<p>So maybe this is correct and they are not students at all, at least at some of the big sports schools. I am hoping that not all schools are the same, but this came up in Yahoo today. </p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>I don’t get how this will work. Is every player getting paid? If not, are players without pay playing against those who get paid. That’s like amateurs playing pros. Absurd. I don’t know how TV contracts work but if the income is from ticket sales, players can’t claim credit. Alumni, parents, other students buy most tickets. They are buying tickets because of their association with the university not so much of any individual player. That’s what makes college sports special distinguishing them from pro games.</p>
<p>How about the schools simply dispense w the fantasy that recruited football players are there to be students, and hire the football pkayers outright as employees the same way they hire for other revenue-generating campus activities, like being a cashier in the school bookstore. Then the school doesn’t have to worry about managing the disparity of paying for some sports but not others.</p>
<p>You might be able to make that work. We can already see that players generally are willing to come and play for room and board. Many are in programs that are shams, and will be fortunate to get a job back home in parks and recreation department if they don’t succeed as pros. You could save a lot of money in some of these schools if you could shut down certain degree programs. I’m not necessarily in favor of this, but it could become an option.</p>
<p>You could also change degree programs to grant credit for athletic participation at the varsity level. This lack of “academic credit” for athletics was a point that the NLRB ruling took into consideration.</p>
<p>One thing is for certain. Northwestern, Notre Dame, Duke, Stanford, and other private schools with important D1 athletic programs are not going to stand by idly. </p>
<p>You can bet your last dollar on that, Dadx. And they will be supported by the public university athletic superpowers, whom might fear a slippery slope and pressure to conform to practices that the privates may be required to engage in. That’s just another college sports arms race on the horizon.</p>
<p>I saw this movie Schooled on Netflix a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty interesting. Definitely takes a side against the current way things are done.
<a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/10/15/2777681/schooled-documentary-opponents-paying-college-athletes-need/”>http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/10/15/2777681/schooled-documentary-opponents-paying-college-athletes-need/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, they are not – TODAY. But a few years down the line…</p>
<p>Regardless, whatever they are seeking – however worthwhile – costs money; and that money must come out of the non-rev sports, including women’s sports. According to the filings, NU football netted $8 mill last year. In addition to any profit from men’s b’ball, those funds subsidize every other D1 sport on campus.</p>
<p>btw: some of what they are seeking – changes in transfer restrictions – are against ncaa rules. So the Uni couldn’t just agree to them if it wanted to. It will be interesting to follow.</p>
<p>I can guarantee that there are multiple meetings occurring and being scheduled to consider what the response to this decision should be, and what courses of action can best mitigate the impact on football, basketball, and college sports in general. The NCAA should be working on this, but its possible that some of the member schools could form their own group. Maybe some of the conferences will pool some resources to hire some good labor lawyers. </p>
<p>One thing I’ve noticed in the news stories is that this labor ruling applies to those on FULL athletic scholarship, implying that it does not apply to those on partial scholarships. If that turns out to be the rule, I predict that full scholarships will immediately disappear. </p>
<p>Faced with the enormous expense and legal quagmire of making college athletes real employees, I predict that schools will get around it by cutting all currently full athletic scholarships down to whatever partial percentage exempts them from the rule.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^Interesting point.</p>
<p>I am at a conference with many of the top labor and employment lawyers in the country. They think this is the stupidest thing they have ever heard. College athletes are not employees. End of story. This will not fly. Unions are horrible, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Football players are clearly employees. They are selected for employment based on their abilities. They have supervisors call coaches. They have mandatory work hours called practice, and games. They are subject many many workplace rules such as curfews. They wear uniforms and are told they represent an organization. They are currently compensated for their work through in-kind contributions such as scholarships, room and board, etc. Football players are employees and are currently compensated by other than cash. The question is not whether they should be compensated (they already are) the question is how much. When I see coaches earning millions of dollars but not placing their bodies at risk of injury and I see players who risk their health in return for something that is mostly an indirect cost (tuition and board), it is clear that the players are grossly underpaid. If a school takes a million dollars from their post season bowl appearance fees and distributes it among the 75 or so football players on a team, each would get over $10K. This is hardly excessive compensation and would not affect any of the schools other athletic programs. </p>
<p>Where did you get your law degree, razorsharp? They are not employees.</p>
<p>how does this play out legally, MoWC?</p>
<p>Does the Uni appeal to the Obama-stacked (union friendly) LRB in DC? Assuming that they lose there, do they then take it to court?</p>
<p>It will go to court and will go into 2016 probably.</p>
<p>" They are currently compensated for their work through in-kind contributions such as scholarships, room and board"
Razor, wouldn’t the reasoning then be that ANY student with scholarships, room and board, is an employee? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students on academic scholarships are not subject to same level of rules/scrutiny/hours as athletes of revenue-generating sports. </p>
<p>but to keep an academic scholarship, many are required to maintain certain gpa, which kind of requires scrutiny, hours, etc. for their “compensation”. I’m just wondering how the line would be drawn–what’s the threshold for hours, who determines, etc. Just not convinced that they are employees…but if ruled as such, can see some unintended consequences down the road…</p>
<p>Students on an academic scholarship are not generating revenue for the school. </p>
<p>Hi guys, I’m doing a paper on college athletes so if anyone is a college athlete out there, would you mind sending me a message because I’d love to do an interview with you.</p>