College Players Union - No $$ Discussion
So the existing college players union thread seems to have gone straight to the "Theyre already paid" vs. " but Delany makes BILLIONS" argument, and I think the union goes deeper than that. Specifically, let's leave that money/stipend/pay-for-play discussion in the other thread and focus on what OTHER things NCAA athletes could attempt to bargain for.
Coulter commented that right now Athletes don't even have a seat at the bargaining table. Now, presumably, they will. If I'm an NCAA athlete I have a few things that I'd like to see:
1 - rewrite the LOI with protections for players. Currently LOIs are an extremely 1-way contract, as seen when Les Miles tells a kid who is moving into the dorms that he doesn't have a scholarship. I'd like to see universal transfer rules (eligible immediately if a coach leaves, able to go anywhere out-of-conference) and 4-5 year scholarships
2 - additional year of non-eligible scholarship education: All players get 1 additional year of tuition/room/board beyond their playing years (capped at 5 years). If the NCAA really is about educating college athletes, get them more education. If players are leaving for the pros doing what is best for them, keep them connected to their college and have the protection for the students if the pros doesn't work.
3 - streamlined compliance rules - seriously, bagels = OK, cream cheese = violation. Let's get some players in the room when those rules are being discussed.
4 - recruiting communication rules - same thing. Let the athletes discuss the rules as to how their lives will be changed.
Anything else? There are already practice time constraints. Should there be protections/benefits for interviews/photoshoots? How about player input on "countable hours"?
I used to believe in the argument that a degree is plenty, but after reading about all of these academic scandels is it really? It is extremely difficult for most of these guys to study anything substantial and they are being steered into an education you can't use. Blah blah blah so and so graduated in engineering... some people graduate when they are 15 it doesn't mean it is possible for everyone.
IRS
I wonder what cut the IRS will get from these Unionized employees
lets say 50000 a year for tuition, food, room, board, books and everything else
thats 50000 x .25 since thats 25 percent tax bracket = 12500 taxes
12500 x 4 = 50000 taxes owed
good luck kid
Yes this is money discussion in the no money thread, but whatev...
If student-athletes get reclassified as employees, then the real issue is going to be over what's considered income. And the NCAA will push for as much as they can because they know having to pay taxes on all of that will be a big hinderance for the athletes. Currently (at least I don't think so), they don't have to pay taxes on any of the benefits they get. If all of that tution, etc gets classified as income, they are all going to have big time taxes to pay. That might make a lot of them think twice about being considered employees.
This has been my question about the whole union debate from the beginning. I don't know anything about tax law but I figure someone on the board would know. Do the players at Northwestern, since they are now deemed employees, have to pay taxes for the benefits they have received?
Given the precedents of grad student unions, the answer is most likely no. (not a lawyer) Grad student instructors have been deemed employees at both the public and private level. The vast majority receive tuition waivers either as part of fellowship packages or as conditions of their employment. Those waivers, however, are not taxed.
March 26th, 2014 at 10:21 PM ^
At Michigan, it was clearly understood that grad students were employees when teaching as GSI's and that the tuition waiver was an untaxed benefit that accompanied the appointment. When teaching, you got a W-2, normal payroll withholdings, and a tuition waiver.
This carried across departments. My wife, for example, GSI'd in the History Department while pursuing her MPP at the Ford School. She received a tuition waiver and was not taxed on it.
At the institution I currently teach at, employees receive a sizable tuition remission for their immediate family members (Michigan does not do this, Northwestern does). It is not taxed.
March 26th, 2014 at 10:41 PM ^
Anyone who thinks NU would drop football is dumber than a box.. a really dumb box. In their basic function, unions don't suck all profits until the business cannot be profitable and continue on. That kills the purpose of a union. Unions bargain for rights and benefits so that revenues collected by the business entity are more evenly distributed between the business enterprise and the labor force. NU and a student football union would bargain for exactly this and NU would begrudgingly accept a deal where they continued to make money in many ways, just not as much as before.
For those who would counter that "but the athletic department is not profitable. NU has no money to bargain with" I would suggest you wonder how the hell non-profits spend their money. They are still run as businesses and some even have CEO's who make well into six figures in compensation. This is because non-profit entities are defined by a lack of ownership.. that is no one owns or has the authority to sell the business as an asset and therefore all revenues are directed back into the enterprise, rather than pocketed by owners. Michigan's athletic department makes over $100 million in revenues. The fact that they are a profitable athletic department is of no consequence in a bargaining negotiation. Because athletic departments are not for profit, and reinvest the revenues, it is revenues that are bargained for.
NU would not quit football and shut down a revenue generating machine simply out of spite for having to give players a cut. That is the most assenine, non-sensical business assumption many on this board could ever stupidly make. Pending who gets to belong to the union and what deal is negotiated, the athletic department would simply undergo a restructuring process to figure out how to maximize their position going forward in terms of what sports and employees and facilities would continue to receive what type of funding with a loss of revenues to invest. However, they would never kill their biggest cash cow that funds it all: football.
And as someone else mentioned, what if the ladies want the same thing? They could ask "Why males and not us?" That then would lead to both men and women being paid and the doubling of the cost of paying athletes.
I think it is a possiblity that NU closes down the entire athletic department. Whatever money or attention they made from sports can be made up by more research.(which is really the cash cow at these universities)
You seem to forget that universities basically own these athletic departments. Although the athletic departments may be viewed as non-profits with a football cash cow, to the university itself the athletic department can be viewed as a self-sustaining entity that is increasingly the cause of headaches and a general distraction from their mission as educational institutions.
One doesn't need to be a genius to understand why a university might wash it's hands of it's athletic department...only as smart as a box.
March 26th, 2014 at 10:00 PM ^
The ladies don't generate significant revenues and so unions would not have a signficant interest in unionizing them because the ladies would not be able to pay significant union dues. In addition, the unions representing revenue generating cash cows football and men's basketball would have weakened positions if forced to float weak athletic teams/sports. Thus, union interests lie mainly with protecting the athletes that generate significant revenues where the unions feel current compensation is far less than the athletes deserve. No one at this time is suggesting that women's basketball players are generating revenues out of proportion with the cost of their athletic scholarships.
This argument of "Well if unions represent the dudes than they have to represent the women" or "well if you represent one sport than you have to represent them all" is a horsetrash argument made to make people feel it is an impossible task to compensate revenue generating athletes. At ESPN, personalities are all paid differently according to their abilities.. not their sex or otherwise. Herby is no doubt paid more than the cycling commentator because of his talent and the draw of his sport. No one is advocating a communisty pay scale for ESPN talent. Neither does Title IX or any other function compel any university to compensate recognized employees in such a communist manner simply because it is a school (remember, the NLRB ruled the players "employees").
The school athletic departments would have the option to support the non-revenue generating sports in other ways than the football programs, such as reducing or eliminating scholarships but paying for coaching. However, even if only offered as club sports, you are still going to have women's softball and men's soccer and swimming etc, because kids flat enjoy sports and the revelry that sports offers for fans and alumni always makes it a valuable propostion for universities. Such an evolution of the college football model will simply mean a restructuring of athletic departments to include less multi-million dollar palatial facilities upgrades.
Furthermore, the debate about medical costs sinking football is once again beyond dumb. Unions would not seek lifetime compensation at a rate that is unsustainable from the college football industry because once again it would kill the need for the union. Just like with the concussion lawsuit against the NFL and veteran player healthcare coverage, many complicated formulas would be calculated to provide medical benefits under various circumstances up to a point that would still ensure the financial viability of the venture (college football or NFL) because you need the entity to be able to pay in the future!
Finally, French Indian West, athletic departments being viewed that way (a hassle) is as old as athletic departments. James B. Angell, one of UofM's oldest Presidents and one of the most significant educators in the history of this nation hated Fielding Yost with a passion. He's a big reason Michigan left the Big Ten for a while and developed rivalries with MSU, OSU and ND! He hated college football with a passion (at first he supported it to try to rid the campus of alcohol problems.. only to increase alcohol problems by mixing it w/football!). But he and other academics could not kill college sports because the fans and alumni insist upon it. As long as there is demand from the customers of universities (fans and alumni and students), it doesn't matter what the fuck administrators and academics trump in an ideological manner. Football will always be here to stay.. or the academics in charge who throw their hands up and say "too much of a hassle" will be fired and replaced by Presidents and academics who will bring football back. This is elementary supply and demand, brother.
Unions only care about people that pay dues, or have enough money to pay dues. Unions suck money out of their members. sheesh ! Plus throw in a "fuck" someplace ...
Go Blue!
we're still a long way away from an actual union. n'western will appeal this and whoever loses the appeal will appeal again.
medical insurance and bargaining with NCAA/coaches when it comes to negotiation.
OP had a point--promptly lost--that some issues other than money could be brought front and center if the decision today plays out to mean that students have more of a say in how football programs are run.
That's a mighty big if, but let's pretend.
I think the idea of having students in the room when compliance and communications rules are established is intriguing. These are two areas that are in dire need of simplification, and students would unquestionably benefit from a better understanding of what the rules are.
(I say, naively, thinking that better understanding would lead to better compliance.)
Likewise, reforming the LOI system and scholarship system seem like winning ideas that might get more attention if students had more influence.
Do these issue pale in significance next to the money questions? Are they merely offshoots of money issues? Will they get buried in the discussion of money issues?
Money is the huge and obvious and pervasive issue where unions are concerned, but I think it is by no means the only one.
So if walk-ons can't join the union could the scholarship players go on strike if a coach decides to give playing time to a walk-on over a scholarship player? Also could the scholarship players union implement seniority rules so that seniors get more playing time over freshmen.
What happens when needs aren't met? Strike? What happens then?
Enjoy paying taxes on the FMV of a NW scholarship.
... and player safety. Those are two areas I think players should have greater say in.
Also - how much they practice; practicing in pads, etc.
Travel - how, when, etc.
Union dues??
If the players are truly going to negotiate with the schools/NCAA over some of the items mentioned in this thread, I'd guess the players are going to need some well financed representation in the discussions.
if unions also were allowed at public schools, the fact that michigan is a right to work state would be devastating to the program.
Right to work weakens unions. I don't see how that is worse for the university.
the players could not rely on this precedent, but would have to rely on state labor law. most right to work states prohibit or greatly limit opportunities of state employees, such as employees at public universities, to collectively bargain. that would mean that M couldn't offer the same benefits to players that schools in other states could.
Michigan's Right to Work law amends PERA, but only with respect to its union security provisions. Your point about Right to Work might (but I suspect wouldn't) hold for other states, but it makes no difference here in Michigan.
I'd like to see a form of insurance that covers the athletes against any injuries (that were sustained while playing sports for the school) for the rest of their lives. Did you receive concussions while playing football? Neurological and psychological exams are covered. Career ending ligament tear? All surgeries to repair the ligament are covered? Broken neck? Everything is covered.
I think athletes put too much on the line and end up literally paying for it down the road. This way, athletes are encouraged to report injuries and ADs are encouraged to make sure that the injury is fully healed before sending the player back onto the field/court.
P.S. Sorry for the on-topic response.
But things can change a lot during a lifetime. In 2050, the healthcare obligations to a bunch of 80 year old athletes might even be enough to bankrupt a university.
Can the NCAA just say "Northwestern is not allowed to participate in the NCAA anymore." ??????
But that's not important, because this isn't about the NCAA. This is about a relationship between a group of players and a school. The schools created the NCAA to create a fair playing field between schools.
Now, a lot of the things people here have been talking about are regulated by the NCAA, not the schools, but there, again, the existence of unions at some schools doesn't change the validity of the argument, for instance, that students should have a voice in shaping and writing the rules for recruitment. That's a good idea whether unions exist or not.
a difficulty with LOI changes - when the player becomes a union member. if it is not until enrollment, i don't see how that could be an issue subject to collective bargaining.
As you suggest, the next, and likely most important ruling (apart from the appeal), will be what exactly constitutes the bargaining unit. If it's just football players, then a union certification vote would have a good chance at passing, given the widespread support there seems to be for this measure within NU's team. If it's all athletes at NU, then the outcome of such a vote is much less clear. I don't think it's clear that it necessarily has to be all athletes, but we'll see.
If the unit is limited to football, or even to revenue sports, however, it will almost certainly lead to a Title IX complaint, which would be, if anything, a fascinating bit of jurisprudence.
Based on my very quick skim of the ruling (and it's not long) the chair of the NLRB Chicago branch based his ruling not only on the time demands and other constraints that playing football put on players, but on the revenue that football specifically brought into the university. So that might allow for a football specific bargaining unit (while still allowing athletes in other sports to pursue their own unions), similar to the way that there are different unions for differing employee categories in many institutions. (For those familiar with labor history, the difference between the AFL craft strategy and the CIO industrial strategy).
I would expect that CAPA will pursue the AFL's strategy of trying to discretely unionize different "crafts" within the athletic department and try to get a chapter of just football players certified if the appeal goes through, since the revenue brought in there is greatest.
What happens to a unionization effort in a non-revenue sport isn't clear from the logic of the ruling, nor is it clear what happens if say, women's lacrosse players (to choose an example of a very successful but non-revenue sport at NU) want to join the established CAPA union, as the ruling rests on both work conditions and revenue production.
Any ruling about the proper size of the bargaining unit is pretty far down the road, though, at least past the appeal.
I don't think that bears out, as tuition waivers for grad student instructors and tuition remissions for university employees and their families* have never been regarded as taxable income, but as untaxed benefits.
*at universities other than UM. UM doesn't grant tuition remission to employees, thus the many faculty that begin looking for other jobs when their kids are in their early teens.
March 27th, 2014 at 10:02 AM ^
The reason the reason NU was selected as the university to push for this ruling is because it is a private school, as opposed to a government institution, and thus free from many employment laws government exempts itself. It may be found that as a private entity NU cannot offer the same exemptions as say University of Illinois thus their new employees, scholarship players, are now tax liable. And not just federal IRS taxes, there are also payroll taxes which must be considered.
In any case, it was the NLRB which bought into the argument that the scholarship, room, and board, are compensation for employment, not merely a benefit of employment, thus the basis for ruling that players may form a collective bargaining unit.
Right, which is why I suspect the existing exemption that the post above referenced won't be at play here. This is the compensation, not an incidental benefit in addition to the compensation.
And state and local taxes, plus unemployment and workers compensation premiums.