Looks like a college players union is here
I doubt it. The year they went to the Rose Bowl their alumni donations went up 10X. They may not have success that frequently, but even if it's infrequent, that's a big jump for a well-off base.
What if that company is owned by a booster? Is that still okay?
You probably have to keep boosters away from the high school kids as far as recruiting goes much the same as you do today. But once they're in a school, my thinking is that if you assume a booster is willing to spend his company's advertising dollars on a player, that player is probably talented enough to command similar money elsewhere on the market. I doubt you'll get boosters paying someone a lot more than they're otherwise "worth" on the market* just to, say, keep them playing an additional year instead of bolting to the NFL, because if they're that good, they'll monetize from someone else anyway.
At least this gives the elite talent somewhere else to look besides those omnipresent "uncles" and sports agent wannabes willing to fork over a little spending money here and there.
*(my personal feeling here is that anything is "worth" what someone, anyone is willing to pay for it, but this is something of a semantic/economic debate, I guess)
Then the free market decides many of the thornier questions that make a pay-for-play scheme otherwise befuddling/impossible to figure out. Who gets paid? How much? Who decides? Answer to all of these in a pay-for-play is far from obvious. But the market is great at deciding these kinds of things. Maybe the students can't use the University logos/uniforms(z) in the ads or whatever, but otherwise, what's more American than hocking products as a paid spokesperson?
The universities do what universities do... provide an education. If the players are talented enough to monetize their skills, let them have at it. That's probably some fraction of 1% of college athletes. Allowing endorsement deals reduces the hypocrisy and under-the-table dealing a good deal more than 1%, I'd wager.
Will the players have to pay payroll taxes on the scholarships? Will they be viewed as independent contractors? If they are considered employees do they even have to be registered for classes to compete? There are many unanswered questions.
Good. If having Brandon has given us anything, it's an up-close look at how a high-on-the-hog athletic establishment operates. And it's not a good thing. Exploitation needs to stop, especially in football with the severe injury risks.
.
You need to get out more if you think this is exploitation. Receiving a college education for playing a spot at a school is not exploitation. There are people literally dying all over the globe from overwork and miserable work conditions. That is exploitation.
This is an unbalanced situation that needs to be reformed. But exploitation? No way in hell.
Have any of you read up on the actual demands of the Northwestern union? They're still required to abide by NCAA rules, so this has no impact on any potential for salaries. That's the fear that the NCAA wants to promote to keep fans on their side. The O'Bannon case might have implications on it, but this doesn't.
This is instead about the right to collectively bargain for non-income-related benefits -- specifically guaranteed medical coverage (especially for a year after the end of playing), greater academic support, and, most importantly, 4-year guaranteed scholarships. As has been noted, coaches can revoke scholarships for non-academic reasons -- "firing" players from a job that allegedly doesn't exist.
All this ruling actually states is that players are employees and that scholarships are salaries. A lot of you guys who are most negative on this news actually agree with the ruling. The fact that employees should be allowed to organize for better benefits is the factor at issue here. And I would think that the limits on transferring further emphasizes how much players are employees and not merely "Students."
I'll go out on a limb and guess that the fear is that this is a can of worms and a snowball that looks to have been given a nudge down the mountain. This, in itself, may not be the exact thing people are speculating about, but this may just be the tip of the iceberg.
It's fair to play devil's advocate here, but I don't believe everyone here is just crying wolf. I think it's understandable for people to wonder if this is a blessing in disguise and the NCAA getting a taste of their own medicine, or if the players are looking a gift horse in the mouth. No reason to beat around the bush, changes may not come at the drop of a hat, but it could eventually send the whole system back to the drawing board.
And don't worry, those idioms are just a drop in the bucket of my whole idiom-repertoire.
Pretty much exactly that's it.
I think players absolutely should get a lot of the things they're asking for, or that people say they should have. If there are gaps in their medical coverage, fix them. If they want protection from being given scummy treatment from scummy coaches, like Les Miles letting a guy move into the dorms and then being told he has no scholarship, absolutely.
And if anyone can name me a union that ever said, "we got what we want, we're good and don't need anything else from you management types," I'd drop my opposition to seeing a union form. There is no demand that, once satisfied, someone will not roil the waters for more. And when they get more, someone else will get less and another (probably male) sport will disappear.
I would also be less concerned about a union if it turns out that all the volleyball players and swimmers and everyone else can get in on the action. That would be real balance. But so far I have never seen an iota of interest from the football and basketball players (such as Ed O'Bannon) for what happens to the other athletes, which is why I hope O'Bannon's lawsuit crashes and burns.
So why couldn't the players petition the NCAA to implement the changes they want. It seems strange to get the NLRB involved and I imagine the IRS might want to take a peek soon too. If college atheletes are employees then it logically follows athletic departments are employers and employers have to get special tax exempt status separately from academic institutions.
Petitions don't usually require dues.
Even if you're for or against unionizing, you have to admit that this is pretty damn interesting. It looks like the time for the NCAA to hide behind the "student-athlete" security blanket is finally over. Even if Northwestern eventually prevails on appeal (which it probably will), the NCAA has some serious problems. Hopefully this blow will force their hand. If not, if they stick to their hard line they are going to end up ruining college sports in the end when things eventually blow up.....
Reading through the NLRB report now. Basics: scholarship football players can unionize and are employees. Walk-ons are not.
— Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss) March 26, 2014
Scholarship football players not "primarily students" according to NLRB decision. Spend more time on football than studies.
— Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss) March 26, 2014
NLRB decision would only apply to scholarship football players at private universities, not public universities.
— Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss) March 26, 2014
Also, Northwestern will appeal the ruling to the full NLRB in Washington. And then the case could make it to the Supreme Court. So this is far from a final ruling.
The argument is probably similar to an intern. Intern's aren't "paid" (e.g. scholarship) per say ergo they are not employees even though they often spend more time working than "employees" do.
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.
at an opposing public school, I'm not certain I want my student-athletes competing with their paid professionals.
Whoops, mods delete this please...
the NCAA forces basketball and football players to attend college en route to a professional career? Baseball, tennis, Golf, players etc. can compete professionally I believe at any age or at the very least 18 yo, why not hoop or football. Why will the NCAA let these particular athletes go pro? Simple, they are non-revenue generating sports. Someone like Jabari Parker could have made millions after HS, like others. Instead he is forced to make money for the NCAA and Duke. You really think they are concerned about his education when they as well as everyone else knows he will not graduate there within the next 4 yrs??? Not at all, they are going to roll in the cash he generates for them b4 he can make a living for himself, just not right. I know this is an exception to most athletes, but it doesn’t take away the fact he should be able to choose a profession like basketball if someone is willing to pay him for it. He can vote, die for his country, but cannot play professionally outa HS like most other sports???
The NCAA doesn't force this, the professional leagues do.
If those guys want, they can "go pro", the NCAA has no control over that. It's the professional leagues that do not allow players in, not the NCAA.
"What about the fact that the NCAA forces basketball and football players to attend college en route to a professional career? "
Umm... Wut?
The NFL and NBA players unions collectively bargained those terms into their contracts with the leagues. They have absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA, and the NCAA has no control over them.
But I have a hard time believing the NCAA has absolutely no say in it, they could figure this back doors. It wouldn’t be the first time two separate entity’s collaborated behind closed doors.
but it seems to be too convient for the NCAA not to b involved in anway shape or form, maybe Im wrong and you are correct, that they have zero influence. So how is baseball diff from basketball? Like i said baseball doesnt generate the type of revenue as basketball so imo the NCAA could care less about them staying. The NBA has a D-league now. What does the NBA gain from them attending college 1 yr opossed to the D-league? Im just trying to understand the diff from sport to sport. I wont argue football and the safety factor but baseball VS basketball?
Is this the end of the NCAA as we know it? Perhaps. Is that a good thing because it is using young men to generate piles of money for the few? Perhaps. If players can be paid, is this a taxable event? It probably is. Then is their scholarship also a taxable event? For me the answer is yes.It is compensation and as such is a taxable event. In the final analysis, does the NCAA and major colleges deserve this outcome because they have "used and abused" the young folks? Probably! Will this ultimately usher in the concept of "play for pay?" Probably. Does this have the potential of making a stupid system a profoundly more corrupt system. YES!!!!!!! Do non-revenue sports, and especially women's sports need to be included. That would be a just, not fair, outcome. If it really all about money, I will begin looking for a Div III team to cheer for because these athletes need to finance their own way and then get a day job after graduation!!!! Just like it should be and just like I did!!! In summary, I am sick of kids complaining that they are being used and abused by the "system." Everyone is abused by some system and can cry about it. Here is a great idea: let us return to the pre-WW II period where only the well off could afford higer education and everyone else got a job or joined the military!
I blame the NCAA and their backwards policies that punish athletes who attempt to make money outside of the traditional framework.
I understand that a lot of the rules are to minimize the impact of boosters on a program. How is that working out so far? From Cam Newton's father getting a mysterious payment for upgrades to his church to Tattoogate, the NCAA policies have failed to provide a deterrent against this kind of behavior. Instead of cutting a check to those athletes in programs that bring in countless dollars to universities (the primary argument against athletes being treated as regular students), the NCAA forced the action underground, almost encouraging the involvement of shady third-parties.
This whole thing would have been a lot easier if players received a cut of jersey sales (Denard would make more than Brian Cleary), video game licenses (Ed O'Bannon says hello), and television deals (revenue sports benefit the most from this).
Greed killed college athletics as we know it. Super conferences. Corporate sponsorships. Denying athletes to make money through a sport that brings in millions to schools across the country. All of it is part of the same deal.
will be the attorneys that will be paid to argue this for years to come. For the B1G probably time to eliminate Northwestern as a conference member, only due to it "non-public" status as a university. Too bad because of all the schools in the B1G - Northwestern probably derives more money per student from its B1G association than any other school. Their football attendance will nose dive if they aren't in the B1G. But defining public vs. non-public as the criteria will force this to happen.
Very sad development for college sports. Incidently - this is the same Board that refused to let Boeing open a plant in South Carolina because of the State's "right to work" laws. Not surprising they sided with the "union" side of the argument.
Go Blue!
This could go either way. If the union is there to help players get the chance to be real students with real majors, and to generally let them be real people and real student-athletes (i.e., free to talk on social media and be 18-22 year olds), and to get guaranteed health care and guaranteed four (or even five year scholarships), then it can do a lot of good.
If, however, it's just a money grab leading to college football and basketball becoming semi-pro with players paid different amounts based on their "market value" and having agreements with schools negotiated by agents and the like, then it's awful.
We'll see. Color me skeptical. My personal principle is what it's been all along: I have no interest in "Michigan" football played by anybody other than Michigan students on scholarship. "Michigan" football with paid players and agents and faux-students would no longer be Michigan football.
I'd wager a bunch of money I'm not alone.
Everyone arguing that athletes already recieve compensation is (seemingly without knowing it) supporting the notion that they should be recognized as employees.
As soon as you stipulate that they are being "paid" for their "labor" and start arguing about whether or not it is at "market" rates, you have already agreed they are employees. If they are employees, they can seek to unionize.
I'm not arguing whether or not it is a good thing (jury still a long way out on that), just that the observation that these athletes are already being compensated for their labor leads to the opposite conclusion from that intended. It means they are employees and can organize.