Northwestern football players to vote on union Friday

[LegalEagle15]

Correct. Title IX applies to education and these athletes will still be enrolled as students in the University, but they will be paid as well. It's somewhat of a gray area. Also because the athletic department at virtually every university receives federal funding, the department as a whole is still subject to Title IX. Given that athletic participation is seen as a part of the educational experience (although not an integral part depending on the court) and schools are still subject to Title IX, paying players probably won't get rid of Title IX.

Also from the standpoint of a school or the NCAA, do you really want to be the one that says "We don't want to comply with Title IX because we want to pay our football team." That would end poorly.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Title IX was enacted to prevent discrimination from education programs, which included college athletics. It was not meant to apply to employment at a university. I think the NCAA could make a strong argument that Title IX no longer applies if athletes are now considered employees under the law. Title IX doesn't require universities to maintain an equal number of male and female coaches or male and female professors. Why should they be required to maintain an equal number of male and female scholarship athletes or sports if participating in those sports is now considered employment?

I understand this would be unpopular in many circles, but the decision of the NLRB changes the equation.

It really doesn't. Title IX does apply to university faculty and staff. Just in different ways.

People often forget that equity in college sports is only a minuscule part of Title IX. The main purpose of the bill was to protect against gender discrimination in higher education. This covers everything from college athletics, to admissions standards, to sexual assault (which according to the law is a type of gender discrimination).

Just because the university starts calling them employees doesn't mean that they aren't still athletes. The way Title IX is worded it would still bind universities whether or not the students become unionized.

[MUSF]

It really doesn't. Title IX does apply to university faculty and staff. Just in different ways.

People often forget that equity in college sports is only a minuscule part of Title IX. The main purpose of the bill was to protect against gender discrimination in higher education. This covers everything from college athletics, to admissions standards, to sexual assault (which according to the law is a type of gender discrimination).

Just because the university starts calling them employees doesn't mean that they aren't still athletes. The way Title IX is worded it would still bind universities whether or not the students become unionized.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. It's not a question of employees ceasing to be athletes. It's the fact that being employees means they are not participating in an educational activity or program governed by Title IX.

The only reason Title IX applies to athletics is because it is viewed as an educational program or activity. Title IX does not apply in the same way to employees, even if they are students. Title IX doesn't require the same standards of equality for students working at the student union for example.

The NLRB stated explicitly in the decision that sports were completely seperate from academic programs. That's why they were determined to be employees while teachers aides, for example, are not.

[keefe]

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion. It's not a question of employees ceasing to be athletes. It's the fact that being employees means they are not participating in an educational activity or program governed by Title IX.

The only reason Title IX applies to athletics is because it is viewed as an educational program or activity. Title IX does not apply in the same way to employees, even if they are students. Title IX doesn't require the same standards of equality for students working at the student union for example.

The NLRB stated explicitly in the decision that sports were completely seperate from academic programs. That's why they were determined to be employees while teachers aides, for example, are not.

I'm guessing "Legal" Eagle is a lawyer. He certainly seems to have informed opinion on this.

[MUSF]

I'm guessing "Legal" Eagle is a lawyer. He certainly seems to have informed opinion on this.

Yes, and he conceded that labeling athletes employees puts them in a gray area. He says that it probably won't change how Title IX applies. I agree, but I still think the NCAA has a very strong argument. NLRB statement that athletics is separate from education is contrary to Title IX's categorization of athletics. I would argue that both can't be right.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.


Like I said a few weeks ago, didn't think they would vote for it.  We won't know for certain until the votes are announced down the road, but even out of the gate the very first day a bunch of NW players and their families were not buying the unionization BS in the interviews I saw.  Of course, the outside forces pushing this will balk at that assertion.  I hope it truly is a number that overwhelming.  Heck, 60% or higher would be enough for me.   

[keefe]

Yes, and he conceded that labeling athletes employees puts them in a gray area. He says that it probably won't change how Title IX applies. I agree, but I still think the NCAA has a very strong argument. NLRB statement that athletics is separate from education is contrary to Title IX's categorization of athletics. I would argue that both can't be right.

Title IX is a very slippery slope. There are legitimate crusades and there is tilting at windmills. I respect Don Quixote for his passion and sense of justice but sacred cows are always safe.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, and he conceded that labeling athletes employees puts them in a gray area. He says that it probably won't change how Title IX applies. I agree, but I still think the NCAA has a very strong argument. NLRB statement that athletics is separate from education is contrary to Title IX's categorization of athletics. I would argue that both can't be right.

In grad school I took a semester course only on TitleIX and the sports ramifications.  There were only 7 of us in the class, two of them are AD's now so they have to live this stuff daily.  After discussing this issue with one of them recently, he just doesn't see that sacred cow ever going away.  The women's lib movement would explode. 

[keefe]

two of them are AD's

You mean one of them. Larry is still unemployed.

[LegalEagle15]

I'm guessing "Legal" Eagle is a lawyer. He certainly seems to have informed opinion on this.

Actually just a law student at Marquette  One year to go. I'm studying sports law though. Marquette has a great sports law program (many consider it the best) but I've been here since '08 for undergrad. We've spent a lot of time discussing this very issue with people in the program and in the industry.

[keefe]

Actually just a law student at Marquette  One year to go. I'm studying sports law though. Marquette has a great sports law program (many consider it the best) but I've been here since '08 for undergrad. We've spent a lot of time discussing this very issue with people in the program and in the industry.

well done and best wishes!

[ChicosBailBonds]

You mean one of them. Larry is still unemployed.

Nah, Larry went to ND.  This was IU.  Both of them AD's at some high major DI programs. 

[MUSF]

In grad school I took a semester course only on TitleIX and the sports ramifications.  There were only 7 of us in the class, two of them are AD's now so they have to live this stuff daily.  After discussing this issue with one of them recently, he just doesn't see that sacred cow ever going away.  The women's lib movement would explode. 

Just curious, did you discuss the issue after the NLRB decision? I wonder if that would impact his views at all?

[keefe]

Just curious, did you discuss the issue after the NLRB decision? I wonder if that would impact his views at all?

The NLRB ruling was a regional opinion and certainly not the final word on the matter. And the reality, as Chico points out, is that Title IX in all of its scope is a sacred cow that won't go away easily. The NLRB regional opinion is not necessarily final and remains open for debate. Title IX is Federal Law and will be as easy to change as Rowe v Wade due process under the 14th Amendment.

[MUSF]

The NLRB ruling was a regional opinion and certainly not the final word on the matter. And the reality, as Chico points out, is that Title IX in all of its scope is a sacred cow that won't go away easily. The NLRB regional opinion is not necessarily final and remains open for debate. Title IX is Federal Law and will be as easy to change as Rowe v Wade due process under the 14th Amendment.

The NLRB opinion is as final as a district court decision. I understand that the NCAA can appeal, but the decision isn't open for debate until an appeal is heard.

Title IX doesn't have to be changed or repealed. It simply may not apply to athletes that are legally determined to be employees. That is an issue for the judiciary not the legislature.

You and Chico keep talking about repealing Title IX or making it "go away", which would require legislation to repeal it or a judicial decision that determines it to be unconstitutional. That is what Bush tried to do. That is the attempt to slaughter the sacred cow. I agree, that will never happen. I'm arguing that the law simply may not apply to athletes because the NLRB ruled they were employees separate from education programs. If the courts agreed they wouldn't be repealing the law.

[keefe]

The NLRB opinion is as final as a district court decision. I understand that the NCAA can appeal, but the decision isn't open for debate until an appeal is heard.

Title IX doesn't have to be changed or repealed. It simply may not apply to athletes that are legally determined to be employees. That is an issue for the judiciary not the legislature.

You and Chico keep talking about repealing Title IX or making it "go away", which would require legislation to repeal it or a judicial decision that determines it to be unconstitutional. That is what Bush tried to do. That is the attempt to slaughter the sacred cow. I agree, that will never happen. I'm arguing that the law simply may not apply to athletes because the NLRB ruled they were employees separate from education programs. If the courts agreed they wouldn't be repealing the law.

I said Title IX will not be easy to change much less overturn. In any event, I'm not a lawyer so all I can do is spout ill-informed opinion. But my opinion is that students given athletic scholarships are no more entitled to economic benefit than the far greater number of students engaged in academic research which generates significant revenue for the universities which, in total, far exceed the revenues from sports.

I have worked with two major research universities to commercialize proprietary intellectual property which is done to advance the knowledge base through continued research. Students helping figure out answers through scientific investigation are not considered employees but, rather, scholars. Frankly, they have an equal if not greater stake in the NLRB ruling which could at a minimum disrupt ongoing research efforts. This issue is far wider than just athletes which is a redistribution of broadcast revenues.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.


Like I said a few weeks ago, didn't think they would vote for it.  We won't know for certain until the votes are announced down the road, but even out of the gate the very first day a bunch of NW players and their families were not buying the unionization BS in the interviews I saw.  Of course, the outside forces pushing this will balk at that assertion.  I hope it truly is a number that overwhelming.  Heck, 60% or higher would be enough for me.   

Unionization BS? Hoping its over 80%? I get you dont like it but youve made your point no need to keep attacking the idea.

[keefe]

Unionization BS? Hoping its over 80%? I get you dont like it but youve made your point no need to keep attacking the idea.

Why not? It's a bad idea.

[Tugg Speedman]

A Northwestern player who voted said that he was 80 percent sure the team voted no to unionizing, and almost all of the players opted to vote, according to the Chicago Tribune. The player was granted anonymity by the newspaper for fear of repercussions, it said.


Like I said a few weeks ago, didn't think they would vote for it.  We won't know for certain until the votes are announced down the road, but even out of the gate the very first day a bunch of NW players and their families were not buying the unionization BS in the interviews I saw.  Of course, the outside forces pushing this will balk at that assertion.  I hope it truly is a number that overwhelming.  Heck, 60% or higher would be enough for me.   

But like we said too, the threat of a union has already worked.  The power conferences are moving on a major overhaul giving the players largely what the union movement was asking for.  Yes, you will argue these changes were in the works for a long time but they would have stayed in the works for a long time to come if it wasn't for the battering ram of union movement to force them to act now.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Unionization BS? Hoping its over 80%? I get you dont like it but youve made your point no need to keep attacking the idea.

It's a dumb idea, and if 80% of the people that are actually involved vote that way, it shows how epic dumb it is.  A lot of people here thought unionization was a slam dunk, go back and read the posts from 6 weeks ago.

Then slowly the back pedaling...back back back back back.

It is a dumb idea that will have massive negative impacts on the whole for college sports to benefit a small few.

DUMB DUMB DUMB

Glad to see the smart kids at NW understood this.  My bigger fear is that they try this again and find another school with a lot fewer smart kids to give it a whirl.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But like we said too, the threat of a union has already worked.  The power conferences are moving on a major overhaul giving the players largely what the union movement was asking for.  Yes, you will argue these changes were in the works for a long time but they would have stayed in the works for a long time to come if it wasn't for the battering ram of union movement to force them to act now.

You also said this was going to pass.  And UW was going to miss the NCAA tournament, and MU make it, etc.


You're still missing the overall point here, and that is that they are not employees.  If that ruling stands or they unionize, its over.  Some of you were jumping for joy at that idea, but I seriously think some of you have no idea the ramifications if that were to happen.  Absolutely none.

[real chili 83]

The NLRB is staffed currently with appointees that have strong union ties. This ruling is no surprise.

It will be over turned by the supreme court.

[Tugg Speedman]

You also said this was going to pass.  And UW was going to miss the NCAA tournament, and MU make it, etc.


You're still missing the overall point here, and that is that they are not employees.  If that ruling stands or they unionize, its over.  Some of you were jumping for joy at that idea, but I seriously think some of you have no idea the ramifications if that were to happen.  Absolutely none.

We don't know what the vote is but I said it would pass but would be close.  We'll find out next year.

And you're way overplaying the doomsday scenario.  The ruling alone is enough to get the IRS, if they choose, to tax scholarships.  That was the make or break ... A professional opinion that they are employees, not the vote.

So, when do college sports end as we know it?

[LegalEagle15]

On the contrary unionization changes a lot. There are mandatory subjects of bargaining, terms and conditions of the CBA get non-statutory labor exemption from antitrust claims, the union becomes the sole representative of all members (unless both sides agree to negotiating individual contracts, like the pros) and a whole host of other things. The IRS isn't going to tax scholarships until this goes all the way through.

As for a court overruling an NLRB decision, whichever party goes into the court proceedings with a decision in their favor has the advantage. Courts are reluctant to impose their ideas/decisions on the NLRB, so generally they will only review and overturn a case if there were procedural errors or if the NLRB arbitrator "dispensed his own particular brand of industrial justice." Granted that doesn't mean the court won't do it anyways, especially the SC, but that side will have the upper hand going in to it.

It'll be an interesting movement to follow. The NLRB is allowing amicus briefs so you can bet Donald Remy and the NCAA are hard at work preparing one, if they haven't already. By the way thanks for the discussion everyone this is a much better way to study some of my pro sports material for the final on Monday.

[keefe]

On the contrary unionization changes a lot. There are mandatory subjects of bargaining, terms and conditions of the CBA get non-statutory labor exemption from antitrust claims, the union becomes the sole representative of all members (unless both sides agree to negotiating individual contracts, like the pros) and a whole host of other things. The IRS isn't going to tax scholarships until this goes all the way through.

As for a court overruling an NLRB decision, whichever party goes into the court proceedings with a decision in their favor has the advantage. Courts are reluctant to impose their ideas/decisions on the NLRB, so generally they will only review and overturn a case if there were procedural errors or if the NLRB arbitrator "dispensed his own particular brand of industrial justice." Granted that doesn't mean the court won't do it anyways, especially the SC, but that side will have the upper hand going in to it.

It'll be an interesting movement to follow. The NLRB is allowing amicus briefs so you can bet Donald Remy and the NCAA are hard at work preparing one, if they haven't already. By the way thanks for the discussion everyone this is a much better way to study some of my pro sports material for the final on Monday.

Legal

How does the regional NLRB ruling affect grad students doing research at universities? These guys are on scholarship and their work helps generate huge sums of revenue for the university. With venture plays and uptick in equity the value to universities can be staggering.