NLRB to pursue unlawful labor practices against USC, Pac-12, NCAA

[Carnac]

An effort to legally recognize college football and basketball players at the University of Southern California as employees of their school, their conference and the NCAA took a significant step forward Thursday.

The National Labor Relations Board has directed its Los Angeles regional office to pursue charges of unfair labor practices against USC, the Pac-12 and the NCAA. The NLRB will argue that athletes at USC are employees of those three groups and that their rights have been unlawfully restricted. If they are successful, athletes who play men's basketball, women's basketball or football at any private college in the NCAA will be granted the rights of employees, including the freedom to create unions.

NLRB claim to argue USC athletes are employees

The National Labor Relations Board has directed its Los Angeles regional office to pursue charges of unfair labor practices against USC, the Pac-12 and the NCAA.

www.espn.com

 

[Bone Dog]

I love how the article lays out the legal steps the NCAA and the schools can take to resist this action. But I can't for the life of me fathom why they'd want to resist. Why not simply enter into negotiations with the advocacy group, assist in the creation of a union for players, and be done with it? Can they seriously argue that it wouldn't be in the best interest of the players, i.e. their students? I'm not sure there can be any other basis for argument.

I get that there's a lot of money involved, and getting any institutions to cede power is always an uphill slog. But that's business thinking, and these schools are nominally non-profits... and the NCAA is effectively ancillary to educational institutions. If they resist this effort, it seems to me, they are admitting (if only tacitly) that they are not really educational institutions. And, yes, I get that not all educational entities are non-profits -- that's an argument for another day -- but are there any of these in the NCAA?

 

[dabears17]

WI’ll players have to pay income, disability, and social security taxes on the value of the scholarships and things like meals? Will they have to pay income taxes to the cities/states they play in that have income taxes, like pros have to?

Why just basketball and football? Why not softball and volleyball as well?

Interesting it is filed against USC and the Pac 12, since USC is moving to the Big 10 in 2024.

 

[Bone Dog]

WI’ll players have to pay income, disability, and social security taxes on the value of the scholarships and things like meals? Will they have to pay income taxes to the cities/states they play in that have income taxes, like pros have to?

Why just basketball and football? Why not softball and volleyball as well?

Interesting it is filed against USC and the Pac 12, since USC is moving to the Big 10 in 2024.

Could be. Academic scholarships, fellowships and stipends have always been taxable, as the financial situation dictates. When I had a fellowship in grad school, it was taxable income, but since it put me below the level to have to pay taxes, I didn't. But I still reported it all on tax returns.

As for other sports, their current marketplace value may make it a non-issue... for now.

 

[dabears17]

Looks like the amount of a scholarship that exceeds the cost of tuition, books, and fees is taxable. Scholarship money used for room, board, and meals is taxable.

Topic no. 421, Scholarships, fellowship grants, and other grants | Internal Revenue Service

Topic no. 421, Scholarships, fellowship grants, and other grants

www.irs.gov

 

[Bigboote]

Could be. Academic scholarships, fellowships and stipends have always been taxable, as the financial situation dictates. When I had a fellowship in grad school, it was taxable income, but since it put me below the level to have to pay taxes, I didn't. But I still reported it all on tax returns.

As for other sports, their current marketplace value may make it a non-issue... for now.

Not quite always. It was changed in the 1980's, one of the "loopholes" that was closed as part of the tax "reform" bill. I'm sure someone was proud of taking the pound of flesh from those folks making $600 a month.

 

[Bone Dog]

Not quite always. It was changed in the 1980's, one of the "loopholes" that was closed as part of the tax "reform" bill. I'm sure someone was proud of taking the pound of flesh from those folks making $600 a month.

Must have been in one of the Reagan administrations. I remember filling out tax forms around then. The amount that exceeded the cost of tuition books and fees was not large enough for any tax to be owed, iirc. Fortunately, in those days, the rent for an apartment that might satisfy the standards of grad student squalor fell within this limit.