Northwestern players win right to unionize

[MattMang23]

Per ESPN

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea if it's even possible - but the only good I can see coming from this, is that it continues to be appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and then when it gets there, they somehow find a way to tie it all together with the Oklahoma Regents vs. NCAA case in the 1980s and that the Supreme Court realizes that the flood gates they opened up in the mid 1980s need to get closed, and the mission of athletics and academics gets healed.

Otherwise, collegiate athletes as unionized labor essentially defeats the entire purpose of combining athletics and academics in the mission of an educational institution.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This should be an interesting read for anyone interested in why the Universities of Oklahoma, and Georgia and a U.S. Supreme Court decision around broadcasting of college football, is really the reason why intercollegiate athletics is on the brink of becoming formally recognized as "labor".

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty...Anthony Lee Regents-College Football-BCS.pdf

 

[Kingspoint]

Don't have the ESPN link, but here's one from Fox.
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26/college-football-players-can-unionize-federal-agency-says/

 

[Husky25]

Jim Delany said that the Big Ten would deemphasize athletics if O'Bannon won his court case ant it had lasting implications (I doubt that. The Big Ten was formed because of athletics. Where does it go without them?).

Is there any possibility that the Big Ten dismisses Northwestern for not conforming to the mission and morals of the league? On top of that Is there a "Public Ivy" located in a region of the country into which the Big Ten would expand?

Hmm interesting.

 

[MattMang23]

Jim Delany said that the Big Ten would deemphasize athletics if O'Bannon won his court case ant it had lasting implications (I doubt that. The Big Ten was formed because of athletics. Where does it go without them?).

Is there any possibility that the Big Ten dismisses Northwestern for not conforming to the mission and morals of the league? On top of that Is there a "Public Ivy" located in a region of the country into which the Big Ten would expand?

Hmm interesting.

Well northwestern isn't non-conforming. They released a statement saying they're going to fight the ruling and they don't agree with it.

 

[ZooCougar]

Americans will almost never be denied the right to collectively bargain. Things in college athletics are going to change, even if these players are getting full ride on 60k in tuition.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Jim Delany said that the Big Ten would deemphasize athletics if O'Bannon won his court case ant it had lasting implications (I doubt that. The Big Ten was formed because of athletics. Where does it go without them?).

Is there any possibility that the Big Ten dismisses Northwestern for not conforming to the mission and morals of the league? On top of that Is there a "Public Ivy" located in a region of the country into which the Big Ten would expand?

Hmm interesting.

I'm pretty sure the O'Bannon case was settled out of court and the benjamins dispersed. This is different, and it appears that Northwestern administration is going to fight it. This is potentially a lot more damaging than the O'Bannon lawsuit. My understading is that recognizing intercollegiate athletes as being able to unionize effectively defines athletes as "employees".

What these things do point out, is that it seems to be coming to a head - the Pandora's box that was opened in 1984 by the Oklahoma/Georgia vs. NCAA case around college football.

Deregulation at first was a disaster, and then the conferences got organized, and the BCS was formed. But the old saying is that when you behave like a pig, you are a pig, and there were a lot of pigs over the years with all the money, and by now in 2014, the BCS is gone, in favor of a bastardized "playoff" format to the post season with contract bowl games, and the one population that intercollegiate athletics is supposed to serve, - the student-athletes themselves - is tired of the hypocrisy.

This is wide ranging though, it's not just football that this is going to affect anymore, like it was in 1990.

I'm curious as to what Delany's take on this is though - it's his conference.

 

[Husky25]

...This is different, and it appears that Northwestern administration is going to fight it.

I know it's different. The effect are further reaching. That is my point.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I know it's different. The effect are further reaching. That is my point.

I agree. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

I'm pretty sure the O'Bannon case was settled out of court and the benjamins dispersed. This is different, and it appears that Northwestern administration is going to fight it. This is potentially a lot more damaging than the O'Bannon lawsuit. My understading is that recognizing intercollegiate athletes as being able to unionize effectively defines athletes as "employees".

What these things do point out, is that it seems to be coming to a head - the Pandora's box that was opened in 1984 by the Oklahoma/Georgia vs. NCAA case around college football.

Deregulation at first was a disaster, and then the conferences got organized, and the BCS was formed. But the old saying is that when you behave like a pig, you are a pig, and there were a lot of pigs over the years with all the money, and by now in 2014, the BCS is gone, in favor of a bas ized "playoff" format to the post season with contract bowl games, and the one population that intercollegiate athletics is supposed to serve, - the student-athletes themselves - is tired of the hypocrisy.

This is wide ranging though, it's not just football that this is going to affect anymore, like it was in 1990.

I'm curious as to what Delany's take on this is though - it's his conference.

The following was filed today. Context would indicate that case is proceeding, No settlement, as yet.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-ad-ncaa-could-have-avoided-obannon-years-ago

 

[Nostical]

The designation of players as employees (if ultimately so decided) will be the death knell of collegiate sports as we know them. All private universities and public universities in states that allow employees to unionize will have a tremendous recruiting advantage over other state schools especially in "right to work" states. The following 24 states have a Right to Work law:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.
These right-to-work states either prohibit or greatly limit opportunities of state employees, like those at public universities, to collectively bargain. Now, if players at Northwestern collectively bargain as employees and are paid, that’s a pretty big recruiting advantage over a player at LSU or Alabama that won’t be able to be in a union. And oh yes, if these male football players start getting paid or receive other preferential treatment, there will be a Title IX lawsuit within hours.
The colleges have to hope that on appeal there is a finding that the NLRB in the Northwestern case overstepped their bounds and were faulty in their analysis and conclusions. You could say the future of college football depends on it.

 

[weyuo]

Northwestern should take the high road and dissolve their football program for a couple years. That sends a loud and clear message that this nonsense won't be tolerated. The student athletes already enjoy free education, free housing, free meals, free transportation, free state of the art medical care and the best vehicle for auditioning their talents to prospective employers.... the TV. And that doesn't cost them a dime. And on top of all that they want a paycheck, then of course benefits, maybe a pension rivaling that of pro sports, where does it stop?

 

[WestHartHusk]

Northwestern should take the high road and dissolve their football program for a couple years. That sends a loud and clear message that this nonsense won't be tolerated. The student athletes already enjoy free education, free housing, free meals, free transportation, free state of the art medical care and the best vehicle for auditioning their talents to prospective employers.... the TV. And that doesn't cost them a dime. And on top of all that they want a paycheck, then of course benefits, maybe a pension rivaling that of pro sports, where does it stop?

Right now, the schools (and you apparently) are getting to decide what a "good deal is." If the deal is "good" for the athletes, then it will withstand the market. If it isn't, it won't. But right now you can't tell me that coaches, administrators and TV executives aren't getting rich off their backs.

 

[uconntailgater]

If players are allowed to unionize this will absolutely be the last straw for me. Unionization will absolutely destroy college athletics and I will not be a part of it. It will drive the cost of running an athletic department through the roof at a time when our revenue is declining sharply because were stuck in this conference. There will be added employees in the athletic department (Union Stewards). Once you open this Pandora box there is no put the genie back in the bottle. Nostical hit the nail on the head with his analysis. As soon as a female badminton player gets one penny less than a male football player the lawsuits from title IX will be flying all over the place. As is always the case with unionization producers will be demonized while the deadwood we propped up. If this is not shot down college athletics will be ruined forever.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Right now, the schools (and you apparently) are getting to decide what a "good deal is." If the deal is "good" for the athletes, then it will withstand the market. If it isn't, it won't. But right now you can't tell me that coaches, administrators and TV executives aren't getting rich off their backs.

This is correct, and it all stems from the deregulation of broadcasting rights and money for broadcasting for football that came from the supreme court anti-trust decision against the NCAA in 1984.

What needs to happen, from my non-legale perspective, is that this labor union thing needs to get appealed all the way back up to the supreme court, and then however the legal workings need to be done, it needs to be recognized that the deregulation in 1984 has led to a situation where instead of the CFA as a cartel, you now have a group of 5 conferences as a cartel and it needs to be reigned in again, and the NCAA given control again over the college football post season in particular, much like it has control over every other intercollegiate sport post season (and the revenue flows and distribution).

That would be ideal, I think, except that Mark Emmert is in charge of the NCAA right now.

 

[sportsart]

If players go farther than a stipend of say between $2-5K, and unionize where there are competitive advantages, I'm done. I don't think I'll be the only one either.

If $300,000 in education costs (for Northwestern) and $8-15K in stipends isn't enough pay.......not much more can be said.

 

[Dizzy21]

This ruling does not apply to public universities only private ones, so I'm not sure how big of a deal it is going to be since a lot of schools are public and can make their own rules.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This ruling does not apply to public universities only private ones, so I'm not sure how big of a deal it is going to be since a lot of schools are public and can make their own rules.

Not true. Athletes at public universities that form a union would be no different than any other state employee union. They just would have state specific governing rules.

This is bad for intercollegiate athletics. The financial aspects of minimum work comp insurance and benefits alone would destroy most athletic programs. That would just be the beginning, never mind if somebody makes a claim for permanent injury after getting tackled really hard or something.

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!


What will eventually happening - no - probably very quickly happen, if this actually does go through to being put into action - is that the days of scholarship funding for athletics will be over and athletes that play sports will actually have to go to school too across the country and actually be students that have to pay for education somehow.

Then the Ivy's will be able to dominate college football again.

Friggin Yale.......

.

 

[RedSoloCup]

What will eventually happening - no - probably very quickly happen, if this actually does go through to being put into action - is that the days of scholarship funding for athletics will be over and athletes that play sports will actually have to go to school too across the country and actually be students that have to pay for education somehow.

Then the Ivy's will be able to dominate college football again.

Friggin Yale..

.

I was thinking along this path as well. Think a bit of how this can play out.

Many schools drop the scholarships, which dries up the ability for many kids to get a college degree. The cynics are correct to a degree that many may not be worth the paper they are printed on, but at the same time, it is an important possibility for many kids. This will affect the men's and women's programs, since both will be cut. Title IX will end up being used in reverse and men will require scholarships if women get them.

The really big schools that continue on the path will get a cadre of the best who are there to learn the sport, and possibly get some form of 'sport' degree with no real attempt at athletics, and the big time exposure of TV will be just that of minor league sports...

And the kids in DII and DIII will be the models, with athletics being secondary, and not many scholarships handed out.

Basketball too... the NCAA tournament, and the brackets... wow will that be missed when cinderella has an iron slipper.

 

[Dizzy21]

@carl - It is true, the person who ruled this is the head of National Labor Relations Board, which has zero jurisdiction over state run institutions. Direct Quote from the Espn article:

"For now, the push is to unionize athletes at private schools, such as Northwestern, because the federal labor agency does not have jurisdiction over public universities."

 

[Jimdish255]

It's interesting to listen to media, fans and administrators righteously proclaim to have the athletes best interests at heart while speaking on their behalf, but when the athletes themselves attempt to create a framework to speak with one voice and represent themselves it's like the gates of hell have opened up. With corporate interests, agents and certain coaches doing their best to circumvent both the rules (as unevenly applied by the NCAA) and the spirit of college athletics, you have to ask yourself if these young men could really make it much worse, or if the real threat is their shedding light on the nefarious aspects of the business end of college sports.

I don't think this ultimately gets anywhere near the threatening vision of a powerful influencial organized labor union turning the college sports world upside down. But it shouldn't come as any surprise that the same group of people who write the rules to their benefit and seek to consolidate their power in the upper echelons of CFB are the most vociferous about potential threats to "the system" as we now know it. Maybe they should have thought of that before media rights became more important than having players actually attend class or having the resources to visit family or take in a movie on the weekend. Their lot isn't a bad one given the opportunities offered, but the risks are there as well as the pressure. For that alone they deserve a seat at the table where others feast.

 

[noeynox]

Northwestern should take the high road and dissolve their football program for a couple years. That sends a loud and clear message that this nonsense won't be tolerated. The student athletes already enjoy free education, free housing, free meals, free transportation, free state of the art medical care and the best vehicle for auditioning their talents to prospective employers.... the TV. And that doesn't cost them a dime. And on top of all that they want a paycheck, then of course benefits, maybe a pension rivaling that of pro sports, where does it stop?

I can't get behind this line of thinking when Nick Saban at Alabama is making what 7 million? Delany as Big Ten Commish gets what 3 million? Big Time college sports are a big business and there are business men getting rich off cheap/free labor. Do the right thing and give these kids a stipend already.

 

[sportsart]

I can't get behind this line of thinking when Nick Saban at Alabama is making what 7 million? Delany as Big Ten Commish gets what 3 million? Big Time college sports are a big business and there are business men getting rich off cheap/free labor. Do the right thing and give these kids a stipend already.

They are already heading for the stipend model. The union thing just blows everything up. The irony is, and I think someone basically said this earlier, is that the greed factor in the CR just kept growing and growing. Until finally the players wanted in.

The goose may soon be laying a Bitcoin egg.

 

[UConn Insider]

This is bad for intercollegiate athletics. The financial aspects of minimum work comp insurance and benefits alone would destroy most athletic programs.

The NCAA makes 11 BILLION dollars off March Madness alone but yeah the players are the greedy ones. (not that you're saying that, I'm summarizing the general attitude of those opposed to players get paid.)

And no, I haven't seen a perfect solution proposed yet but it boggles my mind that everyone jumps to a doom and gloom scenario, when the money IS there, just for everyone but the athletes.