<p>“Calling the NCAA a dictatorship, Northwestern’s quarterback and the United Steelworkers announced plans Tuesday to form the first labor union for college athletes, the latest salvo in the bruising fight over whether amateur players should be paid.” …</p>
<p><a href=“College athletes take step toward forming union”>http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/college-athletes-take-step-toward-forming-union/2163105</a></p>
<p>ESPN and other TV sports networks are bleeding college athletes using them for broadcast content and getting associated advertising revenue…let the ESPN and the other sports networks write paychecks to the college athletes.</p>
<p>pretty interesting thing to do.</p>
<p>Maybe if the steelworkers union is chosen to represent them most of the football will be played in China and Japan, as happened with the jobs of the steelworkers that they once represented. </p>
<p>Or maybe they’ll succeed in making athletic scholarships taxable at the level of the full pay tuition room and board. Or possibly it will trigger a return? to having student athletes be close to representative of the student body.</p>
<p>We’ll see. I doubt that it works legally. They aren’t employees.</p>
<p>For the big money sports - football and basketball, I think players’ unions are a great idea. One more positive step in cleaning up the game, dropping the “student athlete” pretense, and calling big time college football and basketball programs what they really are: minor league pro teams with the athletes as their employees.</p>
<p>The athletes are de facto pros and should be paid accordingly for the entertainment they provide and the revenue they generate. Allow them to take courses on the side at their respective colleges if they so desire, but don’t require them to do so. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about the athletes’ true purpose.</p>
<p>So, is this for all college athletes? even the ones who are in money-losing sports or who don’t get scholarships? </p>
<p>Would student-athletes who count on their talents to get them into univs that they wouldn’t normally get into (Stanford, USC, ND, ivies) keep that edge? I’m thinking that they would.</p>
<p>Would student-athletes who then join the pros have to reimburse their univs for their tuition? Or would they get “paid” during their college years and have to pay their own tuition? </p>
<p>Would first-string get paid more than bench-sitters?</p>
<p>would all colleges have to pay the same amount? and to all atlhletes?</p>
<p>This would get messy. I can see where a school with a top 10 football team might have to pay more than an unranked school. </p>
<p>Throw the Title IX wrench too into the equation…would women get same pay as men?</p>
<p>^^
Well of course…which is why this probably isn’t going to work as a union. It’s crazy to have to pay the athletes in the money-losing sports the same as money-sports. </p>
<p>And, I’m guessing that a union would require that College A pay its athletes the same as College B…even though College A hasn’t had a winning season in years while College A has deep pockets from athletic success. </p>
<p>If this were to happen, then I would be concerned about facilities for those money-pit sports. Right now, the money-winning sports are paying for those teams’ scholarships, uniforms, facilities, coaches salaries, travel, etc. I would imagine that if they had to start paying all these athletes, then we’d see a decline in upkeep/renovation of facilities.</p>
<p>Lots of colleges have walk-on athletes, too, which is really great for those athletes who develop their talents later, and really want an opportunity to try to play. If they had to be paid, I’m sure the option to walk-on would be eliminated.</p>
<p>Hey, maybe posters on this College Confidential website should get paid! We aren’t getting paid anything to provide the content that keeps this board going. Maybe College Confidential posters should unionize.</p>
<p>Not pertinent to the union question, but actual walk-ons (as opposed to invited walk-ons) are actually pretty rare these days. Because of Title IX considerations, a lot of mens teams limit their roster and refuse to allow walk-ons to be on the team. There have been some articles about this in the past. </p>
<p>What is the process that has to be followed for this to “unfold”? If it requires having players vote to unionize, I doubt that most of them would vote in favor of that. Maybe I’m wrong. The best basketball programs already have a lot of kids who play a year and go to the NBA. Football is a little different, but I don’t see it being able to attract a vote in favor of it. </p>
<p>It’s about time. Nick Saban and Mac Brown were making an annual salary of $10 million combined. A limited number of students were getting scholarships of maybe $50K per year…then you have these 2 colleges raking in millions $$$ from the athletes likeness and entertainment. It is not right. These entertainers need to be paid.</p>
<p>I just checked the #1 Arizona Wildcats basketball schedule. In an 11 day period last November, they played 5 games. When you add practices, one had to wonder when are these students in class? The schools don’t care as long as the money keeps coming in. These kids should get their fair share of the revenue.</p>
<p>I’m not sure “raking in” is the right term. Although I’d happily apply it to what happens when full pay parents write the checks. Maybe those parents need to have a union to represent them, since they wind up paying about double what the per student tuition is. :)</p>
<p>Here’s an idea. The president and Board of Trustees of Northwestern should announce the immediate cessation of the football program while honoring the scholarship commitments made to the athletes already there. No more football except as a club sport. As football is not essential to the academic mission of the institution, I’m sure that Northwestern will survive quite handily. Any school that needs football to survive, doesn’t deserve to survive.</p>
<p>Most D III players are getting some form of Assistance.</p>
<p>Usually work study that makes them literal employees of the school but ignore that for the moment. </p>
<p>As the Taylor Branch article pointed out some months back, the concept of “student athlete” was created so schools could avoid paying workers comp. </p>
<p>The schools have rigged the game so much that a big adjustment is about to happen. </p>
<p>The schools could have avoided some of this by having actual four year scholarships and paying for medical care for player injuries and providing emergency assistance to players. </p>
<p>Probably why you are hearing how the top football schools want to ward off an uprising by trying to give a $ stipend.
NCAA and schools will get slapped. Hard.</p>
<p><a href=“Northwestern ruling could 'rattle the universe of universities'”>Business News - Chicago Tribune;
<p>A step forward for unionizing.</p>
<p>Pretty interesting. No players are going to vote for a union. But if this USW-funded effort succeeds in classifying them as employees, they probably will begin to get w-2 forms and taxable income. So will the other students who get discounts scholarships. Maybe it will result in full pay families receiving a deduction for the excess tuition paid. </p>
<p>This is going to be fascinating. The NCAA says they’re amateurs. </p>
<p>From the Boston Globe: <a href=“http://www.boston.com/2014/03/26/college-athletes-can-unionize-federal-agency-says-federal-agency-college-athletes-can-unionize/3ZkUV6M1TRqhaQD6PpAtGK/story.html[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/2014/03/26/college-athletes-can-unionize-federal-agency-says-federal-agency-college-athletes-can-unionize/3ZkUV6M1TRqhaQD6PpAtGK/story.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if allowed to stand, and the players start getting paid, it will essentially wipe out most of the non-rev college sports. (Currently, the surpluses of football and b’ball pay for the non-rev sports, including all women’s sports.)</p>
<p>Most college football & basketball teams are revenue losers.</p>