OT Northwestern Football Players Win Right to Unionize.

[Wbbfan1]

http://espn.go.com/college-football...rn-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

This could be game changing if it stands and spreads to other Universities/Colleges.

I'm not surprised that the NLRB sided with the players as most of their opinions lean in the direction of favoring Unions.

 

[UcMiami]

What I will say is that this is probably a huge loss for 90% of NCAA athletes and especially for women athletes if it stands. It may be a boon to BCS football and men's basketball athletes, but what will happen is those two sports will be carved out of school 'athletics' in some form allowing the schools to manage the other sports without unionization. And that will cut budgets, and without the 80+ men's scholarships associated with those two sports needing to be balanced with women's scholarships, the number of women's sports and the scholarships for those sports will get drastically reduced.
I am no big fan of the NCAA as I think it is fairly incompetent and greedy, but I am not a fan of throwing away the general principles of intercollegiate athletics.

 

[HoopsFan21]

What I will say is that this is probably a huge loss for 90% of NCAA athletes and especially for women athletes if it stands. It may be a boon to BCS football and men's basketball athletes, but what will happen is those two sports will be carved out of school 'athletics' in some form allowing the schools to manage the other sports without unionization. And that will cut budgets, and without the 80+ men's scholarships associated with those two sports needing to be balanced with women's scholarships, the number of women's sports and the scholarships for those sports will get drastically reduced.
I am no big fan of the NCAA as I think it is fairly incompetent and greedy, but I am not a fan of throwing away the general principles of intercollegiate athletics.

Intercollegiate athletics is a bit of a misnomer. Football and MCBB should be carved out. They are semi-pro leagues at this point.

 

[John Glass]

this will be a major game changer for all sports. The Northwestern football players have no idea what they are getting into.

1) they would be taxed on their income

2) there will be fewer football scholarships

3) they would be subject to employment laws

4) the unintended consequence would be big cuts in all sports

 

[HoopsFan21]

this will be a major game changer for all sports. The Northwestern football players have no idea what they are getting into.

1) they would be taxed on their income

2) there will be fewer football scholarships

3) they would be subject to employment laws

4) the unintended consequence would be big cuts in all sports

Good post. I think this may be a case of the kids thinking the grass is greener on the other side.

 

[pap49cba]

Yep.... be careful what you wish for.

And won't they be surprised if Northwestern (and other schools) decide to drop varsity football.

 

[Wally East]

this will be a major game changer for all sports. The Northwestern football players have no idea what they are getting into.

Well, they say Northwestern is the smart school of the BigWhatever, so, hopefully, they did their research.

If Northwestern drops football, the BigWhatever will drop them.

Is there a Title IX expert in the house? I hadn't thought of the implications of this decision on the implementation of Title IX. Interesting.

I could see the negotiations between the players and the school resulting in a minimal stipend, which would put them in a very low tax bracket, and scholarships being kept, which would mean having to keep the same number of women's scholarships.

If they're employees, they'd have to get at least minimum wage unless they were salaried. What hours would count as "work"? Would they be able to collect unemployment in the off-season if spring workouts don't count as "work"?

 

[Icebear]

Wally, it may very well make the scholarships themselves taxable. For low income families that itself could become devastating. Part of the legal argument I saw used the scholarships as compensation. That would mean it is potentially taxable and addresses many of the issues you raise.

 

[John Glass]

Well, they say Northwestern is the smart school of the BigWhatever, so, hopefully, they did their research.

If Northwestern drops football, the BigWhatever will drop them.

Is there a Title IX expert in the house? I hadn't thought of the implications of this decision on the implementation of Title IX. Interesting.

I could see the negotiations between the players and the school resulting in a minimal stipend, which would put them in a very low tax bracket, and scholarships being kept, which would mean having to keep the same number of women's scholarships.

If they're employees, they'd have to get at least minimum wage unless they were salaried. What hours would count as "work"? Would they be able to collect unemployment in the off-season if spring workouts don't count as "work"?

lots of ifs there. if the men get a stipend do the women ?

I just got a very small stipend, it was taxed at a 45% rate. (supplemental income) There are no negotiations with the IRS.

The employment laws would be a nightmare.

These are a bunch of gullible college kids who are being urged on by a union .

 

[meyers7]

My question is, if they are employees, then I assume they are no longer amateurs. And per NCAA rules (I believe), cannot participate in NCAA run college athletics. At least in their "paid" sport. So basically they just made themselves ineligible to play football in college. Or so it would seem to me.

Ok I guess that wasn't necessarily a question.

 

[John Glass]

My question is, if they are employees, then I assume they are no longer amateurs. And per NCAA rules (I believe), cannot participate in NCAA run college athletics. At least in their "paid" sport. So basically they just made themselves ineligible to play football in college. Or so it would seem to me.

Ok I guess that wasn't necessarily a question.

Great post ! I would think the NCAA would announce this, and end this foolishness. However, I never had much confidence in them.

 

[cohenzone]

For the record, my son, his wife and a brother-in-law of mine are all Northwestern alums. My daughter-in-law is near completing a Phd. at UCLA in college administration and has strong views on the unionization topic (and most other things). She pretty much detests big time college sports, but surprised me by being in support of the NU football players on general principles totally disconnected from the fact that it was her college that made the move. I don't think she ever went to an NU game.

One thing about laws, is that they can be changed. So creating tax exceptions for scholarship athletes is always a possibility should the IRS deem athletic scholarships taxable. Congress as a whole does love it's sports and this could be the vehicle for bringing the parties together .

I believe the problem with trying to limit unionization to football and men's hoops is that the premise of unionization is based on the fact that the athletes in question are on athletic scholarship - coupled at least for now with the fact that they are in revenue producing sports. Does that mean that any sport for which there is a spectator admission charge is deemed a revenue sport? Hockey, soccer etc? Revenue does not guarantee employer profit, and never is a factor in a traditional labor union setting when it comes to the right of employees to organize. If the revenue aspect is removed from the equation, does that mean that athletes in sports that don't charge spectators (not sure which those are in most places) but assuming it's sports like lacrosse, field hockey, and less contact type sports like tennis and golf, can be denied the right to organize and are thus unable to receive long term benefits such as would cover injuries received while playing the sport, while the football players are covered? Heck, bowling can produce long term disabilities.

Normally I favor the ability of workers to organize, but I think defining college athletes as being involved in a sort of activity protected by NLRB laws I don't like in principle aside from the several issues discussed here such as Title IX. These NU kids may be in the process of killing the golden scholarship goose for thousands of kids coming along. I don't see the University of Chicago regretting that is got out of big time sports and the Big Ten decades and decades ago. The reality is, the world can live without big time college sports and many schools might decide that is the right course for them. Of course if it screws up the ACC, maybe the Big East will rise again.

 

[UcMiami]

Absolutely if they are 'employees' based on being 'paid' room, board, and tuition, than the IRS would classify all of that as taxable income - they would end up owing taxes on the whole nut. A typical scholarship is probably worth about $50K - which would generate about $10,000 in tax liability. I wonder if other scholarship students will want to go down this route? And I wonder if they become 'seasonal' works - laid off when work is slow, meaning they end up having to pay tuition room and board during the spring and summer sessions?
This is a single ruling at a regional office so it is a long way from being actually established 'law'. But the consequences are dire and could blow up all of this conference realignment again as I am sure some schools would simply drop unionized teams. And it will be really bizarre since different states have very different labor union laws so TN would play under different rules from Ohio, etc.