NLRB rules against NCAA | Page 3 | The Boneyard

NLRB rules against NCAA

Status
Not open for further replies.
upstater said:
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.
Expand ...
Union wages my butt. First step is minimum wage.
 
How is this going to work with scholarships in the future. Can colleges and universities put language into scholarships that will allow them to be taken away whenever they want for 'failure to perform' or if a player decides to transfer, let the college sue the employee for 'breach of contract'.
It could also be the 'death nail' for a lot sports at colleges outside of football and basketball who don't bring in money. Are athletes going to have to pay 'dues' and it will be the same for all.
If it isn't reversed, I don't see how any semblance of the NCAA as we know it, remains in the long term.
 
Spaceman213J said:
How is this going to work with scholarships in the future. Can colleges and universities put language into scholarships that will allow them to be taken away whenever they want for 'failure to perform' or if a player decides to transfer, let the college sue the employee for 'breach of contract'.
It could also be the 'death nail' for a lot sports at colleges outside of football and basketball who don't bring in money. Are athletes going to have to pay 'dues' and it will be the same for all.
If it isn't reversed, I don't see how any semblance of the NCAA as we know it, remains in the long term.
Expand ...
Scholarships can already be taken away whenever a coach/school wants. They are renewable on a yearly basis. If a player is not performing, a coach will let them know it's in their best interest to move down a level or find a new school. let's not kid ourselves and ignore that college sports has been a business since at least the turn of the century.

The NCAA of today is not the same of 5 years ago, and much less the NCAA of 20 years ago. Whatever idea of the NCAA you had has been long gone
 
.-.
UConnTrumbull said:
I just can’t imagine a scenario (aside from Title IX) to keep certain non-revenue sports.
Expand ...

They will become club sports or intramural sports.
 
Chin Diesel said:
They will become club sports or intramural sports.
Expand ...
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?
 
How Sway?! said:
Scholarships can already be taken away whenever a coach/school wants. They are renewable on a yearly basis. If a player is not performing, a coach will let them know it's in their best interest to move down a level or find a new school. let's not kid ourselves and ignore that college sports has been a business since at least the turn of the century.

The NCAA of today is not the same of 5 years ago, and much less the NCAA of 20 years ago. Whatever idea of the NCAA you had has been long gone
Expand ...
Yes and no. It's a marketing function. Last I recall, maybe 20-30 schools had an AD that turn a profit, and that was without paying athletes. Do you think there's some huge bucket of cash just sitting there? It's already heavily subsidized, and aside from football and basketball, a complete money loser. They do it because kids like to attend a school that has sports. The real money is in admissions. The Ivys cut scholarships, because their students didn't really care. Nor MIT or CalTech. UC Santa Cruz has a nice ultimate frisbee team. Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity, none of the European schools have this. Maybe a non-scholarship crew team and track team. It's as it was in the U.S. 100 years ago. Actual students competing.

You move these kids to a payroll and the economics of this model collapse completely. You'll have maybe 40 schools participating. The rest will need to cut almost everything to non-scholarship. Schools like NYU, BU, Fordham, they may not even keep scholarship basketball. Honestly, their students mostly don't care now.

That said the NLRB is made up of mostly very, very pro-labor people at present. I doubt this ruling survives judicial review and even if does, Congress can wipe it out, and probably would.
 
visitingcock said:
Dartmouth (Ivy League) does not give athletic scholarships. What are the players being paid?
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
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?
Expand ...
It will be impossible to legislate. Good luck with all of that. Maybe they'll establish thresholds for income, but again they'll fall afoul of TITLE IX.
 
CL82 said:
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?
Expand ...

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.
 
Chin Diesel said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
upstater said:
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.
Expand ...
Plus a select few get to join…The Skulls.

This is all so wild.
 
CL82 said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Chin Diesel said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
auror said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
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?
 
auror said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...

“"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)
 
mussels said:
“"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)
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,289
Messages
4,561,592
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom