Should schools have to pay for transfers?

[NHUConnfan]

Obviously you do not have a clue about independent contracting. And yes, I am responsible to get my own health insurance, and do not have a 401K, but I do have an IRA. I do not see these as "problems". I have clients to whom I am obligagted to do what they request me to do and where and when I should do it.

The very nature of the work that athletes do, they cannot be contractors. Full stop.

 

[Ewekon]

If a rose is a rose by any other name, why then is a paid, or "salaried" "student athlete" who is watched by paying customers (fans) on advertising supported TV, not an employee? We are no longer trading tuition, room and board for athletic talent. We're talking cash.

I come by this questioning with serious intent as I have no legal footing. At this point, why can't a student be professionally contracted, or obligated to play for a school so long as both sides agree on payment amount? It is now out in the open.

Business Lawyer? Other Barristers? Honest thoughts/questions.

 

[NHUConnfan]

If a rose is a rose by any other name, why then is a paid, or "salaried" "student athlete" who is watched by paying customers (fans) on advertising supported TV, not an employee? We are no longer trading tuition, room and board for athletic talent. We're talking cash.

I come by this questioning with serious intent as I have no legal footing. At this point, why can't a student be professionally contracted, or obligated to play for a school so long as both sides agree on payment amount? It is now out in the open.

Business Lawyer? Other Barristers? Honest thoughts/questions.

Because right now, in the eyes of the law, they are still not employees, although several recent decisions have opinions that openly muse that they are in fact employees.

The entire economics of college athletics relies on the fact that they are not employees. Other students get tuition, healthcare, etc. as part of recruitment packages, so that's above board. But once they start entering contracts specifically around their duties as athletes, that enters a whole new territory that we're not in. That's why payments are happening for NIL (name, image, and likeness)...not actually competing as an athlete.

 

[alphasigko]

The very nature of the work that athletes do, they cannot be contractors. Full stop.

So says you, so I guess it must be true.

 

[Ewekon]

Because right now, in the eyes of the law, they are still not employees, although several recent decisions have opinions that openly muse that they are in fact employees.

The entire economics of college athletics relies on the fact that they are not employees. Other students get tuition, healthcare, etc. as part of recruitment packages, so that's above board. But once they start entering contracts specifically around their duties as athletes, that enters a whole new territory that we're not in. That's why payments are happening for NIL (name, image, and likeness)...not actually competing as an athlete.

So.....what was the case, now actually is the case for college football and basketball as compared to pro baseball. Name brand schools are AAA and pay at a level with the idea that within a year or two, the player goes to the majors or leaves anyway.

 

[Waquoit]

Absolutely not. Any player that signs of the school plays for school and then wants to transfer does so at their own risk. And they should also have to sit a year. If anyone wants to pay them to sit good for them, but they should have to sit.

Why? Just cuz?

 

[auror]

So says you, so I guess it must be true.

Feel free to go on the IRS website, look at the 1099 criteria vs W2 and apply how it would fit the athletes. Even better, feel free to copy/paste the criteria and annotate it with your comments.

 

[alphasigko]

As I noted in a previous post, if the "student athletes" create a Sub S or LLC that takes the 1099 or W2 from the University off the table. They would however need to pay themselves from the Corp and have their accountant issue them a W2 for what they are paid from the Corp.

 

[auror]

As I noted in a previous post, if the "student athletes" create a Sub S or LLC that takes the 1099 or W2 from the University off the table. They would however need to pay themselves from the Corp and have their accountant issue them a W2 for what they are paid from the Corp.

This does not work. The IRS can look through entity status to characterize employee/employer relationship. If you should be a W-2 employee, it does not matter what you actually are. What matters is the company is defrauding the government by not paying its share of personnel taxes (pushing it onto the individual) and potentially violating employee protections that are there for a reason.

 

[NHUConnfan]

As I noted in a previous post, if the "student athletes" create a Sub S or LLC that takes the 1099 or W2 from the University off the table. They would however need to pay themselves from the Corp and have their accountant issue them a W2 for what they are paid from the Corp.

Lawyers would absolutely shred through that logic lol

This also requires that the students want to be contractors instead of employees, which they do not.

 

[auror]

Lawyers would absolutely shred through that logic lol

This also requires that the students want to be contractors instead of employees, which they do not.

Yes, now if the student athletes and college stakeholders sat down and discussed what would be a good compromise on salaries and benefits (perhaps a sliding scale based on school revenue) such that would allow the entire enterprise to continue to exist while classifying the athletes as employees and giving them the protections granted by that and also providing an avenue to settle future disputes, wouldn't that be great? ...And we just discovered collective bargaining.

 

[superjohn]

Yes, now if the student athletes and college stakeholders sat down and discussed what would be a good compromise on salaries and benefits (perhaps a sliding scale based on school revenue) such that would allow the entire enterprise to continue to exist while classifying the athletes as employees and giving them the protections granted by that and also providing an avenue to settle future disputes, wouldn't that be great? ...And we just discovered collective bargaining.

Title 9 always throws a wrench into everything.

 

[Greg]

Obviously you do not have a clue about independent contracting. And yes, I am responsible to get my own health insurance, and do not have a 401K, but I do have an IRA. I do not see these as "problems". I have clients to whom I am obligated to do what they request me to do and where and when I should do it.

My thought on this is why not ger the freshmen getting Big NI L to need to sign a contract with punitive buyouts for transferring without an approval from the Athletic Dept.

 

[NHUConnfan]

My thought on this is why not ger the freshmen getting Big NI L to need to sign a contract with punitive buyouts for transferring without an approval from the Athletic Dept.

NIL contracts have employment and pay-for-play all over them, experts say

Direct payments to athletes in the expected $2.8 billion NCAA settlement might not solve schools' legal woes

www.espn.com

It's very clear in this article that such statements (which do exist) almost certainly makes athletes into employees.

It will be litigated. The universities and NCAA will lose. And every college athlete will become an employee, monumentally increasing costs to run athletic programs. It will kill college athletics. You may have a few schools who can run football and basketball programs. The rest can kiss their programs goodbye.

 

[temery]

One argument in favor of player transfers has been “if coaches can move from school to school without sitting out, why shouldn’t players?”

But most coaches have a buyout that needs to be to their original school. Should something like that exist for players? I’m sure it won’t happen, but it would help mitigate — if only just a little — the loss that mid-majors are now experiencing, where anyone good immediately leaves.

Can NIL deals be for multiple years?

And players should only be allowed to transfer once without. After that, future transfers must sit a year.

 

[auror]

Can NIL deals be for multiple years?

And players should only be allowed to transfer once without. After that, future transfers must sit a year.

Current nil deals can be multiple years but they cannot be tethered to playing at a particular school. Revenue sharing deals would likely not have that same restriction.

The transfer sitting thing we've been over a bunch. Courts said you can't restrict that, because you can't restrict someone's earning potential.

 

[Greg]

NIL contracts have employment and pay-for-play all over them, experts say

Direct payments to athletes in the expected $2.8 billion NCAA settlement might not solve schools' legal woes

www.espn.com

It's very clear in this article that such statements (which do exist) almost certainly makes athletes into employees.

It will be litigated. The universities and NCAA will lose. And every college athlete will become an employee, monumentally increasing costs to run athletic programs. It will kill college athletics. You may have a few schools who can run football and basketball programs. The rest can kiss their programs goodbye.

Not true, might actually lower the costs for most schools. Pay them all like teaching assistants

 

[NHUConnfan]

Not true, might actually lower the costs for most schools. Pay them all like teaching assistants

LOL!

 

[CL82]

You're the one who literally does not understand that there are LAWS that regulate student rights. These are STUDENT ATHLETES.

If you're so worked up over this, maybe college basketball isn't the right sport for you. Get a grip.

So if a student gets a summer job on campus do "the laws" say they can't be fired?

 

[NHUConnfan]

So if a student gets a summer job on campus do "the laws" say they can't be fired?

Well currently, student athletes are not classified as employees at all. But also your scenario is totally missing the point?

 

[CL82]

Well currently, student athletes are not classified as employees at all. But also your scenario is totally missing the point?

No, you're missing a point. What if a student, let's make him not a student athlete, has a job on campus. And let's say he just stops coming. He decides it's too much hassle. Does the fact that he is a student provide some type of rights that give him protection in his job?

 

[NHUConnfan]

No, you're missing a point. What if a student, let's make him not a student athlete, has a job on campus. And let's say he just stops coming. He decides it's too much hassle. Does the fact that he is a student provide some type of rights that give him protection in his job?

No and that's not the issue here. Everyone is looking for ways to prevent transfers. They cannot do this. There are plenty of protections for students via FERPA in addition to accreditation policies for universities that essentially make it legally impossible for universities to prevent transfers.

Basically what people want is for them to be employees and not students at all, and at that point, it's not college athletics anymore. And colleges will be HAPPY to be out of the game if it devolves to that point.

 

[CL82]

No

So you're saying that a job at the University is separate than being a student at the university? I agree. So what if that job was being an athlete?

 

[NHUConnfan]

So you're saying that a job at the University is separate than being a student at the university? I agree. So what if that job was being an athlete?

No, there are plenty of agreements where employment at the university is specifically tied to a student's eligibility.

Maybe I should preface that I have a degree in Higher Education Administration and had to study law as part of that degree. I have a much more nuanced understanding of the complexities at play here.

 

[CL82]

No, there are plenty of agreements where employment at the university is specifically tied to a student's eligibility.

Maybe I should preface that I have a degree in Higher Education Administration and had to study law as part of that degree. I have a much more nuanced understanding of the complexities at play here.

Well, let's see if that's actually true.

So far, you agreed that the fact that someone is a student doesn't give them any protections regarding their employment, and have further agreed that that is true even if, at some point in the future, that employment was being a student athlete.

Now, let's take the case of a non- student where someone is employed for a specific term of years at a certain salary. The employment agreement specifically provides for a forfeiture agreement, whereby if that person terminates their employment prior to the end of the term, they have some type of early termination penalty. Is that allowed?

 

[NHUConnfan]

Well, let's see if that's actually true.

So far, you agreed that the fact that someone is a student doesn't give them any protections regarding their employment, and have further agreed that that is true even if, at some point in the future, that employment was being a student athlete.

Now, let's take the case of a non- student where someone is employed for a specific term of years at a certain salary. The employment agreement specifically provides for a forfeiture agreement, whereby if that person terminates their employment prior to the end of the term, they have some type of early termination penalty. Is that allowed?

Why are we even talking about non-student employees? They are 100% irrelevant.

And I also didn't say that their student status doesn't give them protections. I didn't agree with your example which has many other issues. For student employment (that is, positions that are tied specifically to students), there are absolutely rules around their student status that ties into the terms of that employment. None of those terms are about clawing back money for work done. I'm specifically talking about their ability to transfer. If you think if School A puts in a clause to claw back funds if they decide to transfer, that will never prevent a student from still packing their bags and entering into that university and employment at that university. Their protections as a student protects their ability to transfer. And recent rulings around restricting future earnings will prevent the second part of that.

What I sense that you're getting at is trying to sever their status as students...and again, that's not college athletics. End of story. If that's what you're truly advocating, you're advocating for an amateur league, and if you think cash-strapped universities are the ones to create this, lmfao

 

[CL82]

Why are we even talking about non-student employees?

Be patient, it's a little bit "nuanced" but we'll get there.

So far, we've agreed that the fact that someone is a student doesn't give them any special protections regarding their employment and further have agreed that that continues to be true even if that employment is being an athlete. Now we've established that in the case of someone is employed for a specific term of years at a certain salary, the employment agreement can specifically provide for a forfeiture agreement, whereby if that person terminates their employment prior to the end of the term, they have some type of early termination penalty.

So taking all those principles cumulatively, then, if a student has a separate job as an athlete and they agree to stay for a specific term of years or suffer a forfeiture penalty if they leave early, then the mere fact that they were a student wouldn't make that forfeiture penalty void. Or do you see something in FERPA that says otherwise?

 

[Jaker]

nothing is free

 

[NHUConnfan]

Be patient, it's a little bit "nuanced" but we'll get there.

So far, we've agreed that the fact that someone is a student doesn't give them any special protections regarding their employment and further have agreed that that continues to be true even if that employment is being an athlete. Now we've established that in the case of someone is employed for a specific term of years at a certain salary, the employment agreement can specifically provide for a forfeiture agreement, whereby if that person terminates their employment prior to the end of the term, they have some type of early termination penalty.

Nothing I said aligns with anything you wrote here.

 

[CL82]

Nothing I said aligns with anything you wrote here.

Actually, it it does step-by-step. But I get it, what I wrote wrote was a little "nuanced" so you might've missed it at first glance.