Bust a CAPA Comment Count

BiSB

Colter

Colter pulled a hamstring during this press conference

If you hadn’t heard, Northwestern’s football players won a court thingy yesterday. NLRB Regional Director Peter Sung Ohr ruled that Northwestern’s players meet the definition of employees, and can therefore form a union if they wish. You can read the ruling here, but why do that when I can summarize it for you with amusing banter?

Bring in the inquisitive bolded alter-ego!

Hey, you can’t tell me what to do. You’re not my boss.

Well that’s the question, isn’t it?

God you are insufferable. Okay, fine. I’ll play your game. GEE WHIZ, WHAT HAPPENED?

Well, to understand fully, we need to go back to 1935…

/sigh

…when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act. Under the NLRA, private sector employees have the right to join unions and to collectively bargain for stuff like wages, salary, better candy in the vending machines, and for the boss to stop using words like “synergy” and “Tiger Team.” The catch is that it only applies to employees. The NLRA, for example, doesn’t give students the right to form a union. A person is an “employee” if they perform services in exchange for payment, and are under that person’s control. What the NLRB regional board ruled was that Northwestern’s players do football stuff for Northwestern, as directed by Northwestern* (in the form of the coaches), and in return are compensated with a scholarship and things. In short, Northwestern’s football players are employees of the University.

MIchigan Union
Kind of.

*other than the defensive secondary, which the NLRB noted “did not seem to understand what a ‘deep half’ was supposed to look like, and displayed an utter disregard for the coaches’ directions to, quote, ‘just look for the other color jersey and guard someone, anyone, goddammit.’”

But the players aren’t paid. They just got to go to school for free and eat some free food and stuff. How are they any different than a normal scholarship student who does biology things the way the biology department says?

That was the University’s main argument. They claimed that the players were more like Graduate Assistants, who aren’t considered employees under a previous NLRB decision (Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004)). The court said that the difference was that GAs aren’t employees because their relationship to their various universities is primarily educational. In other words, your PoliSci GA is simultaneously teaching and studying PoliSci, so they don’t count him as an employee for the teaching part.

The ‘work’done by  football players, on the other hand, is completely unrelated to the educational mission of the school and to the athletes’ studies. The university doesn’t get any educational advancement from what football players do (though Northwestern seriously tried to make the argument that playing sports enriches the student experience, and sports are therefore educational, which is exactly as bad of an argument as it sounds).

Instead the school receives gigantic piles of money from what football players do. The school’s interest is economic, not educational. Moreover, they said that the players are not “primarily students,” as they spend up to 50-60 hours per week** on football duties.

ryanfield2

Cool to see so many people excited about education

**Real hours. No one other than the NCAA gives a flying crap about the hilarious differentiation between “countable hours” and “non-countable hours.” Mike Rosenberg still sucks.

[AFTER THE JUMP: More union talk. Plus a Sad Pat Fitzgerald GIF]

So who does this affect?

Not as many people as you might think.

  • We’re just talking about football players = This doesn’t automatically make the Northwestern Swimmers Local 113 a thing. The way the ruling is written, it’s pretty clearly limited to football for now.
  • Walk-ons aren’t people –  Okay, they might be ‘people.’ But because they aren’t compensated the same way scholarship athletes are, because they have more flexibility than scholarship athletes, and because they don’t sign a tender, they aren’t covered by this ruling. You may continue to throw mud on them.
  • This only applies to private schools – If you were paying attention above in the boring legal section, the NLRA only applies to private employers. Public school athletes are covered by various state laws regarding public sector employees.

So cut to the chase: how much are Northwestern players going to get paid now? And what IS the going rate for the run-of-the-mill Unstoppable Throw God?

We’re like 31 steps from there. This isn’t a ruling that gets players paid. It isn’t a ruling that changes anything about the game or the player obligations or team rules or jerseys. It doesn’t even create a union at Northwestern. All it does is declare that Northwestern players CAN form a union, and that the union (if created) will be empowered to negotiate on behalf of the players.

This isn’t about pay-for-play. CAPA has listed its goals, which consist of:

wu_tang_financial
You’ve gotta diversify your bonds.
  • Improved medical coverage;
  • Protecting player brains and whatnot;
  • Improving graduation rates;
  • Allow players to commercially exploit their own likenesses if/when the NCAA removes the stick from its institutional rectum; and
  • Improving due process rights for rule violation punishments.

Notably missing are “cash rules everything around me,” “get the money,” and “dollar dollar bill y’all.”

But this breaks college sports into a billion tiny pieces, each no larger than Tom Izzo, right?

According to the NCAA, yes. According to logic, shut the hell up NCAA.

First, despite the fact that it has become a Key and Peele parody of an SNL parody of itself, the NCAA continues to exist, and its eligibility rules are still in place. If CAPA formed a union tomorrow and demanded that Northwestern pay them an additional 7 cents per hour, the players would become ineligible. Now, granted, the NCAA has mountains of its own legal troubles already, but the nature of the interaction between Northwestern and its athletes is completely detached from the NCAA.

Some (including John Infante) have wondered whether this would put either schools’ or the NCAA’s non-profit/tax exempt status in jeopardy, but I don’t think so. Non-profits can have employees, and they can do things that make money. The vast majority of sports would still be amateur, so I don’t think it’s a problem.

Of course, the NCAA came out with one of their usual “holy shit you actually pay these people to communicate with the public for you on purpose” statements in response to the ruling (which has been appropriately fisked by Sippin on Purple). They continue to conflate the issues of athlete pay with athlete negotiating rights, because John Q. Fan doesn’t think college athletes should be paid, but is generally okay with athletes jointly deciding to try to avoid rhabdo and concussions a little bit.

NCAA

These guy, man.

Doesn’t this mean that scholarships are going to be taxed?

Maybe. Probably not. But definitely not right now. Multiple tax experts have given different answers to this question, and I am not a tax lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, and without going too deep in the weeds, the IRS decided a long time ago that it was not going to tax athletic scholarships. IRS Revenue Ruling 77-263 states that athletic scholarships are excluded from gross income.

If the Universities and the newly-unionized players don’t make any significant changes to the compensation structure, there is no reason to expect the IRS to change its stance. You see, the IRS doesn’t much give a Chipotle-induced crap about what the NLRB says, and the NLRB couldn’t care less about how people treat income for tax purposes. One of the first things you learn in labor law is that an employee is an employee whether you label them an “employee,” a “student-athlete,” a “compensated volunteer,” or "haberdasher's apprentice." It is the facts that control, not the labels.

1040
Generic taxation picture

Plus, here’s the kicker: under Rev. Rul. 77-263, athletic scholarships are taxable if they can be withdrawn by the universities in the event the athlete quits his chosen sport. So, on a plain text reading, athletes should be paying taxes RIGHT NOW. If Brady Hoke can pull a scholarship from a kid who decides to quit football (and I think that’s a pretty safe bet), Michigan football players should already be counting their scholarships as income. But one thing a union can potentially do is get the school to enforce its four year guaranteed scholarship authorized by the NCAA, which WOULD bring them back within the tax-free zone.

Like I said, weeds. But the bottom line is that the people who set and interpret the tax code are subject to political pressure. They aren’t going to put themselves out there as the monsters who obliterated college football over a tiny tiny tiny amount of tax revenue. It’s a theoretical risk, not a practical one.

I’ve gotta ask: what is the big deal?

The practical effects are interesting and could potentially affect a few parts of the athlete/university relationship. But for me, the bigger issue is a more fundamental one.

People have asked why the NLRB thinks athletes should be employees, and that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. The NLRB isn’t saying football players should be treated like employees. They’re saying that football players ARE employees. The NCAA has been hiding for years behind the theory that because these kids are “student-athletes” (a term the NCAA made up to avoid liability), the normal rules don’t apply.

Yesterday’s ruling was a pretty clear indication that those arguments are crap. You have an industry that makes huge amounts of money. You have a labor force that is highly skilled, drawn from a very narrow pool, and that spends more than a full time job worth of time on the job. The company’s income is largely based on the performance of the workers. They are under the complete (and damn-near dictatorial) control of their supervisors. And they are compensated to the tune of $50,000 to $75,000. And you ask people to believe they aren’t employees because you created a useful fiction that lets everyone sleep better at night? Shove it, sir. Shove it hard. When you see the facts on paper, it’s impossible to reach any other conclusion without adding some external consideration; “but think of what it will do to the game?”

We tend to let a lot of things slide because we love sports so much. We like physical sports, so law enforcement doesn’t get involved when a player comes up behind a guy from behind, knocks him out cold, and whacks him in the neck with five foot long wooden stick in front of 6,000 witnesses. We enjoy the NCAA football video games, so we played along with the amusing theory that Michigan’s quarterback just happened to wear the same #16 the stores happened to be selling for a few years. We even try to talk ourselves into the idea that maybe football isn’t as dangerous as it’s being made out to be. But with yesterday’s ruling, at least we can say that the legal system can still see through Mark Emmert’s steaming fiction.

What happens now?

Northwestern will almost certainly appeal the ruling to the full NLRB, and I don’t have a clue what happens there. Lester Munson seems pretty confident the ruling will stand, but a labor attorney friend of mine was more skeptical and pointed out that the NLRB doesn’t like rocking the boat, so who knows. In the meantime, the players can vote immediately on whether to form a union. Only the currently-enrolled scholarship athletes are eligible to vote.

Can we get the promised Sad Pat Fitzgerald GIF?

Comments

ChalmersE

March 27th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^

This is going to take a while to resolve, probably a year or two. After the full NLRB makes a decision, either side can take it to a US Circuit Court of Appeal. After that, the losing party can attempt to get the Supreme Court to weigh in.  The Supremes are not obliged to take it, but there are enough sports fans among the nine justices that I wouldn't be surprised if they took it. 

bluebyyou

March 27th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^

A couple of points.

Seth, while you say the players request "improved medical coverage" which I assume to mean post-collegiate coverage for injuries sustained from playing football.  For a 22 year old player, this means about 60+ years of some form of HC insurance including musculoskeletal injury to say nothing of CTE,  I'm not sure what the present value of that number is, but I suspect it is six figures and the first digit might not be a one. Premiums for health care and long term care have gone up way faster than inflation for decades.  In essence, this demand is as financial in nature as being paid an hourly wage.  Would the benefit be taxable?  I have no clue, but since it is a benefit that is received after a player's career, I suspect it could well be taxable.  

If football players unionize and want certain benefits, why not every athlete in every sports program?  That's about 900 kids at Michigan.

funkywolve

March 27th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^

Like you said, depending on what that encompasses that could be a HUGE cost to the university.  Among the many things that could come of that, two stand out in my mind.  The first is that the univeristy(s)/athletic department will need to find new revenue to offset those medical costs.  I'm guessing the fans will be looked at as one of those revenue sources (higher ticket prices, higher concession prices, etc.)  The second thing that could occur is depending on what the university(s)/athletic deparments anticipate those long term medical costs to be, they might have to sit down and decide whether maintaining a football program is in the best interests of the school.

Blue Mike

March 27th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^

I don't see how the long-term health coverage can work.  Other than obvious injuries like ACL tears and broken bones, how can you pinpoint that something from your college career is responsible for symptoms years later?  Take CTE: every hit from the time a player was in Pee Wee contributes to that condition.  Who is responsible for paying for care then?

The NFL is starting to run into the same issue.  i can see having schools guarantee medical coverage while you are a student, but once you leave the school, the coverage should stop. 

readyourguard

March 27th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^

If the crux of unionization is based solely on the 5 bullet points described, then fine. But it won't be. I see a plethora of loophole scenarios playing our, such as: If scholarship becomes guaranteed, some kid will quit football, transfer, and demand the full value of the unused portion of his guaranteed scholarship. Or kids choosing schools based on video game sales dollars attributed to a particular school Or, literally a thousand other ridiculous possibilities once unions start collective bargaining. As a former non-tendered college athlete, I think we've just crossed the wrong threshold.

Leroy Hoard

March 27th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^

I'm not a labor lawyer, but seems to me one of the most significant benefits in this for the players is their eligibility to require workers comp to be paid in the event they are "injured on the job". 

funkywolve

March 27th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^

Workmen's comp is used to help people who have been injured and thus cannot work and receive a paycheck to have some sort of money coming in while they cannot work.  If a player is hurt while on the job but is still receiving the same benefits provided by his scholarship when he is injured and unable to play, would he be eligible for workmen's comp?

funkywolve

March 27th, 2014 at 12:33 PM ^

Could that not become a gray area? 

The player says 'Hey, I lost my chance at playing in the nfl cause I got hurt while playing for the univeristy'. 

The university could then come back and say (depending on the player) that there is no guarantee you would have found work in the nfl.  OR, could the university not say that the injury (depending on the injury)  the player has sustained is not one that should prevent them from finding meaningful employment at a job related to what they majored in at school?  Because no one is majoring in football, right?

ST3

March 27th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^

If the players, "meet the definition of employees," won't they have to be paid under federal minimum wage laws? And if they are paid, they are no longer "amateur athletes," meaning they are no longer eligible to play NCAA football. Frankly, I could see Northwestern deciding to go the way of the University of Chicago and the Ivies. 

Pandora's box has been opened. College football 10 years from now is going to be vastly different.

wile_e8

March 27th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^

Isn't the gist of this ruling that scholarship players are already paid above minimum wage in the form of athletic scholarships? Which is why it only applies to scholarship athletes and not walk-ons. And if the NCAA thinks scholarship athletes are not amateur athletes, they would stopped that long ago.

ST3

March 27th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^

I found this at the department of labor website


The Full-time Student Program is for full-time students employed in retail or service stores, agriculture, or colleges and universities. The employer that hires students can obtain a certificate from the Department of Labor which allows the student to be paid not less than 85% of the minimum wage. The certificate also limits the hours that the student may work to 8 hours in a day and no more than 20 hours a week when school is in session

It's pretty clear they have to be paid. I don't think scholarships count. Exceptions are made for tips for waitresses, but that's still monetary compensation. If they are paid, they are no longer amateurs. The NCAA and/or Congress is going to have to deal with this.

 

ST3

March 27th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^

A scholarship is not an hourly wage. Maybe the NCAA and Congress will rewrite some laws to try to maintain the status quo, but as is, I think the Northwestern players who filed the suit can now rightly demand that they be paid, in actual dollars.

BiSB

March 27th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^

Many, many adults are paid annual salaries, not hourly ones. You just have to receive sufficient compensation such that:

[total dollars paid] / [total hours worked] > [minimum wage]

In a state with a $10/hour minimum wage, a $60,000 scholarship package is above the minimum wage for someone working 115 hours per week.

ST3

March 27th, 2014 at 3:05 PM ^

The law deals with salaries:

Executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees: (as defined in Department of Labor regulations) and who are paid on a salary basis are exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA.

But those are still wages. I can go buy whatever I want with money. I can't do that with my scholarship. If they change the system to say, here's X thousand dollars, now pay for your tuition with it, OK, that's reasonable. What they are doing instead is providing you with a benefit in lieu of a wage. It's akin to claiming that health insurance or retirement benefits are part of your total compensation and can sum up to the minimum wage. I've never heard of any company trying that.  

UMich87

March 27th, 2014 at 7:12 PM ^

with your scholarship.  I don't get it.  It's like getting paid in coupons redeemable for Starbucks coffee and nothing else.  Doesn't feel (or taste) like wages to me.  Guess I will dig in and read the opinion. 

Gameboy

March 27th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^

I just hope this is the first step towards a long winding road to getting rid of athletic scholarships all together. Instituting that has led to all this. I would be perfectly fine watching a game between walk ons. If I wanted to watch professionals, I would be watching NFL.

Sambojangles

March 27th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^

College sports started without athletics scholarships. I'm not a historian (and unfortunately never got to take Bacon's class) but from what I remember, the first sports teams were clubs that got together with others to compete. As it got more popular and organized, they hired coaches, athletic directors became a thing, then the Big Ten and NCAA were formed to regulate it all. Still, the athletes were still true "student-athletes," as in students who happened to be athletes at their school. Athletic scholarships started as academic scholarships schools offered to get better players, which started recruiting. Given how important recruiting is, and how competitive schools are for the top players, I don't see how we can go back to the days of all walk-ons.

This is all based on my recollection of the limited reading I've done on the subject. If anyone has more details or correction, feel free to leave them for me.

WolvinLA2

March 27th, 2014 at 12:11 PM ^

I don't totally disagree with you.  I kind of wish I was a fan or Cornell or something because Ivy League sports seem to much more pure than all of this.  

The big problem with that?  Michigan would start getting spanked.  Michigan is an expensive school and it's tough to get in.  Schools like Florida State and LSU would smoke everyone because kids would always play for their in-state school so no one would have to pay out of state tuition.  We'd still have our QBs probably, the Glasgows, and probably most of our linebackers.  I don't know if Countess's or Peppers's or Poggi's families are paying 50k a year for Michigan when almost anywhere else would be cheaper.  

Although Notre Dame would probably suck worse so maybe that's a fair trade off.

Erik_in_Dayton

March 27th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^

You take away football as a source of upward mobility if everyone is a walk-on.  People complain about football players getting into places like Michigan only because they're football players, but I think it's a good thing.  Sports are a way for a kid who maybe didn't go to a good school or have an educationally supportive home life or whatever to make it somewhere that they can be in a structured environment surrounded by talented people, many of whom want to share their knowledge and experience.  I would never sacrifice that in the name of purity. 

jmblue

March 27th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^

I would be perfectly fine watching a game between walk ons.
Frankly, I wouldn't. I wouldn't pay to see a club sport being played. I respect club athletes, but have no particular desire to see them play. The quality of play right now is good enough to justify my viewership of varsity sports, but if it went down to club-level play, I'd get bored.

bigmc6000

March 27th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^

So if/when the whole NCAA folds in on itself for at least football and it turns into a mini-NFL and we're talking salary caps are you guys still going to hate the NCAA as your way of making a living is pulled out from under you?  You can't seriously think that the rabid fandom that defines college sport is going to continue on when it's just minor league football can you?  What makes college football unique and such a draw is because of the pagentry and pride in your school.  When it becomes about who has the best marketing branch and we see college players getting into the same trouble as the professional teams sites like this one will cease to pull in the ad/donation $ they do today.

 

I'm not saying "don't bite the hand that feeds" but it seems odd to me that a site that exists 100% because of the NCAA is so strongly against it. It's short sighted if you don't think that turning Michigan Football into an NFL D-League would result in a massive decrease in fandom.  Out of curiosity - how many "fan sites" are there for the NFL and how many of those make enough bank to actually support making a living?  Is there any sport in America where you can build a fan site for one particular team and bank enough to actually bank roll having multiple employees without actually being a part of that organization?

 

 

ijohnb

March 27th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^

stance is completely understandable and most people share in your sentiments.  However, the problem is that what college football would become if it goes all the way down this road is not a reason that the problem inherent in college sports should not be addressed.  In essence, the argument comes out as "I know it is all wrong but I really really like" and that is not an argument at all.  The key to keeping college football from becomming nothing more than a minor league pro team lies not in an appeal to consider how bad of a product it would become but in making minor tweaks to address some of the most paradoxical elements of the college system while not blowing the entire thing up.  I actually think this is a move toward a rational approach of trying to tidy of the student-athlete narrative so it no longer involves everybody flat out lying to themselves about what they are watching and what major college athletics actually is.  I don't see the doomsday scenario that you envision.

In reply to by ijohnb

jmblue

March 27th, 2014 at 12:49 PM ^

In essence, the argument comes out as "I know it is all wrong but I really really like" and that is not an argument at all.

Disagree with this. I think the status quo is a good deal for most college athletes. Most aren't going to play professionally, and even those do may not necessarily earn enough to live off of down the road. The chance to get a degree (from an institution that you may not have otherwise been qualified to attend) and graduate debt-free is a big deal. The value of that scholarship is compounded as time goes on as you carry no debt while your peers are spending years paying it down.

The status quo is really only a bad deal for the small minority of genuinely marketable guys like Trey Burke or Denard Robinson - players that fans genuinely tune in to watch. They can't earn what they otherwise could because of the amateurism rules. But there aren't that many athletes like that. Even in football, most guys are basically anonymous to the average fan. Channing Stribling and Joe Bolden are good players, but they individually don't move ticket sales or sell merchandise.  They are part of a program that makes money, but they could be replaced with two other players and the program would still make money.  Their association with the program, in the long run, probably benefits them much more than what their presence benefits Michigan.

 

Erik_in_Dayton

March 27th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

...replaceable and irreplaceable.  Guys like Tommy Hendricks and Jeff Backus did not - as individuals - cause people to watch the 1997 football team, but they collectively made that team a national champion, which made the school money.  Those guys would have been easier to replace than Charles Woodson, but they wouldn't have been easy to replace.  They offered a rare set of skills that relatively few players around the country could have provided. 

jmblue

March 27th, 2014 at 1:12 PM ^

In 1997, Backus was a redshirt freshman and was a solid player, but not the star he would later become.   Hendricks was a true sophomore and also a solid player, but wasn't a difference-maker.  Who's to say that we couldn't have recruited two other players in the 1996 class and still gone 12-0?

Charles Woodson, Brian Griese and maybe Glen Steele - those guys were truly indispensable.  Without any of them, it's probably another 8-4 campaign. (Although even then, an 8-4 Michigan team will still sell a ton of tickets.)  Only Woodson was truly a marketable guy.  Not that many people wanted to buy a Griese or Steele jersey.

 

Erik_in_Dayton

March 27th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^

But he still offered the following:  1.) He was a decent starter that year by Big Ten standards; 2.) He was a good enough student to be academically eligible; 3.) He wanted to play for Michigan. 

Could other guys have filled that role? Sure, but not that many (100 around the country?). 

Michigan makes money by winning.  They can't coast on past success for that long.  And guys like Backus helped Michigan win. 

A good analogy here might be non-star NBA players.  Could the Heat win without Mario Chalmers, Shane Battier, and Chris Anderson?  Probably, but they did win with those guys.  And the Heat obviously thought well enough of those players to pay to have them around. 

 

ijohnb

March 27th, 2014 at 1:45 PM ^

To your first reply, I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but college football has become SO big that what you are saying is turning into the fine print.  The headline reads "College football players make everybody rich but themselves" and the rest doesn't matter right now.  The disparity between what college football stars make for everybody else and what they get in return is too big.  It is now recognizably a travesty due to the short shelf life of pro football player and that in some ways, their college football years are their "prime."  No matter how good of a deal it is for certain players, the gap between what should happen and what does happen is too big and they no longer can create a narrative to support the current status quo.

In reply to by ijohnb

bigmc6000

March 27th, 2014 at 12:52 PM ^

This site, as well as many others, seem to think that we watch because of the players not because of uniform. I'd say the exact opposite is true.  Most people don't watch because they want to see Denard or Devin, they watch because "It's Michigan"!  We could field a HS team and we'd still make money - that doesn't mean that our players are all of a sudden worth a lot less than they were before. The base value is arguably 90 - 95 because it's Michigan, not because of the players in the uniforms.  We've had great teams, we've had crappy teams and all the while we're still making money. The only logical conclusion to draw from that is that the Michigan brand is the driving factor in what makes the money - not the people in the uniform.  If you want to make the argument that the people in the uniforms have anything to do with it then you should go with the bonus structure. The players on the team split a % of the money that university gets for going to a bowl game - the bigger the bowl game the better the payout. Since they want to be treated as employees then welcome to the real world. Your company can pull in 100M and, guess what, the guys in the suits are going to get 95% + of that even if you and your fellow peons are the ones who put in all the hours to get the work done. Maybe if you're lucky you'll get a decent raise or a nice bonus but that's just hoping.

 

The other issue that no-one seems to care about is how to quantify the value of free publicity that the players receive.  How valuable is it to be the starting QB at UM from a career perspective? I.E. Doesn't being the QB at UM have some instrinsic value when it comes draft day? Sure there are the workouts and such but I think we all know that being the QB at a major institution makes getting drafted and getting noticed a heck of a lot easier than going to UTEP and trying to get drafted.  So, in that sense, the University is paying for all of that and helping promote you to your future employer.  What other institution in the world gives you world class facilities to help you hone your skills so you can leave the company in only a few years?

 

Let's just keep with talking about benefits - the cost to my company to employ me includes having an HR group to support me, my computer, computer support, computer programs (40k a year for what I have), my phone, my health care, etc etc etc. I think, in this era of insane health care costs, you'd find that the "value" of being a college football player is, AT LEAST, 30k+ more per year just because of the value of their health care plan (free and best care $ can buy). 

 

Basically, the university could, for example, allow Gardner, Funchess and a few other high end guys picket and, guess what, life would go on and we'd still go because we watch Michigan football beause it's Michigan football not because of the name on the jersey.  How many people stopped watching Michigan football when Denard graduated? How many stopped watching because they didn't like Denard?  People watch, and the university makes $, because of their brand.  The rest of the schools will come to the same conclusion and, in the end, some guys will end up in the NFL right after HS but the majority will end up with a free ride and their 70k+/year compensation package they actually get and hope to eventually get drafted in the NFL.

GhostOfPosBang

March 27th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^

 

First, despite the fact that it has become a Key and Peele parody of an SNL parody of itself, the NCAA continues to exist

 

On the other hand, why wouldn't it? No snark, either. Why shouldn't the NCAA exist?

MinWhisky

March 27th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^

If you want to be real, most (I'm guessing 75+%) of the football players in major conferences, like those at UofM, are already majoring in "football".   Their current "academic major" is really of minor interest and value, long-term.   I wouldn't like it, but maybe there is a strong case to be made for creating a degree that truly reflects this situation.  UofM's entrance and graduation requirements would certainly look very different.  

wolverine1987

March 27th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^

Whenever someone says that, They are too far gone in their idealogy to be objective IMO. Sorry BISB, I respect you and your writing and enjoy it greatly, but the fact that a guy made a ruling does not in fact mean the arguments are invalid. Like all administrative bodies or judges, the guy is guided by and influenced by an idealogy that may or may not be compelling.

BiSB

March 27th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^

Obviously it's just my opinion. But If anyone can make a reasonable argument that, given the facts we're looking at, that football players DON'T meet the definition of an employee as set forth in common law.

  • Do football players do work?
  • Do they do that work for the benefit of Northwestern?
  • Does Northwestern control how they do that work?
  • Are they compensated for thaht work?

They're employees.

Now, you can make PLENTY of arguments that they SHOULDN'T be employees. Or that we should overlook it because it's a unique set of circumstances that should be granted some sort of exception. But in any non-sports-related setting, Northwestern's arguments would be laughed out of the room. These guys are employees under the definition we use for everyone else. Full stop.

m83econ

March 27th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^

Once you've applied those tests and determined that scholarship athletes (yes, eventually it will apply to all athletes) are employees, it will not be very long until compensation received is considered taxable income. 

CooperLily21

March 27th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^

Maybe so, and all lawyers are trained to come up with an argument on any issue no matter what (see all criminal defense lawyers everywhere) but sometimes deep down inside we know that argument is a loser.  I could be wrong but I think what he's saying is that the argument against football players being employees of the school is a loser if you really look at the definition of an "employee" and put the college football profession through the NLRB test. 

Maybe if you start getting into a public policy argument CAPA loses but we all know what happens when the public policy arguments pop up in oral arguments:  That's when the whores come in .... (i.e. the law is not on their side).

[EDIT:  BiSB beat me to it.]

MGoChippewa

March 27th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^

then the NCAA just needs to get blown up and college athletics need a fresh start tailored to how things will function best.  Things have become so fucked up now, that any solution might be so complicated it just creates brand new issues.

CooperLily21

March 27th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^

Good shit as usual, Ghost Face Killa.

My favorite part of this whole thing is the NCAA press release and the fact that is electronically signed by their CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER!  LOLs  Reading his statement actually made me dumber, lowering my opinion of the NCAA even further (if that is even possible).

Hey NCAA:  I have no experience in sports/entertainment law but I'm pretty sure I'd be an upgrade from your current CLO.  Make me an offer I can't refuse.

Yeoman

March 27th, 2014 at 3:29 PM ^

Wittenberg University.

More than 30% of the students play varsity athletics, 65% are in intramurals.

I'd post an overhead picture of a Wittenberg football game for comparison to Northwestern but as far as I know no one's ever sent a blimp over Wittenberg to take a football picture. Suffice to say that there are almost as many players on the sideline as there are fans in the stands. (OK, that's an exaggeration. But not by much.)

They're not doing this for the revenues; they're not doing it for the fame it brings the institution. They're doing it because they think physical education of students is an important part of their mission. Their recruitment packets for prospective students don't show students watching a sporting event, they show them playing, because that's what a Wittenberg education is supposed to be about.

There's a line between Northwestern and Wittenberg, and I don't know where it is. But the argument isn't simply "risible" when it's applied to academic institutions in general as opposed to D1 football and basketball powers.