Northwestern players file petition to form a union
Northwestern players have filed a petition with the NLRB to be recognized as a union. It appears that this was in part led by Kain Colter. Will be interesting to see how this plays out, as this, along witht he O'Bannon case, could have huge ramifications.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10363430/outside-lines-northwest…
January 28th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
Did Trey Burke give up potentially millions in income by coming back for a second season? I'd say he made a bunch of money for himself by staying in school and improving his skill in his trade. McGary, had he not gotten injured, probably would have taken himself from a fringe first-rounder to a mid-lottery pick, potentially making himself millions of dollars. Sure doesn't seem like everyone except the athlete benefits from them being in school.
Who does it hurt? It hurts the same people who are hurt by oversigning and all that crap that we grumble about every day. What happens to the hotshot recruit who signs with Oklahoma State because T. Boone Pickens agrees to sign him to an endorsement deal on the side, only after he struggles his freshman year (probably because of all the non-football commitments he now has), Pickens pulls the endorsement to give to the next hotshot recruit?
January 28th, 2014 at 2:34 PM ^
using McGary as part of a "coming back to school helps you" argument is quite a bit of a stretch.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:53 PM ^
I will say, don't just look at the couple of successful kids and think it works out for everyone. Also, revenue sports get far better treatment than those in non-revenue sports, and even then most aren't treated as gods or anything. Yes, the top kids get treated well as long as they stay on top, but look no further than to the board topic below this one for an example of how some of those same kids can have everything taken away without warning or compensation because a team thinks they are repleaceable.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
It's just that the players aren't being paid directly for them. NFL players aren't either, btw. Same with uniforms in pro sports. Schools don't sell jerseys with player names on them. Northwestern does make millions from football. A million divided by 85 players is less than 12,000. In 2010 Northwestern made 7 million profit from football and they make a lot more than the average school.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
But how much did Northwestern lose in golf, soccer, swimming, tennis, lacrosse, field hockey, tennis, softtball, etc.? Altogether, they field 19 varsity teams, most of which, I'm sure, bleed money. Football allows these other sports to survive.
Moreover, if you pay football players, you've got to pay everybody. I can't imagine that an all-male sport, with 85 scholarships, would be allowed to get special treatment like that under Title IX.
January 28th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
People like to talk about programs "making millions" but actually, most athletic departments aren't profitable. Even Michigan has run deficits before. Football alone is usually profitable (though probably not at a school like EMU), but most other sports aren't, so football money has to pay for them to keep running. I don't know how you could pass a rule allowing football/basketball players to be paid but not players in other sports. It would almost certainly run afoul of Title IX. In any event, it would be a huge extra expense and probably cause some nonrevenue sports to be dropped.
I think that even if the current arrangement isn't satisfactory for 100% of athletes (I do think it's a good deal for the vast majority of them, who won't be professional athletes down the road), the "cure" would end up being worse than the disease.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
Exactly. So where this will lead us it that revenue sports will continue, because they'll be able to afford to pay their players, and non-revenue sports will either go away or become club teams.
If paying players becomes part of the financial equation for universities, opportunities go away for everyone but Football Players, men's Baskeball Players, and an equal # of women. They are the only ones who will play for money/scholarship. If the union is going to represent "scholarship players" and increase the costs for those employees, there will end up being fewer of them.
Will be a sad day for all those students who are enriched (personally and through scholarship) by participation in gymnastics, baseball, field-hockey, volleyball, hockey, and all the others.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
The problem with the idea that "well, they get an education out of it" is all the evidence that most of them don't get a great education specifically because of the requirements placed on them by the teams and staff. We joke about schools like Alabama and LSU not caring about their athletes, but UM doesn't graduate an amazing number of kids either, and LOTS of guys barely get through just so that they can remain eligible. A degree from Michigan doesn't write you a golden ticket to success; hell, there are lots of graduates who aren't athletes who have trouble making use of a collection of classes. But that's a different arugment.
It would be a financial burden, but so is paying a HC millions of dollars for what, on the surface, is teaching a bunch of young men how to play football and be students at the same time. Honestly, you add $5M to the athletics budget and you can probably give every athlete in every sport at a school a nice little sum of money to pay for simple things like food and entertainment without it being extravagent. It's not perfect, but big schools at the very least can afford it, or if they can't then figure out where you are wasting money and make changes.
January 28th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
A lot of athletic departments do not make money. You start throwing into the equation more compensation for players on revenue producing teams and even fewer athletic departments will be profitable.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
Gatorade and Nike (and others) pay big bucks to be sole products so it isn't free. The agreement takes into account that they are essentially buying eyeballs at a game or when a player is seen.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:23 PM ^
50-100k? Try at least 250k a person at least for an FBS football player. That's at least 75k a year... They essentially make more than the average American just based on benefits from their college. Tuition, books, food, room and board, trips around the country, meals for those trips, gear, tutoring, free personal training from the s&c staff. Not to mention the opportunity to make a living for the rest of their lives either by a normal career and a chance to go to the NFL to make millions... I think these kids get a HUGE gift for their talents; and they get this gift as an AMATEUR football player....
January 28th, 2014 at 1:14 PM ^
But they don't get $250k in their pocket; most of that is money spent by the school to train them, feed them, pay the tuition that they offered as part for the athlete to sign up to that school, etc. I don't live in a company town where my options for use of those funds are limited or I get "store credits" that ultimately go back to my employer. Heck, other students who get scholarships with compensation attached aren't limited on where that money goes. But with athletes, we basically tell them "here's a bunch of money on paper that we decided we want to give you, but you'll not really see it except that you won't have to pay for some stuff that we require you to take part in"
It's not a perfect system, and I'm not saying college athletes don't get some benefits, but they aren't rolling in BMWs and living the high life that these naked numbers assume.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^
Accounting trick?
If they don't want to go to school don't go to school. They are getting a free education that everyone else sitting next to them in class pays for. For an out of state student that is probably over $40k by now. I would have taken that in a heart beat and been damn thankful for it. It means that their parents are $40k richer or they have $40k in less debt. PER YEAR. Not to mention I actually had to fill out an application and wait to get a result - there's a lot of kids who would die to get into the University of Michigan and that's an enormous benefit, especially if your grades alone would otherwise not allow that. What's the difference if you pay him cash and he goes down the street and drops it off at the registrar's office - the account trick you speak of is so the athlete doesn't have to do that. That's all.
The biggest reason why you are wrong though, aside from the economics, is that if the scholarship and room and board were not qualified the IRS would count it as income and the student-athlete, or family, would have to pay income tax on it. That is the tax code specifically says this type of income is not really income when otherwise it would be, EVEN IF CASH IS NEVER IN-HAND.
The free room and board is also certainly something they would have paid for on their own if Dave Brandon had not forced them by gun point to partake for his amusement. The other students with sompensation attached get it to pay for room and board. Again I see no difference in the student paying the landlord directly or telling the landlord to go take care of it through the AD.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:55 AM ^
1) Don't presume everyone else in the classroom is paying for his/her education. Hell, if you get into Harvard and your parents make less than $250k/year (which would make you one of the top 1-ish percent of earners), you don't pay a full ride. UM has LOTS of scholarships and other means for financing your education, some with way fewer strings attached than being an athlete.
2) My issue with the accounting "trick" is that they aren't giving the athlete the money free-and-clear to do what he wants; I don't give a crap about the semantics about whether or not he walked down the street and hand over a check versus the school doing that for him.
3) I understand all about the IRS. Yes, the student would have to pay taxes on it - welcome to the real world. But the government doesn't tax them at 100%, so you pay said taxes with some of that money. And there are lots of tax breaks and other concessions made for education, so most of that money spent in hand would probably still not be "taxed" in the final calculus.
4) And athletes aren't judged based on their abilities when scholarships are handed out? Many of them would "kill" to be able to play at UM and aren't given a chance because someone better comes along.
Again, my issue with everyone isn't that the athletes don't get a good shake, it is this pervasive sense from people that the athletes have it made and they would "kill" for the opportunity without even fathoming the idea that the setup may be slanted way towardthe school and some athletes aren't happy with it.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^
They should play naked and drink water? They have to dress and hydrate to play the game. A game they played for fun and always will unless they turn professional. The school would be foolish to not to have send them a check and the latest free sportswear, that cost you and I a fortune, for the palyers to wear. I also, accumulated a 100k in student debt. What they should get is a long-term disability insurance.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:21 PM ^
The money from these kids lines the pockets of the universities.
Bullshit. The "money from these kids" pays for other scholarships and the facilities that these kids go googly-eyed for as well as the coaches whose job it is to convince the kids to play for them. "Line the pockets" my ass, you make it sound like it goes into a big treasure room somewhere. There are lots of well-reasoned arguments for loosening the purse strings in the direction of the athletes but making it sound like "universities" are personified by some greedy cigar-chomping Bernie Madoff types isn't one of them.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
This is what I've been saying for ages. How many corruption problems do you hear about in college baseball & hockey compared with football and basketball? It's miniscule. Set up a quality minor league & preserve the integrity of the college game.
The trouble with this, of course, is that it would definitely lessen the on-field/court product of the college game, since many of the best players would go to the minors, get paid, and try to make the big leagues that way. Still, college hockey & baseball are still quality games to watch & have loyal, devoted fanbases. Certainly everyone here on this blog would still watch Michigan football even if Grand Rapids had a minor league football team with some good up-and-comers on it.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
Can't pay for themselves let alone the entire athletic department. Even if all of the farm/jr players were in school playing under the NCAA.
This is an issue with Football. It is a huge revenue generator and you can't apply the same logic to other sports, grad students, etc.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
In 2010 it made more than basketball I believe, albeit with a huge assist from football season ticket holders.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
That seems hard to imagine given how much college basketball brings in in television money alone.
It's splitting hairs though - it's true that hockey can be profitable.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
But that's my recollection from the time.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
Yeah I also hate it when engineering students get paid in the summer commensurate with their engineering skills and I hate it when film students make films in between semesters and get money for their skillsets. THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN! The best way they can represent their schools is to be grossly underpaid and suck it up.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:48 PM ^
what I've been saying for years. Not every kid is cut out for college..... a lot of kids choose which college they attend on scholarship as to how it relates to their NFL draft status.
IMHO this is not what the college game should be about, it was originally created to give kids who did not have the financial means necessary to obtain a higher education the avenue to get a college education.
If you had a pro league for 18 to 23 year olds you could pay those kids whose sole goal is to get to the NFL. Those kids who know the value of a college education could still go that route.
This way everyone wins, the kids who want to get paid do just that, the kids who seek a degree can do so. I feel that college football is being loosened upon more and more as a developmental league for the NFL and is somewhat losing its luster.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^
I agree with. I had trouble watching college football this year. There is something seriously wrong with the product when I stop watching because I am a hardcore fan. I don't know if your suggestion solves the problem or exactly what the problem is but I came away from this past year feeling like I had really had enough it. I enjoy college basketball (random games, not just limited to Michigan games) a hell of a lot more than college football right now.
January 28th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
Not everybody wins in this situation. Not everybody wins in minor league baseball or hockey, either. The minor leagues in all sports are filled with players who think they are good enough to make it to the major leagues but never do. Those kids are definitely not winning. The NFL (or NBA) isn't going to start paying kids 6 figures to learn how to play their game.
The NBA already treats a 22 year old college graduate as a senior citizen, why would they have any interest in paying kids to play in a minor league until that age?
January 28th, 2014 at 10:50 AM ^
Or it could help to stop situations like this... http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2014/1/27/5349996/2014-roster-lookahead-the-number-crunch
January 28th, 2014 at 10:47 AM ^
to join the All Players Union (APU) solidarity movement this past season.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
ya think being in Chicago is simply a coincidence ? /s
Go Blue!
January 28th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^
NW is the logical first step, as public schools have more protections than private schools.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:40 PM ^
CAN SOMEONE DO A WRITE UP OF HOW MUCH OUR PLAYERS WOULD BE WORTH?!?!?!?!? Seriously though. Can this happen? Has it happened? It would be kind of cool..
January 28th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^
I don't think Title IX will be a factor anymore if this happens as the athletes will be "employees" of the University.
January 28th, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
You think Northwestern boosters would be able to "even the play field" against the SEC, OSU, Oregon, USC, etc.?
Do you know how stupid that sounds? The gap would be widened even more.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:42 PM ^
I just watched an interview with the NW QB and when asked how northwestern players are "employees" he stated "we're paid to play. We're paid in the form of a scholarship."
Doesn't that statement then go against football players? You can't argue on the one hand that players deserve to get paid and are providing a free service to a billion dollar industry, and on the other hand that you should be allowed do unionize because you're a paid employee....
January 28th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
Get some popcorn; this should be fun.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^
its like the Dude said "a lot of in's, a lot of out's, Maude"
January 28th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
January 28th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^
Which has always been the key point of contention on this issue. Not an MGoLawyer in this space, but seems to me this has more legs for the publicity it brings to the issue than as a real threat of a national/regional players' union.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
Kain Colter FEELS like he is an employee/worker for Northwestern. Who are we to tell him that what he FEELS is incorrect?
/s
January 28th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
He agreed to play in return for a scholarship, not pay.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
You are correct. He signed an amazingly one-sided contract that was created by the other side with almost zero protections for himself. Now he wants to help be an advocate for himself and other players and this is a problem?
January 28th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^
Agreed. No more free labor. NCAA's been running this scam for years. I wish the Northwestern kids well.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:52 AM ^
how this works at the collegiate level. Did somebody put a gun to his head forcing him to sign the contract?
January 28th, 2014 at 12:02 PM ^
But do you really think LOIs are fair to athletes? How about that the NCAA makes money every time they show Desmond Howard striking a pose? Desmond makes $0 from that image because the NCAA demands that players give up their own damn likeness forever when they sign an LOI. Well sure, Nick could go pro. How many of us on here lament kids who pick the OHL over college hockey? Happens all the time.
My job has some restrictions too. I can get drug tested for example. But why are there extra restrictions on athletes compared to every other student?
College athletes have 3 choices:
1. Stay silent, let suits make millions, get your degree, move on
2. refuse to sign LOIs/sit down/strike during games
3. Try to change the rules of the relationship
I don't blame them for getting tired with #1 and moving on to #3.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^
the primary one being to not sign the LOI, withhold his services and stick it to "the man".
January 28th, 2014 at 12:22 PM ^
What happens? That kid gets screwed, like you said. He'll have made a stand and doesn't get to go to college.
What if 100 athletes did it? Or 1,000? Or say, a group started unionizing to help change the rules? That might actually help the athletes some. It's almost like some of them should file a petition to start a union...
January 28th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:05 PM ^