Northwestern football players win right to unionize

[Chip R]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize

[The DARK]

This feels pretty major. Since the court ruled that the students are employees, doesn't that undermine a lot of the "student athlete" rules and sanctions the NCAA throws around?

[Caveat Emperor]

This feels pretty major. Since the court ruled that the students are employees, doesn't that undermine a lot of the "student athlete" rules and sanctions the NCAA throws around?

It's a win, but it's a long way from being decided -- a lot of moving parts (all of which will be appealed to higher courts) are required to line up before this anything more than an academic curiosity.

[The DARK]

For sure, but even if it gets overturned in the end, this ruling reignites that debate in a very big way, I would imagine.

[Boston Red]

The biggest impact of this decision is the number of law review articles that will now be written about this issue next year. Similar to Casey Martin when that case was decided.

[bucksfan2]

I don't quite understand how this would work. First of all in order to join a union you had dues taken out of your check, right? So in essence if the school doesn't consider them an employee they are going to have to pay the union dues themselves. If someone else covers those dues wouldn't that be accepting money? Wouldn't that mean your eligibility could be in question?

Also lets say the Northwestern players want to strike out for certain benefits. What is stopping NW from pulling their scholarship?

[Sea Ray]

I don't think this ruling in any way forces Northwestern to pay the union dues for its student athletes

[dabvu2498]

Since they're now classified "employees," won't they now have to pay taxes on benefits received? Even if they receive some salary, it would take a pretty large amount just for them to break even with the IRS, especially at a place like Northwestern.

[Sea Ray]

Since they're now classified "employees," won't they now have to pay taxes on benefits received? Even if they receive some salary, it would take a pretty large amount just for them to break even with the IRS, especially at a place like Northwestern.

If it comes to that, expect Congress to pass a law that exempts them from income taxes

[dabvu2498]

If it comes to that, expect Congress to pass a law that exempts them from income taxes

Then every TA and research assistant and so on who receives scholarship money in return for services rendered is going to have a huge gripe.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Fundamentally this ruling means that they don't even have to be students. Northwestern or any other school could just buy a football team and pay them and not give them a scholarship or require they attend the university.

[Sea Ray]

Then every TA and research assistant and so on who receives scholarship money in return for services rendered is going to have a huge gripe.

Yes, it's going to get complicated

[SunDeck]

Then every TA and research assistant and so on who receives scholarship money in return for services rendered is going to have a huge gripe.

I'm pretty that one was ruled on already. It was decided that teaching was part of their education and therefore not employment. One does not need to be a cornerback in order to receive a Bachelor's Degree.


Also, it would certainly not be in a union's interest to represent a group of people who are not paying dues, as that would mean other locals are footing the bill for their representation. However, in my work place for example (and I'm not saying I understand this, but I'm not in the bargaining unit), there are dues paying "members" and free riding employees, not obligated to pay union dues. This, per the agreement between management and the local.

[SunDeck]

Fundamentally this ruling means that they don't even have to be students. Northwestern or any other school could just buy a football team and pay them and not give them a scholarship or require they attend the university.

I offer our own James Brooks as a perfect example. The guy never even learned to read.

[dabvu2498]

I'm pretty that one was ruled on already. It was decided that teaching was part of their education and therefore not employment. One does not need to be a cornerback in order to receive a Bachelor's Degree.


Payment for services. Generally, you cannot exclude from your gross income the part of any scholarship or fellowship that represents payment for teaching, research, or other services required as a condition for receiving the scholarship. This applies even if all candidates for a degree must perform the services to receive the degree. (See exceptions next.)

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch01.html#en_US_2013_publink1000255742

[dabvu2498]

Yes, it's going to get complicated

Not for public schools or in "right to work" states. ;)

[Sea Ray]

Not for public schools or in "right to work" states. ;)

The fact that it does not apply to all the schools makes it very complicated; but I don't care. It won't affect my enjoyment one bit

[Hoosier Red]

I was thinking that if this spreads over to the public universities, it may be the recruiting advantage B1G schools were looking for. ;)

Except for the ones' who have already enacted Southern state like "Right to work" legislation.

[IslandRed]

A few thoughts:


Fundamentally this ruling means that they don't even have to be students. Northwestern or any other school could just buy a football team and pay them and not give them a scholarship or require they attend the university.

Not really. Being an employee and being a student are not mutually exclusive. We haven't necessarily gone from "student-athlete" to "athlete only"; we've gone to "student-employee." Nothing in the ruling compels the NCAA to allow non-students to compete.

The more pressing question is, since current NCAA rules prohibit professionals from competing, and "employee" infers "professional," and the NCAA decides to draw the line in the sand starting with Northwestern... well, we're in lawyer heaven now.

Speaking of which, the main law we may recognize by the time all this is said and done, is the one about unintended consequences.


Not for public schools or in "right to work" states. ;)

As I understand it, right-to-work laws just mean that a football player wouldn't have to join a players union. It doesn't mean one can't be formed.

[CoachBombay]

Tommy T said today out of the 1100 schools who play sports only 25 actually made money.....Is that true?

So what do the other 1075 schools think?

[Kingspoint]

Of course, Northwestern. They have a great Law College.

[Hoosier Red]

Tommy T said today out of the 1100 schools who play sports only 25 actually made money.....Is that true?

So what do the other 1075 schools think?

There's some creative accounting when talking about "only 25" making money.

One example is largest expense is the scholarships the Athletic Department pays to University. I'd be curious to know if English Dept. Scholarships operate same way (Ie the English Dept is "losing money" because it gave out a half scholarship and didn't bring in enough revenue.)

[Caveat Emperor]

There's some creative accounting when talking about "only 25" making money.

One example is largest expense is the scholarships the Athletic Department pays to University. I'd be curious to know if English Dept. Scholarships operate same way (Ie the English Dept is "losing money" because it gave out a half scholarship and didn't bring in enough revenue.)

Generally speaking, the "English Department" doesn't give out scholarships -- most universities operate with a certain amount of money allocated (usually some portion of the interest earned on the University's endowment) for general academic scholarships. And, for the most part, "scholarship" money usually only covers a portion of the tuition for students -- full academic scholarships at universities are pretty rare.

[improbus]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. The most important outcome in all of this is that the players may now have a voice. For example, whenever the NCAA discusses reforms, it might be nice to actually have some students there to be in on the decision.

[BuckeyeRed27]

This is also potentially crushing for nonrevenue sports. Many if not all of those are supported by football and basketball and unless donors step up I can see a lot of schools cutting those programs.

[oregonred]

Exactly. This will hurt a lot more students in the long run. Why should taxpayers and other students subsidize any non-rev sport at a university? Bye bye women's tennis and men's rowing...

Also, expect the weaker conferences to scale back to a lower division or drop football when you factor in stipends, medical payments and lack of actual revenue in many cases (Miami, etc.). Including many of the MAC schools.

Also no reason this won't spread to the lower divisions, most of which are private schools. Bye bye football teams.

Most would agree some stipend should be received in the revenue sports and post-school medical care for football. problem is don't see how the court system would allow those arbitrary distinctions. Hence the game changing and largely negative impact to the non-revs and weaker conferences/schools.

[Caveat Emperor]

I tend to think that Title IX would prevent a school from only giving a stipend to it's revenue-producing male sports without providing an equal stipend for money-losing female sports as well. The courts have been pretty clear that you can't over-fund male sports while providing bare-minimum compliance for female sports. Numerous court cases have ruled on issues such as access to the athletic dining hall, funding for sports trips, and equipment funding must be (for the most part) equal.

So, we're talking about schools paying not only the ~100 scholarship members of the football and basketball team, we're talking about paying an additional 100 female athletes as well. Even if the stipends are modest (say, $2,000 per semester), you're still talking about ~$800,000 in additional costs per year for athletic departments -- and that's probably a best case scenario. If you add on requirements for post-graduation medical care or require that ALL scholarship athletes receive stipends, that number could skyrocket.

[Slyder]

Tommy T said today out of the 1100 schools who play sports only 25 actually made money.....Is that true?

So what do the other 1075 schools think?

There's no way that few schools actually are in the black. There's reasons why all these big business tycoons invest in sports franchises... they're cash cows. I would venture to guess that ~80% of all transactions from buying tickets at the gate to the hotdog you buy at halftime is paid with cash. There are numerous accounting tricks that you can do to hide how much you are actually making because cash is so liquid.

[bucksfan2]

There's no way that few schools actually are in the black. There's reasons why all these big business tycoons invest in sports franchises... they're cash cows. I would venture to guess that ~80% of all transactions from buying tickets at the gate to the hotdog you buy at halftime is paid with cash. There are numerous accounting tricks that you can do to hide how much you are actually making because cash is so liquid.

They absolutely are very few schools in the black when it comes to the AD. Any team who has a football program must have 85 scholarships that go towards women's sports. Off the top of my head I can think of two womens programs in all of college sports that may make money, UConn and UT basketball.

[Caveat Emperor]

There's no way that few schools actually are in the black. There's reasons why all these big business tycoons invest in sports franchises... they're cash cows. I would venture to guess that ~80% of all transactions from buying tickets at the gate to the hotdog you buy at halftime is paid with cash. There are numerous accounting tricks that you can do to hide how much you are actually making because cash is so liquid.

The big-business tycoons are also playing in (mostly) taxpayer-financed facilities. Lots of athletic departments are carrying debt service on improvements made (most within the last decade or so) to their stadiums, arenas, practices facilities and training areas. That's before you even account for the massive costs of salaries for coaches and assistants, staffing an AD and compliance office, the logistical costs of running sports and transporting athletes to games, medical costs, and the tons of scholarship money that must be paid out of the AD funds.

There was a recent article on the subject: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/


At a time of tight budgets throughout higher education, even the nation's few financially self-sufficient major-college athletics departments are continuing to receive subsidies in the form of student fees, school or state support, a USA TODAY Sports analysis finds.

Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of ADs offices require some form of support from the general fund (usually in the form of a "Student Activity Fee" that is billed to all enrolled students and paid, in bulk, to the ADs office) in order to pay the bills.

Athletics are a money loser for most schools in a strict dollars-cents term. A lot of schools, however, view them as something of a "loss leader" due to the increased visibility they provide.

[improbus]

All of this is fine, but all of your concerns about taxes, non revenue sports, and Title IX are missing the overall point. The system is corrupt, broken, and exploitative. It needs to change. There are a lot of smart people in the university system. They can figure it out. It's like saying that I shouldn't fix my torn knee ligament because I won't be able to jump as high after rehab. My knee still needs fixed. Let's do that first.

[IslandRed]

All of this is fine, but all of your concerns about taxes, non revenue sports, and Title IX are missing the overall point. The system is corrupt, broken, and exploitative. It needs to change. There are a lot of smart people in the university system. They can figure it out. It's like saying that I shouldn't fix my torn knee ligament because I won't be able to jump as high after rehab. My knee still needs fixed. Let's do that first.

True, but "how" is the hard part. Devil in the details, cure worse than the disease, all of that. A lot of proposed solutions I've seen equate to "some people's knees hurt therefore everyone has to have surgery." Not referring to you specifically, of course.

[jojo]

Then every TA and research assistant and so on who receives scholarship money in return for services rendered is going to have a huge gripe.

Graduate students on asistantships can already unionize. They are actual employees.

[Newport Red]

First concussions, now their farm system potentially collapsing. What is the NFL to do.

[oregonred]

First concussions, now their farm system potentially collapsing. What is the NFL to do.

Easy, Wednesday afternoon football and expanding the brand with teams in Crimea and Minsk

[Caveat Emperor]

All of this is fine, but all of your concerns about taxes, non revenue sports, and Title IX are missing the overall point. The system is corrupt, broken, and exploitative. It needs to change. There are a lot of smart people in the university system. They can figure it out. It's like saying that I shouldn't fix my torn knee ligament because I won't be able to jump as high after rehab. My knee still needs fixed. Let's do that first.

It's, by definition, not "exploitative" because nobody forces anyone to go to college or forces them to play football. Everyone is free to do what the other 99.9% of college students do -- borrow money and attend as a normally enrolled student.

[Gallen5862]

This will crush non revenue sports. I was a Swim Team Manager at UNCW in the mid 90's. Only a few athletes in Swimming got scholarships. The majority of the men's and Womens team were walkons. If they are now considered employees the teams will not exist. Last May UNCW tried to cut the now 13 time defending mens CAA conference champions and the 3 time womens CAA conference champion team along with 5 other sports.The chancelor ended up saving the teams after a very successful facebook petion drive. If this new union rule was in effect last May the teams would have been eliminated.

[improbus]

It's, by definition, not "exploitative" because nobody forces anyone to go to college or forces them to play football. Everyone is free to do what the other 99.9% of college students do -- borrow money and attend as a normally enrolled student.
No, no one is forcing them to go. But, what else is a 18 year old football star supposed to do? People make the flimsy argument that basketball players can go abroad or to the D League, but football players don't have that option. We have funneled them into a system that takes advantage of them. So, if there is no real choice in the matter, then ipso facto it is exploitation.

As for the "every other college student has to pay their own way" argument, that is just not so. The entire economic model of a college is based on need. If you are someone the college "needs" then you get a scholarship. These are the kids who provide the school with something it wants, be it needed diversity, athleticism, or academics. If you do not provide those things, then you need the college more than it needs you and you have to pay. There are no students who provide a school with more and get less than the elite athletes. They are the most important marketer for many schools. Ohio University and Kentucky didn't need me so I have debt. How many colleges send the states highest paid employee to your living room? Has Nick Saban, a man with at least 8 figures in his bank account, ever done the electric slide with your mom? They want those players. They need those players, and then they artificially cap their value in a way that they don't with anyone else on campus. It's wrong.

[Yachtzee]

All of this is fine, but all of your concerns about taxes, non revenue sports, and Title IX are missing the overall point. The system is corrupt, broken, and exploitative. It needs to change. There are a lot of smart people in the university system. They can figure it out. It's like saying that I shouldn't fix my torn knee ligament because I won't be able to jump as high after rehab. My knee still needs fixed. Let's do that first.

After reading "The King of Sports" by Gregg Easterbrook, I've come to understand how corrupt College Football is, but I think the real problem is the amount of public money that goes into football programs and the effect it has on rising tuition costs. Realistically, what will likely happen if a court rules that athletes should be paid as employees? One thing would be that Congress passes legislation redefining athletes as non-employees or passes somethin akin to an anti-trust exemption that allows the status quo to be maintained. The other is that universities keep college athletics and pay athletes as employees. To help athletic departments with these added costs, alumni donate more money directly to the AD and less to the university's general endowment. To make up the for the money flowing to the AD instead of the general endowment, universities increase the fees paid by students, which in turn leads to non-athlete students having to take out more loans.

According to Easterbrook, there were only 6 college football programs that didn't receive money from their university's general fund. Even profitable football programs are receiving millions from the general fund in order to keep up with the revenues of other teams in their conference. Most of these programs are at public universities, which means students and taxpayers are subsidizing profitable football programs to the detriment of the students themselves.

[improbus]

This will crush non revenue sports. I was a Swim Team Manager at UNCW in the mid 90's. Only a few athletes in Swimming got scholarships. The majority of the men's and Womens team were walkons. If they are now considered employees the teams will not exist. Last May UNCW tried to cut the now 13 time defending mens CAA conference champions and the 3 time womens CAA conference champion team along with 5 other sports.The chancelor ended up saving the teams after a very successful facebook petion drive. If this new union rule was in effect last May the teams would have been eliminated.
I sincerely doubt that this legislation will make it to that level of college sports. My guess is that Men's Basketball and Football will lose their "varsity" status and graduate into something different. The world of UNCW swimming shouldn't be affected.

But, I do think this brings up a larger point. If a school, leadership, alumni, and student body find something to be of value to the school, they will find a way to keep that program (which is exactly what happened here). There are loads of programs (academic, athletic, etc...) at schools that are a net loss to the university. If they find them valuable, they will stay. If not, they will go.

[improbus]

Understood, but I would guess that the people of Nebraska would gladly pay a tiny tax to continue subsidizing Nebraska football because they find it to be valuable to them, the same way they do with libraries, parks, and rec centers. Everything has a value.

[Reds Freak]

When we talk about the corruption of college sports, I assume we're just talking about football and men's basketball. I've always been of the opinion if the NCAA, the NFL, and the NBA could get together and develop a system like baseball, a lot of these issues would be solved. Develop a true minor league system for NBA and NFL teams and allow high school seniors the option of attending college or entering the pro draft. If they choose to attend college, they have to stay at least three years. This would weed out the athletes who have no interest in attending a university and the athletes who are considered exploited. Of course, the NBA and the NFL have no incentive to do this.

[oregonred]

There would be some irony if ESPN killed the goose a bit here. With their mantra to make news and controversy rather than report and show sports - they've been instrumental in forcing the issue. Maybe that's the goal to widdle the field down to 40-50 D1 football programs and the top 100 or so BBall programs - killing the rogue conference channels, specifically the Pac-12 and B1G networks by eliminating a lot of the content provided as 24/7 filler in the non-rev sports?

[improbus]

The most interesting part of the Northwestern case is that the judge ruled that college football players are employees. They fulfill all of the categories occupied by employees. Patrick Hruby breaks the ruling down nicely here.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/70479484/national-labor-relations-board-rules-northwestern-football-players-are-employees-can-unionize

[Caveat Emperor]

Colleges should just do what the rest of the universe does when they don't want to pay people: reclassify the athletes as "interns"

[puca]

Understood, but I would guess that the people of Nebraska would gladly pay a tiny tax to continue subsidizing Nebraska football because they find it to be valuable to them, the same way they do with libraries, parks, and rec centers. Everything has a value.

I assume you are talking state level tax. I doubt everyone in the state of Nebraska feels that way. And what about states that have a large number of Division 1 colleges. Do you impose a bunch of 'tiny' taxes to support all of the schools? At what point does tiny become not so tiny.

[improbus]

I assume you are talking state level tax. I doubt everyone in the state of Nebraska feels that way. And what about states that have a large number of Division 1 colleges. Do you impose a bunch of 'tiny' taxes to support all of the schools? At what point does tiny become not so tiny.

I will never get to that point. I was simply demonstrating how much some of these programs mean to their states. Besides, if I want to win people over to my side of this argument, I don't think proposing new taxes is the way to go.:)

[improbus]

I love that the Northwestern kid came up with the idea of unionizing from a class he was taking called, "Contemporary Issues in the Modern Workplace". As he was sitting in the class, he realized that this stuff applied to him and college football in general. He also talks about being steered away from more difficult classes and classes that conflicted with practice. It would have been funny if his advisor had made sure he didn't take any economics classes or anything with the word "labor" in the title.

[improbus]

One of the potential outcomes of paying players (or at least differentiating their compensation) is that it could somewhat neuter the massive power of head coaches. As it stands, every player with a scholarship gets the same benefits package, which often makes the differentiator between schools the head coach. If the compensation packages change, then the power of coaches might change as well.

Personally, I'm for anything that neuters the head coaches.

[Hoosier Red]

I honestly believe this will have negligible effect on the payroll afforded to most football and basketball players. The truth is that beyond the top 50-100 players, I doubt many players will make that much above their current scholarship dollars.
And I believe that as such, it won't have a big impact on the remaining non-revenue sports because they provide just as much value.
*One exception may be the number of women's progams built pretty much solely to counter the 85 football scholarships.

[Yachtzee]

Maybe the Northwestern players just want to be un-ionized. There's too much static electricity in the locker room.

[improbus]

Emmert, concerning the unionization of college athletes, said, "It would blow up everything about the collegiate model of athletics."

Yep.

[jojo]

Maybe the private institutions could form their own league-the minor leagues which I guess really would only be for football.

[improbus]

One of the things I have begun hearing is that the NCAA is going to give some more autonomy to the bigger schools and bigger conferences. I'm really surprised this hasn't happened earlier. Schools like Ohio State and Texas have really limited themselves by agreeing to play by the same rules as someone like Akron. I could really see some sort of Super Division 1 of schools that can really afford to give more to their players.

In Football, this could easily comprise around 40 schools. Not only would this benefit the kids involved, but it just might eliminate a large chunk of those meaningless games teams pad their schedules with early in the season. My mother in law splits season tickets to Ohio State football, and their home slate of games is embarrassing considering the prices they charge.

Just for fun, here would be my list of schools that would make this cut. Ohio State, Penn St., Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Auburn, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St. Arizona St., Arizona, UCLA, USC, Cal, Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, Kansas, Iowa, and Stanford. I'm sure there are more on the fringes of that list (like TCU, TT, BYU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, etc...), and some that I've just missed. But, if that were a "league" like the NFL, it would be tremendous.

[Yachtzee]

One of the things I have begun hearing is that the NCAA is going to give some more autonomy to the bigger schools and bigger conferences. I'm really surprised this hasn't happened earlier. Schools like Ohio State and Texas have really limited themselves by agreeing to play by the same rules as someone like Akron. I could really see some sort of Super Division 1 of schools that can really afford to give more to their players.

In Football, this could easily comprise around 40 schools. Not only would this benefit the kids involved, but it just might eliminate a large chunk of those meaningless games teams pad their schedules with early in the season. My mother in law splits season tickets to Ohio State football, and their home slate of games is embarrassing considering the prices they charge.

Just for fun, here would be my list of schools that would make this cut. Ohio State, Penn St., Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Auburn, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St. Arizona St., Arizona, UCLA, USC, Cal, Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, Kansas, Iowa, and Stanford. I'm sure there are more on the fringes of that list (like TCU, TT, BYU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, etc...), and some that I've just missed. But, if that were a "league" like the NFL, it would be tremendous.

Just do away with "college" football altogether. The teams that can afford it can go pro, and keep their names and colors by leasing facilities and licensing the name, logos, and colors from the universities. Teams that can't just disappear. The universities no longer offer scholarships for football and can then use their scholarship allotment to men's sports under Title 9 to reinstate all those hockey, wrestling, and men's soccer programs that got cut.

[jojo]

The easiest response is to simply eliminate scholarships.

[WVRed]

Mark Emmert is slowly starting to make me think unionization is a good idea every time he opens his mouth.

On Dan Patrick, said if he was a football player he wouldn't want to be paid anymore than his scholarship.

[Chip R]

No union for the Northwestern players.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/nlrb-ruling--northwestern-players-cannot-unionize-163841276.html

[Caveat Emperor]

No union for the Northwestern players.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/nlrb-ruling--northwestern-players-cannot-unionize-163841276.html

The outcome isn't surprising, but I didn't expect them to punt so readily on the issue of whether or not college athletes are "employees" -- that seemed to be the easiest way to stop this case in it's tracks.