
Can WBB turn pro after high school?
ABSOLUTELY. Coupled with your characterization is exploitation. If WBB are prevented from earning from their sport out of high school courts would clearly have only one just decision.
Full ride scholarship students in fine arts or humanities are allowed to sell their creations, the product of their talent.
If I'm not mistaken graduate students in the University of California system who are TAs or RAs are allowed to unionize and collectively bargain.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2021
- Messages
- 2,759
- Reaction Score
- 12,779
They can wait until they are old enough to go into the WNBA. Go play overseas and make all the demands you want. I'm fine with NIL with all its infant imperfections, but this is beyond that. If I'm in the band, choir, debate team...whatever, am I an employee now? Top academic institutions are supported by the top academic students. It's part of why they can command these gaudy tuitions. Should the academic students get some of that money? Should they have agents or labor bodies negotiate their "perks"? Where does it stop?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2022
- Messages
- 5,717
- Reaction Score
- 33,695
A few oddities in the coverage of this case.
1) TAs and RAs are unionized in the UC system, and will soon be at other unviersities. These are all grad students, which may make them not entirely similar to the athletes. This is also the end of a decades long struggle -- I remember it's very early days from when I was a grad student at UCI. The UC had gradually shifted more and more teaching responsibilities onto the shoulders of the grad students, effectively reducing their teaching budget. The grad students demanded health benefits at the time and lost the argument.
2) The ESPN article doesn't make it entirely clear what the athletes might be seeking as employees. Is it money? Or is it merely better transfer rules? Or longer eligibility?
3) A PAC12 spokesman characterizes this as a legal issue, stating that the NLRB's "allegations are completely at odds with decades of established law." But the NLRB's suit is not at odds with any laws, in the strict sense -- that is, Congress has not spoken on this issue as far as I know. The hearing will be before an administrative law judge, which means it is based on years of labor practices that Congress has not codified into law.
4) As for the second claim by the PAC12, that this suit, "if accepted by the NLRB and the courts, would have a profound and negative impact on college sports and the many student-athletes in our Conference," this is merely their opinion. I think there's reason to believe the status quo already has a negative impact on the many student athletes in football, MCBB and WCBB.
1) TAs and RAs are unionized in the UC system, and will soon be at other unviersities. These are all grad students, which may make them not entirely similar to the athletes. This is also the end of a decades long struggle -- I remember it's very early days from when I was a grad student at UCI. The UC had gradually shifted more and more teaching responsibilities onto the shoulders of the grad students, effectively reducing their teaching budget. The grad students demanded health benefits at the time and lost the argument.
2) The ESPN article doesn't make it entirely clear what the athletes might be seeking as employees. Is it money? Or is it merely better transfer rules? Or longer eligibility?
3) A PAC12 spokesman characterizes this as a legal issue, stating that the NLRB's "allegations are completely at odds with decades of established law." But the NLRB's suit is not at odds with any laws, in the strict sense -- that is, Congress has not spoken on this issue as far as I know. The hearing will be before an administrative law judge, which means it is based on years of labor practices that Congress has not codified into law.
4) As for the second claim by the PAC12, that this suit, "if accepted by the NLRB and the courts, would have a profound and negative impact on college sports and the many student-athletes in our Conference," this is merely their opinion. I think there's reason to believe the status quo already has a negative impact on the many student athletes in football, MCBB and WCBB.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2021
- Messages
- 2,242
- Reaction Score
- 5,889
IMO college athletes are not employees but are volunteers.
But I believe that the players at schools can form an association without being employees as a Constitutional right.
That shouldn't need a ruling by the NLRB to form an association.
Their only bargaining chip would be to not play or to strike which could have serious consequences for themselves as individuals.
They already have the right to transfer schools and the schools have the right to terminate individual scholarships.
To consider them employees would be meddling and I don't see anything good that could result from it.
Congress would need to step in to resolve the situation because I doubt that Congress would support a large scale movement of player strikes to demand compensation.
If players want to demand medical benefits or injury compensation then I could understand that.
As long as some players are willing to play without any scholarship or compensation then they're all just volunteers.
Or else the NLRB can begin applying the concept of being employees to high school athletes too.
It's a slippery slope but schools can only give compensation if they do it voluntarily.
I don't believe the gov't should allow any school to be forced to pay compensation to athletes when others are willing to volunteer to play for only a scholarship or to be a walk on & play for free, like they do at Division 3 schools.
At some point the system needs to build a firewall to prevent schools from being coerced by athletes and Congress may need to do it if the NLRB decides that they're employees.
If groups of players don't want to play without compensation then that's fine for them, they can transfer to a school that will pay them.
If a school wants to pay their athletes then that's fine too.
But it should be up to the schools & not the gov't to decide whether they pay compensation or not.
What will the NLRB want to do next, give injured players workers compensation benefits?
But I believe that the players at schools can form an association without being employees as a Constitutional right.
That shouldn't need a ruling by the NLRB to form an association.
Their only bargaining chip would be to not play or to strike which could have serious consequences for themselves as individuals.
They already have the right to transfer schools and the schools have the right to terminate individual scholarships.
To consider them employees would be meddling and I don't see anything good that could result from it.
Congress would need to step in to resolve the situation because I doubt that Congress would support a large scale movement of player strikes to demand compensation.
If players want to demand medical benefits or injury compensation then I could understand that.
As long as some players are willing to play without any scholarship or compensation then they're all just volunteers.
Or else the NLRB can begin applying the concept of being employees to high school athletes too.
It's a slippery slope but schools can only give compensation if they do it voluntarily.
I don't believe the gov't should allow any school to be forced to pay compensation to athletes when others are willing to volunteer to play for only a scholarship or to be a walk on & play for free, like they do at Division 3 schools.
At some point the system needs to build a firewall to prevent schools from being coerced by athletes and Congress may need to do it if the NLRB decides that they're employees.
If groups of players don't want to play without compensation then that's fine for them, they can transfer to a school that will pay them.
If a school wants to pay their athletes then that's fine too.
But it should be up to the schools & not the gov't to decide whether they pay compensation or not.
What will the NLRB want to do next, give injured players workers compensation benefits?
Last edited:
Absolutely. And that failure impacts the full range of abilities.