It is the first ruling and will be appealed. But the players won the first ruling and they can unionize. (They want to unionize to demand pay for playing)
NU said if this happens they will have to drop D1 football as they cannot pay. But, five minutes after they are allowed to unionize, everyone will do it and college sports will never be the same.
Cain Kotler, the leader of a movement
Northwestern football players can unionize, NLRB rules
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-northwestern-union-bid-20140326,0,6454823.story
By Alejandra Cancino, Tribune reporter
2:24 p.m. CDT, March 26, 2014
Northwestern University football players are employees of the school and are therefore entitled to a union election, Peter Sung Ohr, the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, said in a ruling released Wednesday afternoon.
Ohr's decision is expected to be appealed to the NLRB in Washington. Labor experts say an election is unlikely to take place until the NLRB makes a decision. If Ohr's decision is upheld, the case would likely make its way through federal appellate court and could reach the Supreme Court.
The decision is "revolutionary for college sports," said Robert McCormick, a professor emeritus at Michigan State University College of Law who focuses on sports and labor law.
McCormick said Ohr's decision could influence other state and federal agencies. For example, if college players demand compensation for injuries sustained during training or a game, Ohr's opinion could come into play in the question of whether the players are employees under the state Workers' Compensation Act.
Northwestern's football players are the first in college sports to seek union representation. Behind the effort is the College Athletes Players Association, or CAPA, a union funded by Ramogi Huma, a former UCLA linebacker who has become an advocate for players' rights. CAPA is backed by the United Steelworkers, which is covering the group's legal expenses.
Among its demands, CAPA is seeking financial coverage for former players with sports-related medical expenses, independent concussion experts to be placed on the sidelines during games and the creation of an educational trust fund to help former players graduate.
Alan Cubbage, Vice President for University Relations at Northwestern, said in a statement they were disappointed in the decision.
"While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director's opinion, we disagree with it," the university said. "Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes."
Northwestern confirmed that it plans to appeal to the full National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. "We believe that participation in athletic events is part of the overall educational experience for those students, not a separate activity," NU said.
Ruling just came out. Here we go
Way to open up a can of worms!
this most likely will go to the supreme court. With the amount that MU spend on Bball - I would think this would be an advantage. Most football schools would throw money at the football programs. Bball would be ignored, especially at SEC schools in favor of paying recruits to play football.
If people think BCS conferences shook the landscape for bball programs, paying players would juggle it even more. Of course, if they are paid already ..... how does that affect one's standing with the NBA? Technically, players could be drafted while still in school as they are in the professional leagues of Europe. My guess is that you would have a lot more players staying longer.
OF COURSE THE NLRB ALLOWED THIS..... it's the National LABOR relations board.... the CHICAGO branch of the NLRB, no less.
Prediction:
Appeal to DC-NLRB, DC-NLRB upholds CHI-NLRB decision.
Appeal to federal court in Chicago.
Jesse Jackson marches on Northwestern. Later determined he simply forgot to transfer to the Yellow Line at Howard.
Motion for change of venue denied.
Upheld in Chicago district court.
Appealed to SCOTUS.
Scalia beatdown. Concussions for everyone.
College Football Dead.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2014, 02:36:04 PM
Ruling just came out. Here we go
This will be interesting. So, now the NLRB says they can...but will they? And what will it look like when they try to negotiate their first contract? (Assuming that this doesn't get overturned along the way.)
In collective bargaining, the employer (i.e., Northwestern) doesn't have to agree to anything. Putting aside the NCAA for a moment (not sure how they will factor in) any university faced with a unionized team could go to the bargaining table and offer the status quo: full scholarships, etc. Or, they could go to the bargaining table and offer something less: "frankly, we're losing money, so we'll offer 50% scholarships." And if the players who decide they wanted a union don't like the offer, they can go on strike. And be replaced. Presumably losing their scholarships in the process. Also, if the union can't reach a deal with the employer, ultimately the employer could impose its own terms.
This will be a new frontier. I'm not entirely sure how it will work out for the athletes. In some cases, it might work out great. In other cases...maybe "be careful what you wish for" will be the rule of the day.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on March 26, 2014, 02:40:48 PM
Way to open up a can of worms!
this most likely will go to the supreme court. With the amount that MU spend on Bball - I would think this would be an advantage. Most football schools would throw money at the football programs. Bball would be ignored, especially at SEC schools in favor of paying recruits to play football.
If people think BCS conferences shook the landscape for bball programs, paying players would juggle it even more. Of course, if they are paid already ..... how does that affect one's standing with the NBA? Technically, players could be drafted while still in school as they are in the professional leagues of Europe. My guess is that you would have a lot more players staying longer.
Could be a big advantage to schools in right to work states
And for the record, this is just the region, not the full NLRB. This is a long, long way from being official or the law of the land.
I read in another article that if this were to be upheld (which seems unlikely) it would only affect other private schools. We would have to pay our athletes then, too. This could certainly be a recruiting advantage until public schools follow suit. I cant imagine though that schools like Rice and Tulane would be able to offer money to recruits while schools like UCLA and Texas cant.
saw report where the President of NU said, if this is upheld , he would consider dropping football
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 26, 2014, 02:43:50 PM
This will be interesting. So, now the NLRB says they can...but will they? And what will it look like when they try to negotiate their first contract? (Assuming that this doesn't get overturned along the way.)
In collective bargaining, the employer (i.e., Northwestern) doesn't have to agree to anything. Putting aside the NCAA for a moment (not sure how they will factor in) any university faced with a unionized team could go to the bargaining table and offer the status quo: full scholarships, etc. Or, they could go to the bargaining table and offer something less: "frankly, we're losing money, so we'll offer 50% scholarships." And if the players who decide they wanted a union don't like the offer, they can go on strike. And be replaced. Presumably losing their scholarships in the process. Also, if the union can't reach a deal with the employer, ultimately the employer could impose its own terms.
This will be a new frontier. I'm not entirely sure how it will work out for the athletes. In some cases, it might work out great. In other cases...maybe "be careful what you wish for" will be the rule of the day.
But if they go on strike will the "Amalgamated Swill and Soda Delivery Union" honor the picket line and make the game dry for those of us that like our suds.
Quote from: PBRme on March 26, 2014, 02:44:27 PM
Could be a big advantage to schools in right to work states
I liked "bib" advantage better. Why'd you have to go and be all like "I ain't no spelling dummy, dummy."
Quote from: Atticus on March 26, 2014, 02:53:34 PM
I read in another article that if this were to be upheld (which seems unlikely) it would only affect other private schools. We would have to pay our athletes then, too. This could certainly be a recruiting advantage until public schools follow suit. I cant imagine though that schools like Rice and Tulane would be able to offer money to recruits while schools like UCLA and Texas cant.
Just because they join a union doesn't mean you'll have to pay them. Now, if the DOL decides they're employees...now that's another issue entirely.
Quote from: Benny B on March 26, 2014, 03:03:45 PM
I liked "bib" advantage better. Why'd you have to go and be all like "I ain't no spelling dummy, dummy."
Yeah, I have trouble typing on my phone
Quote from: elephantraker on March 26, 2014, 02:56:00 PM
saw report where the President of NU said, if this is upheld , he would consider dropping football
NU indeed said this. But if they have the right to unionize and demand pay, every other school will follow 5 minutes later and they will all be in the same boat.
If this happens, it change college sports in ways we do not understand.
Did you know this ...
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize
"The NCAA invented the term student athlete to prevent the exact ruling that was made today. For 60 years, people have bought into their notion that they are students only. The reality is, players are employees and today's ruling confirms that. The players are one giant step closer to justice."
Like so many other things in our lives right now, this isn't over. This is just the end of the first inning.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 26, 2014, 03:44:31 PM
NU indeed said this. But if they have the right to unionize and demand pay, every other school will follow 5 minutes later and they will all be in the same boat.
As I said before, demanding pay is not the same as receiving pay. But if DOL considers this question and reaches the same conclusion, that would be huge.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 26, 2014, 03:44:31 PM
If this happens, it change college sports in ways we do not understand.
I agree with that completely. And quite possibly not in favor of the athletes.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on March 26, 2014, 03:49:54 PM
I agree with that completely. And quite possibly not in favor of the athletes.
If anything, it will hasten the NBA and NFL setting up a minor league system similar to MLB's. And then where will we all be?
If NU drops D1 football does the BI?10 drop NU?
Quote from: tower912 on March 26, 2014, 03:48:25 PM
Like so many other things in our lives right now, this isn't over. This is just the end of the first inning.
Totally agree but the players
won round 1.
As my post above suggests, college players tried this exact thing in the 1950s and lost. From that fight the term "student-athlete" was coined to differentiate them from employees. Today's ruling made is now one step further than the 1950s attempt.
Quote from: Done Deal on March 26, 2014, 03:53:42 PM
If NU drops D1 football does the BI?10 drop NU?
No because five minutes after NU unionizes, the rest of the B1G teams unionizes and they are all in the same boat.
Quote from: tower912 on March 26, 2014, 03:48:25 PM
Like so many other things in our lives right now, this isn't over. This is just the end of the first inning.
Also this might clear the way for them to have the vote and actually create a union. Then, while they fight over its legality, they can start working up a "contract" with NU over pay to play football.
I'm not saying they will get a contract and get paid. Rather this ruling does not stop them from starting the process.
From the ruling
http://www.espn.go.com/pdf/2014/0326/espn_uniondecision.PDF
II. DECISION
For the reasons discussed in detail below, I find that players receiving scholarships from the Employer are "employees" under Section 2(3) of the Act. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an election be conducted under the direction of the Regional Director for Region 13 in the following appropriate bargaining unit:
Eligible to vote are all football players receiving football grant-in-aid scholarship and not having exhausted their playing eligibility employed by the Employer located at 1501 Central Street, Evanston, Illinois, but excluding office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 26, 2014, 03:45:43 PM
Did you know this ...
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize
"The NCAA invented the term student athlete to prevent the exact ruling that was made today. For 60 years, people have bought into their notion that they are students only. The reality is, players are employees and today's ruling confirms that. The players are one giant step closer to justice."
What a load of crap
Good for NU. Really proud of Colter and all of them. Though I may need to find a new football team to cheer for im proud of the guys.
Kotler got a free education from one of the best universities in America. If not for his football prowess, would he have been admitted to NU? That's question 1. The benefits he receives for that NU parchment are worth what? Certainly more than just the dollars for tuition and room\board. The network contacts, the doors that open for that NU degree have a value, a tremendous value.
Came up in our Pro Sports Law class today at the law school. This is definitely just the first step in a long, long process. Wouldn't be surprised if this ends up all the way in front of the SC. I think somebody pointed out that the total package given to a NU student athlete on a full ride is something like 200-250k over 4 years when you toss in room & board, books, tuition, fees. Getting paid isn't the only thing they can bargain for. Working hours and working conditions are also mandatory subjects to negotiation (granted this is if they are still deemed employees). It'll be interesting to follow along with the antitrust case filed against the NCAA last week. Donald Remy will be earning his paycheck that much is for sure.
Initial demands of the CAPA (College Athletics Players Association) are not for pay ....
* Independent doctors for concussion test on each sidelines
* Health care insurance for all plays for life (no word on whether this includes former players)
* Free tuition for current and former players to get their degree for life
Should this happen, the next contract will include pay.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 26, 2014, 03:45:43 PM
Did you know this ...
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize
"The NCAA invented the term student athlete to prevent the exact ruling that was made today. For 60 years, people have bought into their notion that they are students only. The reality is, players are employees and today's ruling confirms that. The players are one giant step closer to justice."
This may be true for football and basketball; not so much for all the other sports. Many kids may loose out on an education because the schools will no longer offer scholarships: paying big bucks to get the players for football and/or basketball; if they decide to have an athletic department at all.
Quote from: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on March 26, 2014, 02:40:48 PM
Way to open up a can of worms!
this most likely will go to the supreme court. With the amount that MU spend on Bball - I would think this would be an advantage. Most football schools would throw money at the football programs. Bball would be ignored, especially at SEC schools in favor of paying recruits to play football.
If people think BCS conferences shook the landscape for bball programs, paying players would juggle it even more. Of course, if they are paid already ..... how does that affect one's standing with the NBA? Technically, players could be drafted while still in school as they are in the professional leagues of Europe. My guess is that you would have a lot more players staying longer.
No unions then This court
ALWAYS rules for the rich/powerful side so there will be no unionizing. Book it.
Quote from: brandx on March 26, 2014, 10:52:13 PM
No unions then This court ALWAYS rules for the rich/powerful side so there will be no unionizing. Book it.
Last I checked, professional football players were in that rich/powerful category. Where does that leave college players that may be bound for such SCOTUS favor someday?
So if they are employees, as they argue, then that $50,000 scholarship they are given can be taxed...correct? Start paying up players.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2014, 11:55:08 PM
So if they are employees, as they argue, then that $50,000 scholarship they are given can be taxed...correct? Start paying up players.
Don't schools lose their tax exempt status too?
That is the athletic department is a for profit venture and therefore pays taxes on the money it makes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2014, 11:55:08 PM
So if they are employees, as they argue, then that $50,000 scholarship they are given can be taxed...correct? Start paying up players.
I'm not sure, but I think certain aspects of it (maybe all) already are...to the parents. Does anyone know if that's right.
In any event, your underlying point remains: be careful what you ask for. If this decision is upheld (which is far from certain), I think this will end very, very badly for a lot of college athletes.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 27, 2014, 06:55:10 AM
Don't schools lose their tax exempt status too?
That is the athletic department is a for profit venture and therefore pays taxes on the money it makes.
Not corporate taxes.... Employment taxes, i.e. FICA
If student athletes were paid they would lose the qualified exemption on scholarships and would pay taxes on income received from their "employment". In regards to parents, I know that certain contributions can be deducted from taxes, but there is a cap on it. So let's say Momma Warrior pays 10k towards her sons tuition, she could request a form from Marquette that allows her to deduct 3k (just an example I don't know the actual number) from her taxes. Now if student athletes were employees I have no idea how that would apply. Excellent question though I'll poke around and see what I can find out. Student-athletes as employees would create a messy, unworkable situation in college athletics under the current model.
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 08:34:02 AM
If student athletes were paid they would lose the qualified exemption on scholarships and would pay taxes on income received from their "employment". In regards to parents, I know that certain contributions can be deducted from taxes, but there is a cap on it. So let's say Momma Warrior pays 10k towards her sons tuition, she could request a form from Marquette that allows her to deduct 3k (just an example I don't know the actual number) from her taxes. Now if student athletes were employees I have no idea how that would apply. Excellent question though I'll poke around and see what I can find out. Student-athletes as employees would create a messy, unworkable situation in college athletics under the current model.
I like you, bud.
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 08:34:02 AM
If student athletes were paid they would lose the qualified exemption on scholarships and would pay taxes on income received from their "employment". In regards to parents, I know that certain contributions can be deducted from taxes, but there is a cap on it. So let's say Momma Warrior pays 10k towards her sons tuition, she could request a form from Marquette that allows her to deduct 3k (just an example I don't know the actual number) from her taxes. Now if student athletes were employees I have no idea how that would apply. Excellent question though I'll poke around and see what I can find out. Student-athletes as employees would create a messy, unworkable situation in college athletics under the current model.
I think that depending on the value assigned to the scholarship is would also prevent most parents from continuing to call junior a deduction on their personal taxes.
If it results in players getting paid, or at least being able to work for more than $2000 per year, I'm with it.
Quote from: Sunbelt15 on March 27, 2014, 09:30:09 AM
If it results in players getting paid, or at least being able to work for more than $2000 per year, I'm with it.
Well then, I hope you have a crystal ball handy. Because I think it's going to be pretty difficult to determine what the results of this will be. It might result in athletes getting paid. It also might result in athletes getting even less than they're getting now. It also might result in the end of most college sports. It's really hard to say at this point.
Most schools can't afford to pay student athletes more than what they already do. Something like 30 schools are operating their athletic departments at a profit, with a number of schools conveniently (including Marquette) operating at cost. The rest subsidize their athletic programs. Granted there are a whole host of factors to why schools are losing money on athletics (ballooning coaching contracts, massive construction projects, etc., etc.) but toss in an extra 3k a semester for "cost of attendance" for a school with 500 student athletes...that's 1.5 million dollars the school is going to have to come up with. Per semester. If somebody comes up with a workable model for increasing the compensation to student athletes I don't see an issue with giving them more money. They do a lot for the university and bring in money, students, and donors. So far I've yet to see such a model. This is going to drag out for a long, long time.
Appropriate...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XEq6XYtMVU
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 09:45:20 AM
Most schools can't afford to pay student athletes more than what they already do. Something like 30 schools are operating their athletic departments at a profit, with a number of schools conveniently (including Marquette) operating at cost. The rest subsidize their athletic programs. Granted there are a whole host of factors to why schools are losing money on athletics (ballooning coaching contracts, massive construction projects, etc., etc.) but toss in an extra 3k a semester for "cost of attendance" for a school with 500 student athletes...that's 1.5 million dollars the school is going to have to come up with. Per semester. If somebody comes up with a workable model for increasing the compensation to student athletes I don't see an issue with giving them more money. They do a lot for the university and bring in money, students, and donors. So far I've yet to see such a model. This is going to drag out for a long, long time.
I think what will happen will be a decrease in the number of sports offered at each sport i.e. non-revenue sports.
Quote from: universitypark on March 27, 2014, 09:48:21 AM
I think what will happen will be a decrease in the number of sports offered at each sport i.e. non-revenue sports.
Problem is then you run into a Title IX issue. You can only cut so many non revenue sports because you are going to need to offer an equal number of athletic opportunities to the opposing gender to balance out your 85 man football roster. Then again, revenue sports differ between each school. While Lacrosse doesn't bring in much revenue for Marquette, it might on the East Coast. So does Syracuse cut its football program or its lacrosse program? You hit the nail on the head though, all of this is being driven by revenue sports, especially men's basketball and football. In fact I'm pretty sure the only people that can unionize at NU are the
scholarship football players. The walk-ons can't even be part of the union, but they will be subject to the unions bargained terms.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 26, 2014, 05:25:36 PM
Initial demands of the CAPA (College Athletics Players Association) are not for pay ....
* Independent doctors for concussion test on each sidelines
* Health care insurance for all plays for life (no word on whether this includes former players)
* Free tuition for current and former players to get their degree for life
Should this happen, the next contract will include pay.
1. Think it's a great idea.
2. No way. Only coverage while they are in school and maybe a couple years after
3. Sure, for any undergraduate degree
So will athletes be able to claim unemployment if they are Creaned?
Quote from: PBRme on March 27, 2014, 10:53:59 AM
So will athletes be able to claim unemployment if they are Creaned?
Don't forget "buzzed" either.
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 08:34:02 AM
If student athletes were paid they would lose the qualified exemption on scholarships and would pay taxes on income received from their "employment". In regards to parents, I know that certain contributions can be deducted from taxes, but there is a cap on it. So let's say Momma Warrior pays 10k towards her sons tuition, she could request a form from Marquette that allows her to deduct 3k (just an example I don't know the actual number) from her taxes. Now if student athletes were employees I have no idea how that would apply. Excellent question though I'll poke around and see what I can find out. Student-athletes as employees would create a messy, unworkable situation in college athletics under the current model.
You mean like current system.
I'm for this not because I see unionization happening but because I see the NCAA as a giant clusterf**k right now this can/will force it to finally change.
Quote from: universitypark on March 27, 2014, 09:48:21 AM
I think what will happen will be a decrease in the number of sports offered at each sport i.e. non-revenue sports.
A school like Marquette is already at the minimum to be Division I. I don't disagree with you, but it means less opportunities for other kids, many of whom need that scholarship to be at a school.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 27, 2014, 03:15:47 PM
You mean like current system.
I'm for this not because I see unionization happening but because I see the NCAA as a giant clusterf**k right now this can/will force it to finally change.
Correct. Student athletes as employees is untenable under the current system. Additionally, I haven't heard of a system in which it would work. Not to say one does not exist, but simply that one has not been presented. There are a lot of legal nuances that there aren't answers for yet.
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 03:30:18 PM
Correct. Student athletes as employees is untenable under the current system. Additionally, I haven't heard of a system in which it would work. Not to say one does not exist, but simply that one has not been presented. There are a lot of legal nuances that there aren't answers for yet.
LE15:
Now that the NLRB ruled football players employees, what is to stop the IRS from ruling ALL scholarships everywhere are taxable right now? Does the NLRB ruling give the IRS that rationale to call them income?
Couple things. First this is just a ruling from the regional office of the NLRB, it doesn't have national scope yet. As of now the ruling only applies to scholarship football players at Northwestern. Second the IRA couldn't touch academic scholarships because they are still protected by the qualified exemption. I can't see those ever being touched. Third this ruling would only apply to private school athletes. Fourth the ruling doesn't quite give the IRS rationale yet because this is getting appealed and the ruling will be stayed pending appeal (meaning it has no legal effect until after the appeals process). To be fair I'm a few beers deep right now watching tourney games so if my response is wrong blame it on Milwaukee Brat House.
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 09:28:08 PM
Couple things. First this is just a ruling from the regional office of the NLRB, it doesn't have national scope yet. As of now the ruling only applies to scholarship football players at Northwestern. Second the IRA couldn't touch academic scholarships because they are still protected by the qualified exemption. I can't see those ever being touched. Third this ruling would only apply to private school athletes. Fourth the ruling doesn't quite give the IRS rationale yet because this is getting appealed and the ruling will be stayed pending appeal (meaning it has no legal effect until after the appeals process). To be fair I'm a few beers deep right now watching tourney games so if my response is wrong blame it on Milwaukee Brat House.
See the highlighted words above. I think we are headed in this direction.
Also hearing that ND players are being asked to consider joining the union. Since they are also part of the Chicago region of the NLRB, the ruling would immediately apply to them and they could just do it.
CAPA thinks it could have 50 schools within a year after NU votes (assuming it does not get shot down).
I'm at a crossroads right now- deadline for renewing my Northwestern season football tickets. I've been inclined to not renew due to unionization of players, but might want to to support the school. Hard decision.
Quote from: augoman on March 27, 2014, 10:26:39 PM
I'm at a crossroads right now- deadline for renewing my Northwestern season football tickets. I've been inclined to not renew due to unionization of players, but might want to to support the school. Hard decision.
The NCAA is a broken clusterf**k. The is really good news. Their will never be a union. Instead this will force the broken NCAA to fix itself.
Support NU
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 27, 2014, 10:44:40 PM
The NCAA is a broken clusterf**k. The is really good news. Their will never be a union. Instead this will force the broken NCAA to fix itself.
Support NU
How are they going to "fix it"? Remember what the NCAA is....an athletic ASSOCIATION with 1200+ schools, all with their own agendas, own goals, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 27, 2014, 10:48:37 PM
How are they going to "fix it"? Remember what the NCAA is....an athletic ASSOCIATION with 1200+ schools, all with their own agendas, own goals, etc.
They are going to rally around a common agenda, to change the by laws so that the players feel a union is unnecessary.
If the colleges feel their goal is to crush the union, and then smile that "we showed them," this will reemerge in other forms again and again.
Look I'm as anti-union as anyone, but I don't see this as a union movement. I see this as a device to force change. That's why I'm for it and think Kain Kotler is a hero.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 28, 2014, 05:53:14 AM
They are going to rally around a common agenda, to change the by laws so that the players feel a union is unnecessary.
If the colleges feel their goal is to crush the union, and then smile that "we showed them," this will reemerge in other forms again and again.
Look I'm as anti-union as anyone, but I don't see this as a union movement. I see this as a device to force change. That's why I'm for it and think Kain Kotler is a hero.
*Colter. I like it as well. Except im pro union. Looking at it though I dont think it become full out union but it is forcing change in the NCAA. Also helps that im a huge NU football fan.
Quote from: LegalEagle15 on March 27, 2014, 09:45:20 AM
Most schools can't afford to pay student athletes more than what they already do. Something like 30 schools are operating their athletic departments at a profit, with a number of schools conveniently (including Marquette) operating at cost. The rest subsidize their athletic programs. Granted there are a whole host of factors to why schools are losing money on athletics (ballooning coaching contracts, massive construction projects, etc., etc.) but toss in an extra 3k a semester for "cost of attendance" for a school with 500 student athletes...that's 1.5 million dollars the school is going to have to come up with. Per semester. If somebody comes up with a workable model for increasing the compensation to student athletes I don't see an issue with giving them more money. They do a lot for the university and bring in money, students, and donors. So far I've yet to see such a model. This is going to drag out for a long, long time.
Doesn't "creative accounting" play the biggest role in this? The same way the Chicago Blackhawks claim they run at a loss every year?
I actually don't think the ruling would apply to Notre Dame football players. At least I would argue against it in court because of this language in the ruling: "Eligible to vote are all football players receiving football grant-in-aid scholarship and not having exhausted their playing eligibility employed by the Employer located at 1501 Central Street, Evanston, Illinois" - that specifically names football players at Northwestern and nobody else. If it doesn't apply to other athletes at the university then it likely won't apply to other school's athletes - yet. As far as the institutions and their revenues there is likely some creative accounting going on - but the fact is most schools aren't raking in the massive amounts of profit that many people say they do. If you'd like a look at each schools financial information here's a great link: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/
WSJ has interesting articles on this today- including current make-up of NLRB and big push by United Steelworkers union. While not specifically 'anti-union', I am opposed to union invasion of amateur sports, and find unions in modern times to be self-seeking and anti-rights.
Experts said that NU football players "could one day have to pay federal and state taxes on athletic scholarships" following Wednesday's ruling, but it is "too soon to make them worry." Michigan State law professor Amy McCormick said, "It's unlikely anything would happen immediately." She said that scholarships under the IRS code are "exempt from being taxed unless they are compensation for services required as condition for receiving the aid." However, she noted that the IRS "has not considered athletic scholarships as income" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 3/28). O'Connor Davies Exempt Organization Tax & Advisory Services Group Partner Garrett Higgins said, "The fact that the players were not considered employees in the past is essentially the reason why their scholarship or parts of it weren't taxed before. The IRS may be able to make the argument that the scholarship is really payment for services, and therefore compensation, and is now taxable to the athlete." ESPN.com's Darren Rovell noted if NU players "did form a union and they were taxed, it's not clear exactly what they would be paying tax on." If, for example, their entire scholarship was "deemed taxable, the athletes would be paying at least $15,000 in federal tax alone on the $61,000-a-year scholarship." One major conference AD "speculated that the value the players received from the training table, travel and even coaching could be taxed" (ESPN.com, 3/27).
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR: In Atlanta, Jeff Schultz writes forming a union is actually "not something the athletes should want to pursue." If they are "recognized as employees and form a union, that will lead to collective bargaining." Schultz: "Would athletes from Alabama and Cal Poly Pomona go to the bargaining table with the same objectives? Employees get paid. Employees also can get fired. On the spot. ... Employees get taxed. Are you ready for that, Mr. Wildcat?" (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 3/28). In Buffalo, Bucky Gleason writes the minute athletes "accept a penny from a college for athletics, the rules change." Gleason: "You march to their orders. You study when they tell you to study. You eat what they want you to eat. You train the way they want you to train. In exchange, they give you an education. If that works for you, fine, but understand the deal before making the commitment. ... So, kids, be careful what you wish for" (BUFFALO NEWS, 3/28). But ESPN's J.A. Adande said unionizing is a "logical step" in college athletics. Adande: "For everyone saying this is the downfall of college athletics, they haven't asked for money yet. They're just looking for some basic protections" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 3/27).
END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT? In Miami, Greg Cote wrote there are "problems with the ruling" and asked, "Is it really good for college sports to have players negotiating how much they'd like to practice?" Mostly the ruling "is wrong because it assumes players contribute substantially to a school's football revenue," which is "a faulty premise." The ruling "alludes to the 'enormous commercial value' of players' work," but "that's wrong." Players "come and go, and very few actually impact a university's success or brand" (MIAMIHERALD.com, 3/27). In Detroit, Daniel Howes writes there are "all sorts of reasons the NLRB's call here is a bad one, the chief being this: a system derided for making big money off college kids would morph into a system that uses college kids to make a little less money for universities as it opens a new revenue stream for the sagging dues rolls of organized labor" (DETROIT NEWS, 3/28). Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial Partner Steve Mooney said, "This ruling's probably the worst thing that could have happened to the NCAA in a long time. Not just because of the decision, but it really has stirred up a hornet's nest" (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 3/28).
YOUR MOVE, NCAA: In New Jersey, Tara Sullivan writes the NCAA "has no choice now but to listen" and if it fails to, "major college sports as we know it will never be the same." This "isn't a simple equation of paying college players to play; it's about finally recognizing how much more they give than they get." The NCAA "can no longer play dumb, no longer stay silent and hope these issues go away while their own coffers spill over" (Bergen RECORD, 3/28). A N.Y. TIMES editorial states the college-sports establishment has "brought this trouble on itself by not moving to address players' legitimate grievances." The College Athletes Players Association "isn't seeking a specific share of football revenue or even salaries, but better medical protections for concussions and other injuries, guaranteed scholarships that cover the full cost of attending college and the establishment of a trust fund that players can use to finish their schooling after their NCAA eligibility expires." Those are "modest, reasonable goals," and if universities "don't want to have to deal with unions, they should stop fighting their players and work with them to improve conditions" (N.Y. TIMES, 3/28). In Baton Rouge, Scott Rabalais writes even if the NU case "isn't exactly the model for future change, change is coming" in the form of "stipends, collective bargaining, perhaps eventually even more boycotts." Rabalais: "Could we even see a picket line of players around a major college football stadium or basketball arena?" (Baton Rouge ADVOCATE, 3/28).