default
Member
This will be a disaster. If ALL college sports go union, it will be the end of college sports as we know it.
default
Member
I don’t know, this could be a good thing. I’m sure any athlete that wants to go to Northwestern, I’m sure a contract must be signed. This contract may state that any athlete must play all four years, not allowed to transfer, must have a certain GPA, etc in order to receive the athletic portion of the scholarship. It could be also written that any of above mentioned are not achieved, the athletic money be revoked. If Northwestern’s AD placed something like this in the contract, how many athletes will want to attend that school? This may actually kill the revenue portion of the schools.
This also could force the end of the athletic scholarships altogether. Isn’t that what college is about anyway, academics to provide a chance for a better lifestyle? We all preach our kids academics all of the time, but half of the recruits out there FAIL to meet the requirements set forth by the NCAA clearinghouse.
So let it happen. This will more than likely backfire.
default
Member
Some comments from Mike and Mike stirred some questions ..
Would the scholarships be taxed now if the players are considered employees? Now players that can't afford the tuition initially would have to pay taxes on the scholarships? Remember the NCAA and Conferences are considering a stipend for athletes because many kids can't even afford pizza nights. Now will those same students have a tax bill?
Now the classification as employees would open up some positives - but they would have to be negotiated as any union contract has to be. On going heath insurance (concussions), 4 year scholarships, non-revenue sport coverage, stipend, etc. They would also be covered by workmen's comp. This could get interesting...and potentially bloody. If the union gains members they will go after individual states that might be open to the NLRB's interpretation. If that happens and some states and state schools allow the athletes to unionize the college sports landscape would be in real trouble.
And the reason this is/will be happening is because the college presidents allowed the NCAA to turn into such a nonsensical, inconsequential, headinthesand, rules and enforcement organization. Had that organization addressed the changing environment (see money) that has occurred over the last two decades this would never had raised its potentially ugly head.
Would the scholarships be taxed now if the players are considered employees? Now players that can't afford the tuition initially would have to pay taxes on the scholarships? Remember the NCAA and Conferences are considering a stipend for athletes because many kids can't even afford pizza nights. Now will those same students have a tax bill?
Now the classification as employees would open up some positives - but they would have to be negotiated as any union contract has to be. On going heath insurance (concussions), 4 year scholarships, non-revenue sport coverage, stipend, etc. They would also be covered by workmen's comp. This could get interesting...and potentially bloody. If the union gains members they will go after individual states that might be open to the NLRB's interpretation. If that happens and some states and state schools allow the athletes to unionize the college sports landscape would be in real trouble.
And the reason this is/will be happening is because the college presidents allowed the NCAA to turn into such a nonsensical, inconsequential, headinthesand, rules and enforcement organization. Had that organization addressed the changing environment (see money) that has occurred over the last two decades this would never had raised its potentially ugly head.
default
Member
Sorry, but this is just plain stupid.
D1 athletes today have the potential to get a free education ... this not only represents a 6 figure plus savings in education costs, but a long-term benefit that can measure in the millions whether that is a result of a professional athletic career or from the education degree and ultimate career that they choose. If you start giving some of the profits from the revenue-generating sports back to the students, then who do you think is going to pay for that? Do you think the colleges are going to be happy with less money, or do you think that they just hike up tuition costs for everyone? Or, worse yet, they just say that intercollegiate sports aren't worth it and drop them altogether.
And yes, if the athletes become employees of the university, then they absolutely will be responsible for taxes, and the university will have to pay employer taxes on them as well.
Hopefully common sense will eventually prevail here.
D1 athletes today have the potential to get a free education ... this not only represents a 6 figure plus savings in education costs, but a long-term benefit that can measure in the millions whether that is a result of a professional athletic career or from the education degree and ultimate career that they choose. If you start giving some of the profits from the revenue-generating sports back to the students, then who do you think is going to pay for that? Do you think the colleges are going to be happy with less money, or do you think that they just hike up tuition costs for everyone? Or, worse yet, they just say that intercollegiate sports aren't worth it and drop them altogether.
And yes, if the athletes become employees of the university, then they absolutely will be responsible for taxes, and the university will have to pay employer taxes on them as well.
Hopefully common sense will eventually prevail here.
default
Member
From what I read today, this only affects private institutions.
default
Member
There is another huge step that has to take place for anything to change overall. Even though the right to unionize has been approved the athletes are still under the watchful eye of the NCAA and the rules that it already has in place . So basically nothing can change. The athletes now have to win an anti trust law suit against the NCAA to move forward and have any impact upon the way they are handled by the member schools. I would say this process will take years not months to complete.
default
Member
The whole thing is stupid and mostly on the athletes part. Yes some schools make money off some sports but that is what funds the other sports. If you look at what an athlete with a FULL RIDE gets there is no reason for them not to have some money in their pockets except their own stupidity. If a player is getting a full ride to attend a University they get tuition,books, room and board. If you do not take the full meal plan which most do not(maybe football players do) you have some extra money. Then usually they only live in a dorm for a year, then they get a monthly check for the price of a dorm(dorms are pretty expensive) If they rent an apartment or a house and share the costs of it with some roommates they will have money left over. They usually do not need to have a 21 meal plan if they live in an apartment as well. Dorms and meals are very expensive. My daughters had apartments with 2 or 3 roommates and paid 300 to 400 per month for their share of an apartment and fixed their own meals. That probably saved 5 to 60 per month. I do not feel sorry for these players getting full rides who complain that have no money, they are getting a free education if they choose to take advantage.
default
Member
A lot of radio talk show pundits are saying that this is the first step in a several step process for the players to get better work conditions, benefits and ultimately a claim on the profits made by football programs.
If it reaches the point where football player unions are awarded parts of the profits from their respective football programs, you can bet your rear end that almost immediately collegiate baseball/softball, hockey, gymnastics, and cross country programs across the country will fold UNLESS they can find a way to be totally self funded (private donations/ fundraising).
I think some of these sports talk shows have no concept of the fact that while football profits are a profit for the football program, they are not a profit overall because these funds are used to fund all of the school's other teams except men's basketball. Most D I athletic departments break even or run at a small loss.
If it reaches the point where football player unions are awarded parts of the profits from their respective football programs, you can bet your rear end that almost immediately collegiate baseball/softball, hockey, gymnastics, and cross country programs across the country will fold UNLESS they can find a way to be totally self funded (private donations/ fundraising).
I think some of these sports talk shows have no concept of the fact that while football profits are a profit for the football program, they are not a profit overall because these funds are used to fund all of the school's other teams except men's basketball. Most D I athletic departments break even or run at a small loss.
default
Member
True - The NLRB findings are specific to private institutions. The reason for that is because those schools are not bound by the their states public institution Labor laws as seen by the NLRB. Because each states laws govern those inside the state, public institutions aren't involved in this decision. That said - the union does have the option to petition the NLRB in individual states and try to get the same decision in those states. If successful the athletes in those states would then have the option to vote to join the union. This is FAR from over. There are so many angles that have to be worked. And don't put it past our elected officials to convene some special committee to try to solve this on a national basis.
* Appeal - already filed
* If the ruling stands the NLRB gets involved to determine a TON of things - the most important is who is the bargaining unit.
That alone could take forever.
But to the OP - if the ruling stands, and it expands, the impact on all college teams could be huge. You might see many of the current fringe sports revert to club status. Now that might not be all bad - but for those that enjoy that participation, having a virtual pay2play situation might mean not playing in college.
default
Member
The points you are making about non football sports are exactly why there will be a HUGE fight concerning who is in the bargaining unit. If the union can get it specifically to the revenue sports - mens/womens basketball and football - the union will have a great chance to win a union vote. If the schools can get the bargaining unit to include all school sponsored athletes the vote will probably go in favor of the school/conference. I am sure all bigtime programs are lawyering up as we speak.
default
Member
These are the players who are being told (probably by potential agents) that they should be getting a bigger slice of the pie, since the sports program generates so much money. They always think they're entitled to something more. The recruiting agreement was " we'll pay for your education if you attend our school". Nothing more. And the players signed the contract...
default
Member
i don't think we can assume that just because they are deemed to be an "employee" by governmental agency that deals with unions means that the IRS or State workers compensation laws will also deem them to be an employee- i read somewhere the the "standard" of what constitutes an employee is different for each.
with regard to what effect this might have on non-revenue sports, ESPN posted a link to the decision in this case- i read through it and it had a breakdown of what Northwestern earns from its program and what it costs to run the program and how much is then spread amongst the non-revenue sports. So assuming that the players do unionize and their contracts call for certain guarantees like lifetime schooling (go back and earn as many degrees as you want), health care for injuries sustained while at the school, then that would likely have a "cost" that would impact non revenue sports.
The bigger issue is the NCAA- right now the NCAA decides what is considered "amatuerism" and whether or not players are entitled to make money off their likeness- to me, i see this issue as a fight between CAPA or the UNION and the NCAA.....to be honest, the NCAA did this to themselves- they got too greedy and have exploited these kids for thier own personal gain.
Remember, as long as the NCAA rules still restrict what players can make in $$$ off their tickets, autograph, endorsements, whether or not they can get paid, etc it doesn't really matter what CAPA might want because those things would violate the NCAA rules as far as eligibility. I know some people see this as players wanting $$$$, but if you sit back and think about it, no matter what their union contract said, they would still have to follow NCAA rules correct? So i think at best, CAPA will just fight for players "rights" such as 4 year contracts, health care, life time schooling, "rest" periods, etc.
with regard to what effect this might have on non-revenue sports, ESPN posted a link to the decision in this case- i read through it and it had a breakdown of what Northwestern earns from its program and what it costs to run the program and how much is then spread amongst the non-revenue sports. So assuming that the players do unionize and their contracts call for certain guarantees like lifetime schooling (go back and earn as many degrees as you want), health care for injuries sustained while at the school, then that would likely have a "cost" that would impact non revenue sports.
The bigger issue is the NCAA- right now the NCAA decides what is considered "amatuerism" and whether or not players are entitled to make money off their likeness- to me, i see this issue as a fight between CAPA or the UNION and the NCAA.....to be honest, the NCAA did this to themselves- they got too greedy and have exploited these kids for thier own personal gain.
Remember, as long as the NCAA rules still restrict what players can make in $$$ off their tickets, autograph, endorsements, whether or not they can get paid, etc it doesn't really matter what CAPA might want because those things would violate the NCAA rules as far as eligibility. I know some people see this as players wanting $$$$, but if you sit back and think about it, no matter what their union contract said, they would still have to follow NCAA rules correct? So i think at best, CAPA will just fight for players "rights" such as 4 year contracts, health care, life time schooling, "rest" periods, etc.
default
Member
Also so the the kid from Northwestern was on ESPN this morning and stated this only applied to football and basketball it does not apply to all sports across the entire athletic department.
default
Member
Whatever the case here, it is inevitable that Div. I college football and basketball - at the big-time level - has to change. Anytime the free market is artificially constrained, people will figure out a way around it in due time. It has happened forever with players being paid under the table and it's going to keep happening until people are free to negotiate for their true value to a college.
default
Member
Not so sure Viking.. Do the top Football schools in America really need the NCAA or does the NCAA need them.
What if the 4 biggest football conferences(SEC,Big 10,Pac 10 & Big 12) all took their Football programs and left the NCAA and formed their own governing body that set guidelines and rules more realistic with todays athletes. Wouldnt America still want to watch the best football players in the country regardless if they are not part of the NCAA? Most of these conferences have their own TV Networks anyway. Sure they would have to rename their conference because I am sure the NCAA has the naming rights, but it would only be a matter of time until the big TV networks would buy in to wanting the rights to air their games. Just a thought!!!
default
Member
The NCAA weilds too much power for that to happen- unless the antitrust lawsuit breaks them
default
Member
Maybe they could call it PGF (Premier Guys Football) :lmao:
default
Member
Some people overestimate the athletes' value to programs because a large portion of each program's popularity is affinity with the school and the athletes are somewhat interchangeable. The under-the-table payments are generally from boosters and the amount they give does not correspond with the player's quantifiable value to the program.
Athletes should receive a portion of the profits that are tied to them individually (e.g. merchandise and likeness).
The amount of money top football and men's basketball programs generate make them different than the rest of the sports. I came to the conclusion years ago that there should be a new classification for those sports, a la BCS, that would have a looser set of rules - it wouldn't necessarily be part of the NCAA. Qualifying Div-I programs could opt to participate in the wide open classification for a sport or stay in the safer confines of Div-I.
Athletes should receive a portion of the profits that are tied to them individually (e.g. merchandise and likeness).
The amount of money top football and men's basketball programs generate make them different than the rest of the sports. I came to the conclusion years ago that there should be a new classification for those sports, a la BCS, that would have a looser set of rules - it wouldn't necessarily be part of the NCAA. Qualifying Div-I programs could opt to participate in the wide open classification for a sport or stay in the safer confines of Div-I.
default
Member
I could be wrong - but I think the filing with the NLRB was strictly based on football and basketball. But I believe that the NLRB ruled that scholarship athletes were in fact employees. Their ruling seems to expand on the filing - which isn't unusual.
