OT, for now - NLRB regional official says Dartmouth hoops members are school employees
A National Labor Relations Board regional official ruled on Monday that Dartmouth basketball players are employees of the school, clearing the way for an election that would create the first-ever labor union for NCAA athletes.
The school can still appeal the regional director’s decision to the national board, which is what happened when members of the Northwestern football team held a union election in 2014.
In that case, the NLRB did not address the question of whether the players were employees.
The article also mentions similar complaint filed at USC by the basketball and football teams. It seems the officially official end of college sports amateurism is nigh.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:14 PM ^
Crazy times.
February 6th, 2024 at 10:01 AM ^
Crazy is the lack of regulation guidance and basic structure for most, if not all, NIL programs across the country. Can't wait for the non-complete clauses lawyers will cook into a 18 year old's contract to go into effect, thus completely removing the ability to use the transfer portal. I'm only half-kidding but not really...
I know we all have different feelings towards Bo Schembechler but I was reminded of this now seemingly prophetic sentiment during his famous "The Team" speech when he said:
"Because you can go into professional football, you can go anywhere you want to play after you leave here. You will never play for a Team again. You'll play for a contract. You'll play for this. You'll play for that. You'll play for everything except the team..."
I'm gonna go pet my dog for a while and forget my favorite sport has become the NFL junior league. Only a matter of time before you see the starting RT position posted on Indeed.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:14 PM ^
Warde Manuel will have to pony up a lot more transformations after this.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:39 PM ^
He may need some transfiguration after this.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:16 PM ^
OT, I also saw this today: https://twitter.com/dartmouth/status/1754499928250859528
February 5th, 2024 at 8:16 PM ^
Get ahead of this shit Ono. Once Moore has his staff in place fire Warde and bring in your best guy to lead us going forward. Pay these kids the $100mil tv surplus we refused to pay Bakich or Herbert.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:19 PM ^
Yeah, pay the money they deserve.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:28 PM ^
We need an NFL style GM, not an old school athletic director. That's the future.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:22 PM ^
Yup. Warde clearly still thinks the year is 1985. He needs to go yesterday
February 5th, 2024 at 9:48 PM ^
Joel Klatt had a similar perspective he shared on his podcast today.
February 6th, 2024 at 9:27 AM ^
25:44 mark talks about how the future org chart should go AD -> Football GM -> head coach, NIL expert (equivalent to NFL capologist), etc. In that model, the coach focuses on hiring coaches only, and the GM handles everything else.
February 6th, 2024 at 8:24 AM ^
So, for an athletic department, which earned $4 million for the 2023 year, with Title IX still a closely monitored area, where is all of this extra money coming from?
February 5th, 2024 at 8:24 PM ^
I'm glad football won it all before the shit hits the fan hard.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:18 PM ^
With all the changes about to take place with coaches, realignment, and CFP expansion. This season really feels like a series finale.
February 6th, 2024 at 9:18 AM ^
I think that depends on what you mean.
College athletes finally being allowed to earn fair compensation for their work is an unambiguous positive and should be the way things are.
If you mean that Michigan won’t be able to compete in an environment where athletes are paid employees, that will only be the result of our university leadership’s stubborn, shameful, and embarrassing refusal to adapt.
February 6th, 2024 at 2:54 PM ^
Well said BN. It is our choice to take "Leaders and Best" money and make it result in "We just cant compete".
That is a decision we will have to make.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:47 PM ^
This ought to be an interesting year
February 5th, 2024 at 8:49 PM ^
The Regional Directors report to the General Counsel who has taken this position for some time. (An RD brought a case against USC, the PAC-12 and the NCAA alleging they are all employers of athletes who are alleged to be employees under the NLRA. That case is ongoing.)
The Board itself still has to rule on the issue. Assuming the Board finds student athletes to be employees, the case would go to the federal court of appeals and, possibly, the SCOTUS. Unless congress acts and modifies the NLRA.
The USC case will be interesting.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:52 PM ^
Keep in mind that the Board only has jurisdiction over the private sector. Public employee unionization a state by state issue and might require legislation in order for players to be able to do this.
so many fascinating scenarios - blue states are more likely to allow public university players to organize. If players have it better at schools in those states, will those teams thrive? And will red states be forced to allow public employee bargaining in order to recruit players who otherwise would go to a state where they can participate in bargaining? Interesting, indeed.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:57 PM ^
That is one of the interesting aspects of the USC case. True, USC is a private school, but the argument is that the conference and the NCAA are also employers. If that argument holds, the Board could assert jurisdiction over state institutions.
February 6th, 2024 at 9:25 AM ^
If ‘crootin is the decisive factor that finally forces red state legislatures to allow public employees to collectively bargain, that will be one of the most hilarious, awesome, and quintessential college football stories of all time. Perfection.
February 5th, 2024 at 8:59 PM ^
We'll see - NW got a win like this about a decade ago and it didn't stick on appeal.
But more generally, the NCAA has been able to keep this ruse of amateurism going for way too long and I suspect it'll end reasonably soon though perhaps not through court order.
February 6th, 2024 at 9:38 AM ^
I myself had forgotten what happened at the end of that case. It’s mentioned in the AP article OP linked.
The Board declined to rule on the question of whether or not NW football players were employees and ordered the ballots destroyed. They said because NW was the only school in B1G they have jurisdiction over (because it’s the only private university in the conference) they couldn’t make a ruling because it would skewer the labor market in the conference.
With all Ivies being private, it’s unlikely an appeal ruling could be based on similar grounds.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:03 PM ^
If they are classified as employees, then they better be ready for the responsibilities that come with it. Soon there will be no more "Unpaid student athlete" excuses to shield them from criticism for on field play or off field conduct. They should be judged the same as any professor, janitor, or office employee would be judged. There is so much that comes with labelling student athletes as employees.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:17 PM ^
There is so much that comes with labelling student athletes as employees.
You mean like:
- showing up on time
- spending whatever necessary hours are needed to get the job done
- fiercely competing against any and all competition
- doing exemplary work
- representing the firm with loyalty, honor, and pride
In other words, just keep doing everything they're already doing, but actually earning a paycheck for their efforts.
February 6th, 2024 at 11:13 AM ^
I totally agree with your sentiment. On the flip side, they'll be state employees so those values don't apply.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:22 PM ^
I think they already do get a fair amount of criticism
I do wonder if this leads to players getting cut for poor performance
February 5th, 2024 at 9:37 PM ^
They already get cut for poor performance either directly (Alabama style) or indirectly (being passed over and leaving through the portal).
February 5th, 2024 at 9:30 PM ^
Read a game thread (or twitter) and tell me these kids aren’t already being criticized. This is some grade-a pearl clutching
February 5th, 2024 at 10:38 PM ^
Finally! I can complain when college athletes don't perform up to standards or expectations, along with the other 110K fans in the Big House. Been waiting patiently for this day.
February 5th, 2024 at 10:23 PM ^
I think that student athletes--especially those playing a major sport-- already have received more "criticism" from the general public (i.e. drunk, mouth breathing psychos screeching at them both online and in person) than 99.999999999% of all other "employees." The one exception being front line, minimum wage (or close to it) service workers.
Like, I had no idea there was this magical shield protecting a college kid from savage wolfmen descending onto their social media pages, harassing them non-stop because they made an oopsie in a sportsball match. Someone should tell every college football and basketball player ever, because they have not been using the magic shield correctly.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:34 PM ^
So weird. Are high school athletes "employees" of their schools? I get that — at some schools — varsity athletes generate tons of money. But at lots of schools they don't. At Div. 2 schools? The field hockey teams?
I'm not saying I disapprove/disagree, necessarily. Just ... strange times, indeed. Why not simply share the profits those athletes actually do generate — TV rights, merchandise, etc. — without requiring schools to pay them salaries, or repeatedly hinting that, in addition to supporting the giant TV deals and buying the merchandise and buying the actual tickets, fans also need to pony up direct cash payments?
This is a f***ed-up situation.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:37 PM ^
Are students in the Music School "employees" because the school sells tickets to their concerts? Certainly the school puts demands on them. Does that transform them into employees?
I would need to see a lot more of the NLRB's reasoning, and there's an inevitably a lot I'm not thinking of, but this is strange.
February 5th, 2024 at 9:51 PM ^
It sounds like this might have the opinion of one person - but, I'm not sure.
It will be interesting. And, of course - there are Title IX implications with revenue sharing as well
Hopefully, someone is thinking about a solution instead of compounding the problem.
February 6th, 2024 at 8:08 AM ^
I really appreciate that you're bringing up interesting and difficult questions without also immediately forming strong opinions. Everyone needs to take a step back and really think about how this whole thing is going to work.
February 6th, 2024 at 9:15 AM ^
The thing is, the massive revenues that are currently withheld from the football and basketball players does not have an avenue to be paid to them by the universities. Pointing out that they are employees and compelling the universities to treat them as employees builds that avenue to pay them. Once that avenue is built, a reasonable amount of the otherwise egregiously misallocated money will find its way to the players.
Music school students are probably not employees because their bake-sale-level concerts don't generate enough revenue to fund anything more than part of the reasonable cost of administering the music program. You could try to argue that the university AD's need every penny of their $65 million per year of TV money to reasonably support the football program, but that argument would be flawed, because that budget constitutes a professional team.
February 5th, 2024 at 10:58 PM ^
Seems like this is focused on private colleges and universities for now.
I'm all for unions and professional status and CBAs and formalizing the compensation package when it comes to revenue-producing sports.
It's going to be difficult to come up with a union that can represent both USC basketball players and Dartmouth basketball players. I guess it works for Hollywood (most actors aren't getting paid like Tom Cruise and Jennifer Lawrence).
I worry, though, that if costs for non-revenue sports increase - especially at the majority of universities that rely on student fees and the government just to have a sports program - that this will end up eliminating most varsity sports programs, period. Title IX doesn't help you if no one is playing anything, except at the club level.
February 6th, 2024 at 9:21 AM ^
If the big concern is universities not having enough money as a whole to support on campus athletic programs, we're going to be OK. From FAU to Washington State to U of M, and everywhere in between, one stroll around campus will prove that there is a mountain of cash flowing very freely to support the university and it's desired programs.
February 5th, 2024 at 11:10 PM ^
If this hastens the demise of the NCAA, I am on board.
February 5th, 2024 at 11:11 PM ^
Maybe Warde is Inspector Clouseau.
He will have hoarded $100MM that soon can be spent directly on the players.
