NYT and ESPN articles on Northwestern FB NLRB Case
It seems a big part of Kain Colter's argument at the first day of the hearing was about how big of a time commitment football is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/sports/ncaafootball/northwestern-quar…
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10479137/first-day-nlrb-hearing-…
From what he says, it's not entirely clear what he himself thinks unionizing will accomplish. One of Colter's biggest complaints was that the time commitment for football made it impossible to pursuie his desired academic track. But that's not something that's going to change even if the players do get bargaining rights - it's not as if they'll be asking for fewer practice hours. All NCAA athletes have to devote a huge amount of time to their sport and inevitably run into the dilemma of conflicting priorities. Even if football is the greatest time commitment out of all of them, where do you draw the line as to which athletes are "employees" and which are not? What's the difference between a Northwestern football player devoting 50 hours/week and a Northwestern women's basketball player devoting 40 hours/week, other than that football has a bigger audience and brings in more money?
February 20th, 2014 at 3:52 AM ^
I think the greater point being communicated by Colter and his specific movement is that, these kids are being recruited to attend an institution of higher learning and then are locked into strict contracts of their coaches exacting standards, which leaves them no choice but to compromise the very education they came for, lest they get their scholarship pulled. And they have absolutely no seat at the table or member representation with the NCAA or the schools themselves.
They seek to be represented.
Even above and beyond that is the millions of dollars everyone in charge of "looking out for the kids" is making in this rigged game. The kids should be able to organize and represent themselves.
Where do I draw the line? Today? Men's Football and Men's Basketball. Women's Basbetball might not be there yet and honestly, I don't know enough about other sports
February 20th, 2014 at 4:13 AM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 7:37 AM ^
Unfortunately, when thinking of these issues, too many people focus on football firstly, and football as they know it secondly.
If you don't think other sports (men's ice hockey, track and field, wrestling, etc.) are putting in the same amount of time as football, you're wrong. The NCAA has time limits on practice hours, and every coach, in every sport, is going to use up every last second.
Yet only football is brought up as exploiting players. The reason being because the players involved are allegedly from poor upbringings and thus "trapped" into playing., and also the sport is popular. But either you're an employee or you're not based on the type of work you're doing, not your social circumstances or the popularity of the sport.
I saw a Kain Colter interview on OTL where he was asked "how are you employees?" And his response was "we're paid. Not in the same way as the rest of the world, but were paid with our scholarship." This statement effectively negates the argument detractors have been making for years that Football players are not compensated. You can't have it both ways--being both a paid employee and an unpaid worker trapped into a rigged system.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:23 AM ^
Isn't that the point, though? Colter's argument isn't that they're not compensated, its that they are employees and that because of that they're entitled to the same protections that employees are, including the right to form a union? People focus on football because the case for its exploitive nature is the strongest, given that the athletes are not afforded the protections of employees while working in a multi-billion dollar enterprise.
February 20th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^
is not the same as saying you are compensated fairly. These students obviously beleive that they should have a representative voice in the process of deciding how much compensation they should receive and I'm not sure they are wrong.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:56 AM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 7:32 AM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 7:57 AM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 8:47 AM ^
"The difference between football and basketball players and other sports is that the university is making money from their labor..."
So, this is really just a greedy grab for a piece of the action on the part of the players? That only the programs that make money are eligable to be raided? That's the impication of your statement.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:32 AM ^
No one has ever disputed that the players are given something of value and have some obligations in return. Universities are claiming that does not make the players employees. Their position has prevailed. Colter is challenging it.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:14 AM ^
"Even if football is the greatest time commitment out of all of them, where do you draw the line as to which athletes are "employees" and which are not?" - from the OP
The key to this portion of the argument, in my own interpretation of this, is not the time committment so much as the structured demands put on players. That is to say, that the way in which the program is run and administered effectively treats them as employees of the department and not as students who happen to play football.
If what Colter told the hearing officer is indeed the case, then there might be some merit to that position - those would tend to sound like a strange collection of workplace rules. Indeed, I have to register my vehicle with my employer (because I work in the field now and again even as a supervisor), my company monitors my Internet activities and I have a dress code that I must adhere to as well, and those are only the start of the similarities. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what CAPA is trying to achieve, but framed the way it is here, that particular argument has some foundation, I would think.
February 20th, 2014 at 8:36 AM ^
while in HS, were required to register their cars with the school system, should they decide to drive to school, and to have their school provided laptops monitored.
Do you suppose that Coulter might have a university provided computer, or at least university provided proprietary software and or computer files? I'll bet at least the latter is the case, and I'll bet at a minimum it is specific to football.
February 20th, 2014 at 7:51 AM ^
I look at it this way: maybe they all are employees, and as employees, get a proportion of profits. Here, other sports will generate more profits, but if your sport doesn't pull in any revenue, no additional benefits will come your way.
But, most of these non-revenue sports athletes aren't on scholarship, which may prevent them from being employees in their entirety
February 20th, 2014 at 7:40 AM ^
February 21st, 2014 at 4:44 AM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 8:03 AM ^
I didn't interperet Coulter's argument as "We want to unionize to have more control over time in our lives," I think that stage of the banter was about establishing themselves as quasi-employees. That's something they need to do to be able to unionize, and bringing up the rigid schedule and payment they receive is basically the only way to do that. However, I don't think that if they suceeded then they'll start slashing practice time in the name of academics. From there they'll start trying to bargain for health care and what ever else was on their laundry list of complaints.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:15 AM ^
This is exactly right, IME.
February 20th, 2014 at 1:45 PM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 9:16 PM ^
There's a lot of stories of players who have to fend for themselves after getting injured and leaving the team down the road (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/kevin-wares-injury-draws-attention-ncaa-healthcare-debate/story?id=18889697) . One of Coulter's points in this hearing was that he had to front the bill for an MRI until it showed that he had a pretty effed up ankle.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:10 AM ^
What would the tax implication be if they were successful and termed as employees? They are getting probably well over $100,000 a year in "compensation" between scholarship, meals, housing, clothing, etc. Would they owe taxes on that entire amount?
February 20th, 2014 at 9:13 AM ^
There is a category of qualified educational expenses, which includes tuition and required books, which gets deducted from income in determining the taxable amount.
February 20th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
Those would paid by the players. Depending on how big the budget is at the school to pay the stipend, there is the potential for an athlete to be in the red in any given month.
February 20th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^
February 23rd, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
I'm almost certain this is wrong, but link?
February 20th, 2014 at 9:31 AM ^
How about the $100,00.00+ per year cost (or double in the SEC) that is spent on each B1G football player annually? Would that be taxable as a benefit?
Should Northwestern get union certification as employees, I was wondering if the time they put in for practice, games, etc would be construed in a manner where they are required to be paid a minimum wage, either the current rate of what it may be raised to, or if there is some form of statutory exception.
The other item I was contemplating was if they were to become certified and the demand for life long medical coverage were granted, just how much the costs would be. It might be hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year per player for the remainder of their lives. The math starts adding up to a staggering sum of money; enough that it might be a game changer for many universities who lose money on athletics (mean all but about two dozen).
I was also thinking in terms of only 85 scholarship players, but in reality, it would include walk-ons, people who have left the program and scholarship players - much larger number than 85.
Northwestern should be very careful what they wish for.
February 21st, 2014 at 9:29 AM ^
That is possible, but the "forgiven" tuition and room and board certainly would be taxable as income.
February 21st, 2014 at 9:35 AM ^
February 20th, 2014 at 5:46 PM ^
The NCAA created the term "student-athlete" after a TCU football player broke his neck in a game against Alabama. TCU consequently dropped his football scholarship and he was removed from school and lost all medical benefits available to him when he was a player on scholarship. His family sued for TCU to cover medical costs that resulted from his paralyzation claiming that he was an employee of the university and workers compensation was owed because of his workplace injury. TCU and the NCAA argued in Texas courts that the athlete had been injured participating in an extra-cirricular activity as a "student-athlete" and was not an employee of the university and thus did not have the right to receive any workers compensation. Of course, the NCAA and TCU won and the athlete and his family had to find a way to medically support his condition for the rest of his life (he's still around).
The origins of the "student-athlete" term lie in the NCAA and the schools' desire to avoid having to pay benefits including essential medical coverage to their scholarship kids.
For more on this check out http://keithdunnavant.com/byline_the_miracle_within.php