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 1:46 PM ^
Anything to improve the well-being of the players and sets them up for better futures (which is really the promise of a college education) makes sense to me.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
That is what I find incredibly upsetting about this entire debate. It's initial premise of "should athletes be paid" is in itself false. Athletes are paid. They are paid with some of the best educations in the world--educations that will open up more doors and opportunities for 98% of them than their athletic skill ever will.
By saying athletes "should be compensated", you're essentially saying the Michigan degree is worthless. As an alum, I find that insulting.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
I severely dislike unions and feel they are pointless these days.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
The staggering amount of wealth and income disparity in this country disagrees with you. And that's all I'll say for fear of the policitcking ban hammer.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:16 PM ^
..."larger than the rest of the developed world" would simply be a fact.
January 28th, 2014 at 2:09 PM ^
This is the god damned USA.
January 28th, 2014 at 4:47 PM ^
Agree to disagree
January 28th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^
I don't claim to be an expert in labor law, but I thought you had to be an actual employee of the institution to organize. Are student-athletes classified as employees? If indeed they are, get ready for pandora's box to bust loose...(pay, medical, dental, vision, etc). I'm sure NU officials are cringing right about now, this could get interesting.
January 28th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
Please go to twitter and take part.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:00 PM ^
I support this not because I necessarily think players should get paid more / less / differently, but because I think they need to be part of the conversation. Maybe the current model is the best compromise, but when they are given one take it or leave it option when there is no viable alternative path to a pro career in football, I don't think that is right.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:18 PM ^
But it's the "free market", provided the definition of "free" is limited to labor.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
Hats off to these kids. One of the most exciting and positive bits of news I have seen in days.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:21 PM ^
The article suggests that the Northwestern guys are arguing that they are employees of the University who work for wages which are paid in the form of scholarships. (Section 7 of the NLRA is clear that only employees have the right to unionize.) Let's say that the NLRB (and maybe the federal Courts of Appeals or Supreme Court) to determine that they are right and that all NCAA football and basketball players are all employees working for wages.
Doesn't that mean that the IRS will come calling looking for their share of the value of the scholarship (plus benefits like clothes, food, housing)? A quick Google search showed tuition was $43,380. IIRC, the IRS can go back three years. Have they actullly thought about how they, and all other athletes, are going to come up with the tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes that the IRS will claim?
(FWIW - I don't think the decision can only be prospective.)
January 28th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
My understanding (based on a limited understanding of tax law) is that rule changes like this can only be prospective, or at the very least there can't be penalties because the actor obviously didn't break a non-existent rule. I'm guessing that any ruling would recognize the player's status once they joined the union, not just because an argument being made is that they are employees and thus should be able to join a union. It creates a weird legal gray area because not everyone needs to join a union, so would those non-union members still be subject to all the regulations that go along with the unionization?
January 28th, 2014 at 2:52 PM ^
This wouldn't be an IRS rule change. The NLRB would find that college football players are employees. The IRS could then just apply its existing rule that says employment income is subject to taxation. It is the same thing as when the IRS audtis an employer and finds that folks that employer thought were indepedent contractors are really employee. (I guess this could be different if the IRS has issued any ruling on college players not being employees. I don't know if it has or hasn't.)
Also, you wouldn't have a rule that joining a union makes you an employee. You have to be an employee in order to unionize. If the NW players won, the Board/Courts would issue a ruling saying that college football players at NW are employees. That would set precedent that other people in similar circumstances are also employees. Thus, even if no other players ever organized, scholly players everywhere would now be considered employees and subject to income tax.
January 29th, 2014 at 5:25 AM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^
As noted, be careful what you wish for.
January 28th, 2014 at 1:27 PM ^
The idea of college sports as "work" is fundamentally silly, and the existence of the walk-on shows why.
In what other walk of life do people schlep themselves into the offices of the people who run the enterprise and offer to "work" for free? Not only do they offer to "work" for free, but they also invest the time and effort to be better at the "job" than the people who get "paid" to do the "job."
January 28th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 1:28 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
Are you talking about unions "earning salary" for their "work" in an article about the damn NCAA???
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/
Which is, you know, filled with dudes getting rich off these kids for nothing while keeping the kids from doing damn near anything about it?
January 28th, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 3:01 PM ^
Typically, due deductions is a negotiated as part of the collective bargaining agreement. This usually invovles the employer agreeing to deduct the dues amount from the pay of the employees and forward those funds to the union. (However, if Illinois is a right to work state, then the dues could not be required. A given employee could elect not to pay dues. That employee is still covered by the terms of the agreement and is entiteld the fair representation by the union.)
I have no idea on how this would play out in the context of college football players. I suppose that the kids could play them directly out of a student account.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:11 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^
But make them pay their own tuition. The old system doesn't look that bad does it?
January 28th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
conversations about the morality of paying players, but why don't we ever talk about the equally valid abstract idea: there is no moral reason why college athletics should be a multi-million dollar industry.
doesn't it make more sense to remove the revenue (obviously keep the necessary funds to maintain the athletic scholarships and programs) and give it back to the fans?
how about, instead of paying nik stauskas and devin gardner, we make it a whole lot cheaper for fans to go to games?
January 28th, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
Best idea someone suggested yet. But as Brian has said here, they'll find what you love and change you as much as they can squeeze out of you for it.
January 28th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^
I'm confused. To join a union, don't you generally have to be an employee?
January 28th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
I never thought players at Northwestern would be the first to do this
January 28th, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^
Sorry if this has already been mentioed, but think what this would do to oversigining. With union employees come union rules. Saban and the gang in the SEC would no longer have the ability to creatively purge players to accomodate their in comming oversigned classes.
January 28th, 2014 at 8:56 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 6:07 PM ^
I thought about De'shawn Hand when I heard this. He seemed to go to Alabama because he could do engineering and football there, while Michigan tried to steer him towards Sports Management, which would be easier with football. I think this also brings the farce of the student-athlete down, and may also be a thorn of the side of the educational value.
I also think about Harbaugh's comments. I'm not sure how true they are, but I could see some institutions, if not Michigan, steering players towards easier degrees because it works with football. I know a friend who was made to take less classes because of the sports season. Its clear athletics come first, unless one is in danger of academic probation.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:30 PM ^
let players do commercials.
let players sign autographs for money.
let players get free cars from dealers.
Keep College athletics as it is, but let kids make money from their name, if they can... I think it is unjust that Funchess can't make money off of his name but the school can. I think that it is ridiculous to think that schools are going to pay players: paying players is for the NBA. NFL, etc....
January 28th, 2014 at 9:17 PM ^
Undergrads at the B-school are making 30K+ each summer working on wall street. Why can't the athletes do the exact same thing?
January 29th, 2014 at 12:16 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 5:34 AM ^
and other legal issues:
http://college-football.si.com/2014/01/28/northwestern-football-kain-colter-labor-union/
Personally, I don't think that football players get a raw deal, but they collectively produce a ton of revenue, most of which doesn't go to people who had a hand in earning it. I have no good answer about how to deal with that, but lifetime health insurance seems like a minimum that the NCAA should provide, particularly as the NFL adopts the "prove you got more concussed in the NFL and not in college/high school" defense.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:03 AM ^
I know this is just a basic example and applied to my situation, but getting a free degree from Michigan is getting paid. If the NCAA makes millions because my son was good at a sport, whatever. He still got to go to Michigan and earn a degree that I couldn't have otherwise afforded.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to kids making a few bucks selling autographs or whatever. If they keep up with the required class work, but have time to sit for an hour and sign autographs for $50, I don't care.