CaptRenault
Well-known member
Thank you for posting all of these. The NCAA is a joke. If they want to get out ahead of this, just allow the schools or their affiliates to pay the players as employees and, as a condition of their paid employment...
The idea of classifying athletes as employees seems appealing as a way to solve a lot of the current problems facing the NCAA and its member schools. However, among all the reform proposals out there, this idea seems to be the one that colleges dislike the most.
I don't fully understand all the reasons why colleges seem dead set against the athletes-as-employees model of reform. But the issue has come up several times in recent years and the NCAA and its member schools have been successful in getting courts and the federal bureaucracy (the Labor Department and the NLRB) to rule that athletes are students and not employees.
Given the losing streak that the NCAA is on now, that rule could get suddenly overturned (like other NCAA rules have been overturned) and become the main means by which colleges sports undergoes a revolution. But for whatever reasons, the NCAA and members schools seem to prefer other routes to major reform. The NCAA is now resigned to making big reforms but it still seems to not want to use the route of having athletes classified as employees. One big concern seems to be the potential effect of Title IX:
College Athletes as Employees: Landmark Case Could Reshape Collegiate Athletics | JD Supra
In a pivotal legal battle, the Third Circuit is currently deliberating whether college athletes should be considered employees under the Fair Labor...
www.jdsupra.com
...If college athletes are deemed employees, there could be a “cascading effect” of opening the door to various legal challenges under federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title IX and Title VII.
Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities, has been instrumental in promoting gender equity in college sports. If athletes are considered employees, Title IX obligations may extend to ensuring equal wages and opportunities for female athletes, potentially leading to changes in funding and resources allocation within athletic departments. Jodi Balsam, a sports law expert and professor at Brooklyn Law School noted that schools may need to change the way they manage the athletic programs in order to justify, for example, why the football players are paid more than the women’s lacrosse team by holding the women players to fewer or lower expectations. She explained:
“In any job classification system, when it comes to addressing gender disparities, you need to justify those disparities by job classifications and expectations and market values.”
Furthermore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If college athletes are recognized as employees, universities may face increased scrutiny over issues of racial discrimination within their athletic programs. This could have implications for hiring practices, coaching staff diversity, and opportunities for athletes of different backgrounds.
Conclusion
As the Third Circuit deliberates on whether college athletes should be considered employees, the outcome of this case has the potential to reshape the landscape of college sports. The debate over athlete compensation is just the tip of the iceberg. A decision in favor of the players could lead to the implication of federal anti-discrimination laws, impacting issues of gender equity and racial fairness in college athletics. It remains to be seen how the Third Circuit will rule, but the outcome will likely have a profound impact on the future of college athletics and the broader conversation about athletes’ rights and equitable treatment.