What Northwestern Players Want
There was a lot of reaction here to the news that Northwestern football players are seeking to form a union.
Their charge is that the NCAA, while raking in extraordinary sums of money through the years, has time and again refused to even discuss affording players basic protections for their services, according to CBS analyst Jeremy Fowler.
"This is about basic services for athletes working 40-plus hours a week on football. They want medical care and concussion reform to accommodate a violent sport. If someone two years removed from the college game needs to repair a knee injury sustained while playing. . . CAPA wants that surgery covered," writes Fowler.
Six billion dollars is coming in over the next 12 years for the emerging football playoff, before TV is figured in.
The question is whether the National Labor Relations Board is going to certify that the players have rights as employees. An "overwhelming" portion of the NW football team has signed on. The article also says that Georgia players are considering taking part.
I don't know if a civil discussion can be conducted about this matter. But I do know that it's important to college football and sports in general. I don't see how, if we're going to mirror the landscape at all here, we can avoid giving this attention. Like it or no, this question of whether, why, and how to remunerate college athletes has legs.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24423121/…
A backgrounder: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/244227…
January 29th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
GSIs are employees and they don't pay their own tuition. In fact, nobody pays it: the University waives it. When (funded) graduate students are on fellowship and so not teaching, their departments pay their tuition. So I'm not sure why you think the sky would fall here.
January 29th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
You act as if college athletes are entitled brats, when in fact they usually work harder than the average college student out of the classroom and, in many cases, keep pace with their peers in the classroom as well. And for all the heartwarming tales here about people pulling up their bootstraps and paying for college all by themselves, the vast majority of UM students (and college students at major universities in general) get financial aid either from scholarships, work-study programs, or parents and guardians. They aren't bearing the direct burden either, and for every person here who actually carries student loans from undergrad I'm guessing a dozen don't because parents paid for it or they received some aid.
Nobody is asking you to feel "bad" for athletes, but people around here are acting as if Denard Robinson wanted to roll around in a Bentley while skipping classes. Nobody on this blog (unless you are Stephen Ross, in which case hello good sir) has done 1/100th financial good for the University as Denard Robinson did during his 4 years, and I'm sure that greatly outstripped the value of his scholarship. But is the University going to pay for his continued rehab of his shoulder if he hadn't been drafted? Nope. And maybe a little closer to home, is Alabama going to provide some type of compensation for the 8 kids that are going to be cut so that they can be replaced by "better" players years into their education? Definitely not. Kain Colter and NW aren't the "enemy" in this situation any more than the NCAA, but it is clear there is a subset that wants them to stop rocking the boat and let me enjoy my Saturdays morality-free
It just feels like a subset of this fanbase has some unresolved anger toward athletes for being, I don't know, better at sports than you. And heck, some of them may be smarter, better dressers, more attractive, etc. They can ask for rights just like you can in your own life against your own struggles, and just because you haven't or are afraid to, don't bitch and moan about someone else doing it. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of watching the athletes on the field play hard and know that the university that they play for won't completely divest themselves of their relationship when their eligiblity expires or the coach wants someone better to take his place.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^
Where in their demands does it say, "we want to be paid!"?
January 29th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^
As an aside, they are already getting compensated: their scholarships. The real argument is how MUCH should a 'fair' compensation be.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
Is player pay the ultimate destination, or is it a bargaining chip that they can give back to the NCAA during negotiations in exchange for something that they really want?
I'm sure they'd love to be paid, but they probably realize it's not reasonable, unlike the rest of their stated demands/requests.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:03 AM ^
about unions do you?
>not to be taken in any political sort of way.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
You're barking up the wrong tree.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
Hey, this receiver sucks. Send down another one.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
What I'd think makes school nervous and hesitant about the long-term care is how do you determine the cause of some of these issues? If it is a concussion, when did the concussion begin, with the first hard hit? Who is responsible for the long-term effects of playing football when someone has been playing football since they were 5?
I do think that specific medical conditions that are sustained during college should require the athlete to receive medical coverage until the condition is resolved, regardless of when the athlete leaves school.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:45 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^
I'm sure they'd be fine with that. You don't think a compensation package for a university would at least cover tuition?
January 29th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 1:59 PM ^
Not everybody has to join a union, and there can be different unions in place with different bargaining positions. They may create a universal one at a school (like GIS unions), but that's not the issue in my eyes. People are already saying this is a horrible idea nad it will fail without giving it a reasonably chance. And it's not like every sport gets the same number of scholarships; lots of athletes get pieces of scholarships and pay the rest. That could be negotiated by the union in the same way.
Again, this could fail horribly, it could be a wild success, or it could be somewhere in the middle. But people who come in and are "I bet they don't understand it would be taxable, and BOY will they be made to look like fools" or "those kids would finally have to PAY TUITION, those bums" seem to be speaking from a bias, not some thoughtful position.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:12 AM ^
What if a player transfers, got one concussion at his first school, and a second, career ending one at the second school. Who pays for the medical expenses then?
January 29th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^
I'm sure in that rare circumstance the schools would have to figure something out. Don't ignore the possibility of this working because of a couple of sticky edge cases. If schools are motivated, they'll figure out these details, just like the figure out multi-million dollar research grants across schools, paying for shared resources, and the hundreds of other business-type decisions major schools deal with on a daily basis.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
So, just thinking about this more, but is is possible that the implications of scholarship athletes being designated employees goes beyond athletics? If a scholarship is considered compensation for representing the university, and thus an employee and protected under the laws (and also taxes, regulations, etc) regarding employement, couldn't a student on an academic scholarship on like a debate team, or solar car team, or working in a research lab then also argue they are an employee? Or hell, any student receiving financial aid? Honestly, I don't really know the legal intricacies of this but that would be an interesting developement.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
Portions of scholarships that cover tution are non-taxable, Room/Board is taxable, however, if they have no other income that usually doesn't amount to enough to have any tax due after standard deductions and exemptions (if they qualify for those). If there are additional benefits added they probably would owe a small amount of taxes.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:47 AM ^
That's as it stands right now, because students aren't considered employees. In order to form a union, the players would have to prove they are, in fact, employees and then be categorized as such. That would mean all of their compensation is taxable, including the tuition.
January 29th, 2014 at 12:21 PM ^
Kind of a tricky topic as there are a variety of ways you can get deductions or credit for tuition paid, so I'm not sure how this plays when the source of the tuition payments is cloudy. It also brings into question the whole practice of sports schollies and limitations if it is considered an employee benefit (also some employer provided tuition assistance is tax-free)
January 29th, 2014 at 3:08 PM ^
Qualified education expenses. For purposes of tax-free scholarships and fellowships, these are expenses for:
Tuition and fees required to enroll at or attend an eligible educational institution, and
Course-related expenses, such as fees, books, supplies, and equipment that are required for the courses at the eligible educational institution. These items must be required of all students in your course of instruction.
Expenses that do not qualify. Qualified education expenses do not include the cost of:
Room and board,
Travel,
Research,
Clerical help, or
Equipment and other expenses that are not required for enrollment in or attendance at an eligible educational institution.
Nobody I knows pays taxes on scholarships that cover tuition. If you want to look into the actual form, you have to figure out what portion of the scholarship counts as being paid for the services provided--I don't know how that determination is made, but it is NOT just 100% of a scholarship. I suspect the scholarship terms would specify that room and board and pocket money are being provided in exchange for athletic and other services rendered, while the tuition portion is not. AFAIK, it is fully within the realm of possibilities for the schools to write the contract that way. Further, since student-athletes would be required to spend the scholarship money on tuition, which is a qualified educational expense, I don't see why the IRS would be committed to ruling that it's taxable income. Athletic scholarships might even get specifically addressed if there were a sea change in policy.
January 29th, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^
You can be a student and an employee. Read the gorram tax code. It all comes down to what amount is listed on their W2s, and there is no requirement (at least not that I can find) that requires 100% of a scholarship to be listed there. One of two examples provided by the IRS is of a scholarship provided for teaching services rendered that is only partly taxable. And you want to tell people I add nothing to arguments around here.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
Instead schools could buy medical plans for athletes for these issues. Schools that tend to have more injuries (ahem Bama) would be charged a rate for the actuarial risk so it removes the benefit of pushing people out medically. Kids would be given very through checks early to identify conditions from high school ball. They are then handed off to the NFLand if the NFL certifies then they are the NFL and players union problem (like a hold harmless agreement). Ones that do not go into the NFL are covered by the college insurance but only for residual damage from playing. This is like the VA model where you show this injury or condition is a result of military service and then are covered.
Schools are then responsible so they will feel more pressure to keep the athlete safe.
January 29th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 1:42 PM ^
...they don't have to play in the first place.
January 29th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^
The latest report I’ve seen said the athletic departments at Northwestern (and Minnesota) had the lowest net income in the B1G. In fact, their net income was zero! Granted, the FB and BB teams should show a better profit. Granted, Northwestern’s status as a private institution may be one reason why the unionization is starting there. Still, as a Northwestern (as well as UM) alum, I had to smile when I heard that Northwestern athletes were the ones spearheading the effort.
I just hope they don’t get greedy and ask for a percent of the (zero) AD profits!
/s
January 29th, 2014 at 8:33 PM ^
If this does fly, think of the financial advantage it will be for universities in right to work states. They will not have to deal with all of this. I believe most SEC states are right to work. Do we have to do something else to give them an advantage? How many programs in the MAC could withstand a significant increase in their operating costs? I think the end result would be the loss of many programs in states that allow labor organization.
In an era where unions are losing their influence, they are looking anywhere they can to gain membership.
I actually think this will be soundly stomped out and the end result will be the NCAA circling its wagons and making sure nothing of this sort occurs again anytime in the near future. Unfortunate result for some issues that have merit....