College athletes take step toward forming labor union

Parent Cafe
21

<p>LOL. Now we are getting to see the impact of the recent packing of appointees to the NLRB due to the termination of the filibuster in the senate.</p>

22

<p>The possibilities are going to being interesting. NLRB decisions only apply to private employers. There are few private school division I football powerhouses, so at least initially, the Alabamas, Michigans, Florida States have time to figure this all out. Lucky for SEC, ACC and Big 12 schools if they are in ‘right to work’ states. Also, will revenue-neutral or even money loser programs be allowed to unionize? That could invoke Title IX complaints as most womens college athletics programs (like most programs overall) lose money. Could USC pay male football players but not female sprinters and female volleyballers?</p>

23

<p>If they’re employees, don’t all the other rules apply? Like the rules about wages and hours?</p>

24

<p>Woohoo! Workman’s comp for field hockey players is next…</p>

25

<p>Most unions today are a problem for society rather than a solution. The excesses caused by unions are almost unlimited. The only time where unions are beneficial to society is when the other party posses extreme power and can write all of the rules. That is the situation in college football. College football decides when you can go pro. College football decides that you cannot receive a wage for your work as a football player. College football decides you will have to sit out for a year if you try to transfer to another team and play. The player can only decide where he wants to go to school. The extreme bargaining advantages of the schools shows the only solution is to unionize. At a minimum, college foot ball players should receive a share of the profits. If a school does not make any money, then the old rule apply. If a team goes to the national final and makes millions on millions of dollars, the players should get some money as a bonus for their work. Other sports should be forced to adopt the same rule. Since most sports are not revenue generators, the athletes won’t get paid but that is the status quo and they are not harmed. </p>

<p>The relationship between big college football and players is one of exploitation. It should be stopped and hopefully a union will accomplish this.</p>

26

<p>The ruling estimated that NW football players spent an average of 1,000 hours playing and practicing football during their five month schedule. This was compared to 320 hours of classes and an unknown amount of hours studying and doing homework. On those grounds the conclusion is the players are there mainly to play football. There are only so many waking hours in a day.</p>

<p>I’m not sure what they will decide about walk-ons who are without football scholarships. </p>

27

<p>

</p>

<p>I would disagree for men’s D1 in the major conferences. (TV contracts are huge.)</p>

<p>Regardless, every additional dollar spent on D1 football players has to: a) come from somewhere; b) be matched for the women’s sports (Title 9). It will just net out to fewer opportunities for both.</p>

28

<p>^ ^ ^ ^ ^ </p>

<p>Raising ticket prices is one solution. </p>

29

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>Many folks don’t go to games today because of ticket prices…attendance has even started to be an issue at SEC Football games…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140224/ARTICLE/140229827”>http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20140224/ARTICLE/140229827&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

30

<p>Absurd. Will not hold.</p>

31

<p>It may not hold, but it is an interesting thing to illuminate. I tend to agree with razorsharp’s rationale. More interestingly it makes one wonder the enormity of the role that the NCAA plays in business of college athletics. Is the potential need for athletes to unionize a by-product of NCAA involvement. </p>

32

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“Players' union victory a small battle in collegiate landscape - ESPN”>http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10680161/players-union-victory-small-battle-collegiate-landscape&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The current value of the scholarships:</p>

<p>$61,000 per academic year at Northwestern; $76,000 for those players who attend summer school</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“Most NCAA Division I athletic departments take subsidies”>http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

34

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not relevant. Remove football and men’s basketball, and zero “of 228 athletics departments generate enough money on their own to cover their expenses…” </p>

<p>My point is that the surplus from football and men’s basketball (such that it exists) subsidizes every other sport offered, including the women’s. If unionization is successful in football (and presumably then men’s basketball), costs will rise, and the subsidy will decline, eliminating other sports, including women’s.</p>

35

<p>Probably should point out that the football players are not asking to be paid - in fact they claim they are already paid and that is what makes them employees. </p>

<p>What they are asking for is

  1. better protection against concussions,
  2. making their full scholarships actually full scholarships at the same level as academic full scholarships (there are some things they are not permitted to be reimbursed for like laundry),
  3. improved graduation rates by reducing mid week travel,
  4. replacement of athletic scholarships with academic scholarships should the coach chose to pull their scholarship (athletic scholarships are 1 year only - some schools are pulling or reducing scholarships after Junior year or after injuries, knowing player has no other option),
  5. paying for medical care for injuries sustained while playing for the university (e.g. providing medical insurance),
  6. changes to the transfer rules allowing them to switch schools once without restraint</p>

<p>Basically all things which would make them more likely to graduate and to be healthy enough to enjoy productive lives after football. </p>

36

<p>I think the importance of this ruling (along with the EA Sports suit) is that it will ratchet up the preasure on the NCAA to make some changes. It would be in the NCAA’s best interest to change some of the most egregious policies/rules before the biggest conferences decide to form a “new” association, or Congress decides to “fix” the problems. </p>

37

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/us/northwestern-football-union/index.html”>Labor board: Northwestern University football players can unionize - CNN;

<p><a href=“Northwestern Wildcats football players win bid to unionize - ESPN”>http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>NLRB says Northwestern football can unionize.<br>
Wow.</p>

<p>Potential game changer for college sports.</p>

38

<p>Designating athletes as employees opens up a huge can of legal worms. Suddenly 200+ years of employment law comes into play. </p>

<p>-- To begin with what class of employees are they? Hourly, non-exempt, or salaried? </p>

<p>-- Do they get all the benefits legally mandated to employees in the state in which they play? Paid sick leave for example? </p>

<p>-- Will they get Workman’s Comp for athletic injuries? (Just wait until the schools get a look at what that does to the amount they must pay for Workman’s Comp. The football team will probably be disbanded the very next day.) </p>

<p>-- All the rules governing Protected Classes of applicants and employees in lay-offs and firing will now govern making the team and getting cut from the team. What a quagmire that will be. </p>

<p>-- The list goes on an on…</p>

39

<p>From CNN <a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/us/northwestern-football-union/index.html?hpt=hp_c2”>http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/us/northwestern-football-union/index.html?hpt=hp_c2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

40

<p>I bet the first strike will be a week before the BCS Championship game by both participating football teams.</p>