Unions coming to NCAA sports?

[FanOfPurdueWrestling]

11 hours ago, Red Blades said:

Clearly, you haven't been to many Ivy League football games.  

They wouldn’t let me in the ivies, they knew I’d become too powerful….

[FanOfPurdueWrestling]

11 hours ago, ionel said:

ok ... I didn't think about it that way ...

although I thought that was the job of Harry's Chocolate Shop not the athletes ... 

Harry’s Chocolate shop doesn’t even sell chocolate, the line is too long, and people put it on a pedestal.

 

I, like many real boilermakers, see through the facade that Harry’s is cool. 
 

WhereElse is the place to be.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, FanOfPurdueWrestling said:

Harry’s Chocolate shop doesn’t even sell chocolate, the line is too long, and people put it on a pedestal.

 

I, like many real boilermakers, see through the facade that Harry’s is cool. 
 

WhereElse is the place to be.

Good grief, I know it doesn't sell chocolate, it sells the experience you claim athletes provide, at least it used to.  But maybe its gotten so busy folks don't go there anymore.    

[Red Blades]

2 hours ago, fishbane said:

Your timeline is not only in accurate it also misses the most important thing - the money.  The NCAA did not allow this to happen they fought it for years spending millions on legal costs.  At some point it became inevitable and the biggest thing NCAA and it's member schools did to bring it about was to start selling tickets and broadcast rights for millions/billions of dollars.

A year or so ago MLS signed an exclusive broadcast rights deal with AppleTV.  That deal pays $2.5 million over 12 years.  I am sure MLS owners would love to be able to compensate the players only with room and board, some books, and classes unrelated to the players profession in exchange for them playing said games.  That's not how it works though.

The SEC recently sold their TV rights to ESPN in a 10 year deal valued at $3 billion.  The idea they could do that and not share the money in any meaningful way with the people actually playing the games is absurd. 

I think this cuts more to the issue - if student athletes are considered "employees", then who is considered the "employer"?  The university? or should it be the NCAA?  ESPN?  These are the people deriving benefit from the athletes, through media contracts.  Absent of that - the mere fact that an athlete participates in a varsity sport does not seem to me to create an employer / employee relationship.  The participation is an accommodation provided by a school, until someone starts to monetize it, but at that point - I think there is an argument to be made that the athletes SHOULD be paid.

[FanOfPurdueWrestling]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

Good grief, I know it doesn't sell chocolate, it sells the experience you claim athletes provide, at least it used to.  But maybe its gotten so busy folks don't go there anymore.    

I wasn’t implying you thought it sold chocolate, just pointing out that it’s a silly name. 

[fishbane]

3 hours ago, Red Blades said:

I think this cuts more to the issue - if student athletes are considered "employees", then who is considered the "employer"?  The university? or should it be the NCAA?  ESPN?  These are the people deriving benefit from the athletes, through media contracts.  Absent of that - the mere fact that an athlete participates in a varsity sport does not seem to me to create an employer / employee relationship.  The participation is an accommodation provided by a school, until someone starts to monetize it, but at that point - I think there is an argument to be made that the athletes SHOULD be paid.

It's an interesting question.  The NLRA act which creates unions doesn't have a clear definition of employee, but courts have used the common law test to assess whether a worker is an employee.  The NLRA does not apply to government or railway employers/employees, so there likely isn't really a pathway for the Dartmouth ruling to reach most of the Power 5 conference schools which are state institutions. If they could argue that the NCAA is the employer then that might be a work around, but I suspect the relevant legal tests would favor the institution being the employer.  

There is only one private institution in the SEC (Vanderbilt), one in the Big Ten (Northwestern) though Penn State likely would also be subject to the NLRA as well, two in the PAC-12 (Stanford and USC), three in the Big 12 (Baylor, BYU, and TCU), six in the ACC (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, and Syracuse) though Pitt would likely be subject to the NLRA too. So at most 15 Power 5 schools would be in danger of their athletes unionizing.

[jmoney]

17 hours ago, Red Blades said:

Clearly, you haven't been to many Ivy League football games.  

or Northwesterm...

[peanut]

On 3/7/2024 at 1:07 PM, fishbane said:

It's an interesting question.  The NLRA act which creates unions doesn't have a clear definition of employee, but courts have used the common law test to assess whether a worker is an employee.  The NLRA does not apply to government or railway employers/employees, so there likely isn't really a pathway for the Dartmouth ruling to reach most of the Power 5 conference schools which are state institutions. If they could argue that the NCAA is the employer then that might be a work around, but I suspect the relevant legal tests would favor the institution being the employer.  

There is only one private institution in the SEC (Vanderbilt), one in the Big Ten (Northwestern) though Penn State likely would also be subject to the NLRA as well, two in the PAC-12 (Stanford and USC), three in the Big 12 (Baylor, BYU, and TCU), six in the ACC (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, and Syracuse) though Pitt would likely be subject to the NLRA too. So at most 15 Power 5 schools would be in danger of their athletes unionizing.

Good point about athletes at public schools not being covered by the NLRA. They’d be covered by state labor statutes if they’re covered at all.

Edited March 9 by peanut

[fishbane]

On 3/5/2024 at 11:04 PM, Red Blades said:

Given that Dartmouth athletes do not receive any scholarships money for playing (as is the case with all Ivy League athletes), I'm not sure I understand how they can be considered employees - at least not any more so than any other students on campus.  As such, I wouldn't be surprised if this does not hold up in court.  But then again, it's a crazy world we live in, so I guess - wait and see!

I'm quoting the NYT here "In granting the players employee status, the regional director hearing the case, Laura A. Sacks, ruled that the six pairs of basketball shoes (valued at $200 apiece) given to players each season and the two to four tickets that players are provided to each game for their family and friends served as compensation and thus place the players under the college’s control.

She also ruled that another form of compensation is access to the “early read” admissions process because of their value as basketball players."

So I think compensation is a key component and that the NLRB ruled that they had been compensated.  They also ruled that they were employees because of the control the school had over the players and how the work was performed.  I am sure Dartmouth's appeal will argue that they are not in fact compensated.

On 3/7/2024 at 10:41 AM, Red Blades said:

I think this cuts more to the issue - if student athletes are considered "employees", then who is considered the "employer"?  The university? or should it be the NCAA?  ESPN?  These are the people deriving benefit from the athletes, through media contracts.  

I read that the basketball and football players at USC are trying to get a similar designation by the NLRB so that they can unionize.  They are attempting to argue that they are employees of USC, the PAC-12, and the NCAA.  The later two might have been added to try and work around the government technicality that thwarted an unionization attempt by athletes at Northwestern some 10 for so years ago.

In Carter Starocci's recent interview he definitely talks like he works for Cael/PSU.  "He's the boss man.  I work for him." Not sure if he is pushing to unionize the crew in Happy Valley and is using that language deliberately or he is just naturally talking that way because it reflects the same reality that the NLRB found in the Dartmouth case.

 

Edited March 14 by fishbane

[Richb]

Dartmouth has not been to the NCAA tournament since 1959. Likely the worst team that has been in D1 BB the last 50 years. Hopefully the AD will drop the sport and reinstate wrestling. 

[Red Blades]

So it seems the battle lines have been drawn on this issue:

Dartmouth says it won't bargain with basketball players' union (msn.com)

[fishbane]

41 minutes ago, Red Blades said:

So it seems the battle lines have been drawn on this issue:

Dartmouth says it won't bargain with basketball players' union (msn.com)

It would seem like they are unwilling to negotiate with a club wrestling program either.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wrestling/comments/1bgug0k/dartmouth_college_not_allowing_wrestling_club/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3