Board Unanimously Decides to Decline Jurisdiction in Northwestern case
Washington, D.C. - - "In a unanimous decision, the National Labor Board declined to assert jurisdiction in the case involving Northwestern University football players who receive grant-in-aid scholarships. The Board did not determine if the players were statutory employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Instead, the Board exercised its discretion not to assert jurisdiction and dismissed the representation petition filed by the union."
August 17th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
August 17th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^
Most accurate title though
August 17th, 2015 at 12:35 PM ^
Yeah, no false mention of DNA either.
August 17th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
charm
August 17th, 2015 at 2:04 PM ^
You have a great gift for rhyme.
August 17th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^
Yes, yes, on some occasions.
August 17th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^
Third place is always bad i suppose, but in this case...
August 17th, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
August 17th, 2015 at 12:31 PM ^
This is a much more accurate description of what happened
August 17th, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
I didn't get into the posting war of this one. story i read was:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-17/northwestern-football…
no chance of appeal either - found that bit interesting.
August 17th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
I vote to accept jurisdiction!
August 17th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^
"The Board makes no finding on whether the Petitioners will be required to play in the fourth quarter."
jk
August 17th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
The Board has plenty of other battles to fight, I suppose. I'm a little surprised because it's an area to develop new unionized "employees" but I also bet there was concern on taking on such a behemoth and the potential impact it could have.
Others may disagree, but I still don't see them as employees under the law.
August 17th, 2015 at 1:09 PM ^
By statute the Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute 108 of the roughly 125 FBS teams. In addition, every school in the Big Ten, except Northwestern, is a state-run institution.
I believe this was discussed when the story broke that any ruling in favor of the players would by definition have a very limited impact - that is, only on private schools essentially. If it were to happen everywhere else, they'd have to work through in-state channels, I believe - pretty sure that's how it would go down in Michigan in such a scenario. I can see why the NLRB went this route given that really.
August 17th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^
How long til the WalMart bowl at ATnT stadium presented by Halliburton?
America
August 17th, 2015 at 1:27 PM ^
I think the kids at Power 5 schools should be paid too, but your post is a bit simplistic.
August 17th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^
Not trying to start a political argument but when there are so many that benefit from a group like this, the group should be compensated fairly as well.
August 17th, 2015 at 3:00 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^
I don't think appreciate how much these kids get.
This isn't the Pullman strike or Homestead we are talking about here. These kids get A LOT more than those who were in real labor struggles. Housing, food, access to superior training and medical facilities, education, and last, but not least, access to a national alumni/booster network where jobs can be had fairly easily after graduation if the NFL isn't in the cards.
Devin Gardner will never hurt for opportunities. Not just with his intellect, but with the connections he has as the result for playing for and graduating from the University of Michigan.
That said, players at Power 5 schools should get paid $500 a month in discretionary spending as well as lifetime medical treatment for football-related injuries. Perhaps schools could let boosters contribute money to a fund set up for this instead of endowments like the Rocky and Bullwinkle Head Football Coach.
August 17th, 2015 at 3:58 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 5:47 PM ^
Whatever the exact figures, I definitely think something beyond the cost of living allowance should be permitted for athletes, which should be distributed with some degree of discretion (for example, the athletic departments at some schools like Rice or Cal State Fullerton make their money from Baseball).
As a grad student I lived in Ann Arbor using only the cost of living allowance for a few years, and I could almost never get back to my home in rural New England. Even visiting my family for the holidays required that I take on credit card debt (still paying that off by the way).
Travel will get harder and harder for students and their families as we expand our recruiting footprint. Imagine an inexperienced 18 year old kid with no credit history trying to travel to rural Texas or Central Florida during the holidays.
Here is an idea that I would add to yours: For funerals and other emergencies, Rackham offers grad students several thousand dollars that you can access with very little fuss 2 times during your tenure at the university; this fund allowed me to replace a stolen computer and to attend a funeral. Something similar should be in place for athletes (even with NCAA oversight).
August 17th, 2015 at 3:20 PM ^
That group DOES benefit. Apparently you don't think much of a great education, housing, food, books, and superb networks available to the players after they leave. They have a leg up a lot of college grads.
You also neglect to consider the impact these unions would have on smaller schools that are barely getting by as is. Increases costs may mean the elimination of the sport or going to non-scholarship. Considering that these schools make up the majority of college football this would impact thousands of kids, many of whom would not be able to afford college without a footballs scholarship.
August 17th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 4:11 PM ^
I have no idea what your argument is. Why should players only get paid if the school gets TV dollars? And why should the players get scholarships, room, and board if there is no TV money?
Program money is program money. Its source isn't significant.
August 17th, 2015 at 8:15 PM ^
football is a money loser.
It seems to me that it would require further segregation of the cash cows from the targets of university budgeteers.
And I think that segregation would make it even more difficult financially for the targets of university budgeteers as they go from D1 to D1*
August 17th, 2015 at 10:21 PM ^
1. It's of course ridiculous to say that revenue athletes are unpaid. They're getting compensated SOMETHING, which you mention. That's just nowhere near what they're worth in the market place without artificial caps on what they can be compensated. 2
2. Schools would have very little problem paying their revenue producer athletes what they deserve if they cut back on the out of whack coaching and admin salaries, and stopped spending millions on needless facility upgrades that they waste money on because they benefit athletes who would rather just take a paycheck than be able to pee into a gold toilet.
3. Even if it did end up hurting non-revenue sports.....so? Why should revenue producing athletes, many of whom come from poor backgrounds, be forced to subsidize through their hard work the ability of mostly middle class and up non revenue athletes' education? If your sport can't fund itself through donations, TV money, ticket sales and concessions....tough shit. You shouldn't be allowed to just straight up steal the money of revenue athletes who earned it.
August 17th, 2015 at 1:51 PM ^
So you don't consider free food, free health care, free travel, free tuition and free room and board with a value at M of at least 50k a year compensation? Interesting.
I think stars should get some way to participate in the money that their jerseys and images generate, and am for a higher stipend for athletes as well. But as a matter of fact, athletes are already paid. and the money generated by their "labor" is for the most part, returned to schools,and helps non revenue sposrts and students. It is not factual to say they get nothing in return.
August 17th, 2015 at 2:08 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 3:20 PM ^
Just like the rest of us, it lasts as long as we work for a company that provides it. That seems unfair to you?
August 17th, 2015 at 3:31 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^
Workers Comp!
The statute of limitations varies greatly by state. In Pennsylvania, claims can be made 3 years after employment is terminated; does this mean that Wisconsin would gain a recruiting advantage because former students could make a claim 12 years after they left the University? California only covers workers for one year, but they specifically allow claims to be filed for injuries caused by repetitive trauma and mental diseases (chronic encephalopathy?!).
And some states are super weird. . . like in Texas, claims can be made within one year from the date that a former employee should have known that a disease was related to employment.
I'm by no means an expert in Workers Comp law, so I would be really curious if unionization would have opened this particular can of worms. . .
August 17th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^
But life isn't fair, and that's why these kids are fighting for what they think is right for their future. I agree with these kids, and you disagree with us and I still love you.
August 17th, 2015 at 5:33 PM ^
to warm the hearts of people on either side of the political spectrum. Unionized retirees. Public Sector. Corporate CEOs. Veterans, who get health care for life regardless of whether their ailments are related to service. Charlie Weis.
None of them were denied the opportunity to at least bargain for the benefits.
August 17th, 2015 at 6:00 PM ^
Not every veteran, only those who put in 20 years or more, and there's certainly no evidence veterans ever did any bargaining for it.
August 17th, 2015 at 8:39 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 2:11 PM ^
And don't forget about the free training and conditioning in the sport they all hope to turn into a career. Also, while "rich" power 5 schools like Michigan, as you state, fund the non-revenue sports, many other athletic departments run at a loss/don't fully fund themselves. But I do agree, doing more for ALL student athletes is a good thing and especially in areas of healthcare and academic scholarships for those who can't continue playing due to injury.
August 17th, 2015 at 2:14 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 3:05 PM ^
I'm all for expanded/longer healthcare coverage to student-athletes. I'm also all for student-athletes being able to market themselves without some bullshit NCAA rule prohibiting it just like any other normal student would be able to with their own ideas.
Where I draw the line is your type of reasoning for said activities. Who is forcing these players to do such activities? It is THEIR CHOICE.
You're not getting much sympathy from people when you realize how many off the books perks athletes get in college on top of the tuition benefits etc. Everyone and their mother know what they are as well.
Increasing healthcare and allowing for individual marketing should be the farthest we go imo.
August 17th, 2015 at 3:39 PM ^
You apparently think Power 5 schools are the only ones who have football. They aren't. In fact, they are a small minority. Most schools who have football programs lose money or best break even. They use football to sell the school and to help fund other athletic program--man and woman.
Your argument is simplistic and much too narrow in focus. Schools like UM can more than afford to pay their football players. That isn't in question. It's the 90% who do not generate the revenue that the Power 5 does that is in question.If they are required or if their players unionize they probably will eliminate the sport altogether or drop to a non-scholarship level.(DIII) Many thousands of players will lose an opportunity at a free education because of the wants of a few.
Is that fair?
This is a tale of two cities. One is New York, the other Jackson, Mississippi. The difference in wealth is enormous, something which you do not seem to be considering. College football is much more than Michigan or Ohio State. It's Mount Union, Wisconsin-Whitewater, and a thousand other schools from Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon.
Then, of course, we have Title XI. You don't address this issue either in your spiel either. Do we have to pay female athletes as well?
August 17th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^
If we start talking about "fair market value" then the incredibly vast majority of college athletes are going to have to start paying for the privilege. The number of college athletes who are compensated below a level commensurate with the money they generate, it pales in comparison to the athletes compensated far above that.
August 17th, 2015 at 5:45 PM ^
That's what pay advocates never mention (for the record, I'm for more payment/stipend of some kind etc). It's MAYBE 2 guys on the best teams in America that generate revenue by sales of jerseys etc, all the rest literally have zero market value, none. Becauae the ratings would be precisely the same for big matchups, regardless of who is on the field, other than the Denard's Tebows etc. ,
August 17th, 2015 at 4:03 PM ^
The "kids" can always leave school and play professionally, getting paid their market value. No one is forcing them to play for colleges, and, in doing so, accept the stipulations that come with playing for colleges.
I like the idea of the full-cost-of-attendence scholarships, because that benefits every student-athlete. I dislike the idea of colleges hiring professional athletes and compensating them at "market value" though, because that is outside the purpose of the university.
Luckily, we can have both, and athletes can pick whether they want to be professionals or student athletes.
August 17th, 2015 at 4:15 PM ^
August 17th, 2015 at 4:37 PM ^
The NFL is doing no such thing. The NFL only requires draft-eligible players to be three seasons removed from high school. What they do during those three years, the NFL rules don't care about.
August 17th, 2015 at 5:25 PM ^
True but there arent many other high-level leagues for them to play in other than college football. It's hard to get drafted if you havent played in 3 years.
At least in basketball there are european leagues or other foreign leagues that kids can play in instead of playing in the ncaa but the NBA also only has a 1 year out of high school requirement.
August 18th, 2015 at 9:58 PM ^
If there aren't many other "high level leagues" for them to play in, doesn't that kinda disprove the idea that the players' activities are what is responsible for making colleges billions of dollars?
If a high school graduate fotball player is really, in and of himself, worth millions of dollars, then there will be leagues that will pay him millions to play for them. That's called "the market." If there are no such leagues, then the players obviously aren't worth millions, and the whole argument for professional college players getting their "market value" collapses.
August 17th, 2015 at 4:37 PM ^
The NFL is doing no such thing. The NFL only requires draft-eligible players to be three seasons removed from high school. What they do during those three years, the NFL rules don't care about.
August 17th, 2015 at 2:20 PM ^
Athletes are left out to dry if they get kicked off a team becuase of injuries. Once a player has left the team, the team is no longer responsible for that athlete. Then the player is left without healthcare and many are left in bad situations that were caused by playing their sport. There would be much less of a case to be made if we had healthcare for all because the only other argument is the fact that sports bring in a lot of revenue and they aren't allowed a peice of the profit. When coaches make outrageous amounts of money whilst the students are the ones laying everything on the line out there and are not compensated for that.