• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Attorney Ques- how does this unionization issue play out for wake or private schools?

scooter84 said:
For 95% or more of the athletes who get access to a free education, that education is not a sham. Most college athletes are truly student athletes - working their ass off at their sport and their schoolwork and leaving school with a degree and good job prospects as something other than a professional athlete.

One problem is that there is a lot of nebulous talk about players getting paid, or getting "their share" or having rights or whatever - but no consensus that I have seen as to what they should really get. I don't think anyone has a real problem with players receiving some kind of living stipend beyond what they get now - assuming it works with budgets. The problem, from a mathematical and workability standpoint, arises when people start talking about paying players any kind of real money. How do you do that?

The questions have been asked before ad nauseum, but, who gets paid (everyone? stars more than others? revenue-producing sports only?). How do you deal with Title IX? How do you pay players and still have the money to support the great majority of sports that do not product revenue. Most athletic budgets are running at a loss now - so where does the money come from?

People will point at the millions being paid to coaches as evidence that there is money to be shared - and that is a valid point. But, how much can you reasonably expect to scale that back? Would you ever be able to save enough there to help pay athletes in any significant way?

The NCAA is a screwed up organization is so many ways! But the one goal they have which seems necessary to me is keeping some kind of parity in recruiting. The system can never be such that schools with more resources can pay more.

Maybe you have a plan that will work - I don't know. Maybe college athletics as we know it simply has to go away - I don't know.

It just annoys me when athletes at a place like Northwestern, where a 4-year scholarship is worth probably $250k and where many of them could never sniff the school without athletics, want to complain about not getting their fair share. (and, by the way, I don't even know what these particular athletes even want...)
Click to expand...

I have explained my stance on here a few times in the past. I went to college on a scholarship at a private liberal arts institution with need blind financial aid, took out loans for my masters at a private research university, and I am fully funded (with stipend) for my PhD at a large public university, so I feel like I understand the funding landscape in higher education pretty well.

Somehow, institutions are able to make scholarships (and fellowships) work for exceptional academic prospects at both undergraduate and graduate levels. I don't understand (outside of the obvious race and class implications) why it is so hard to translate what already works into a fairly small subset of students who produce a TON of value for their respective universities. That it's a difficult proposition and will involve a lot of policy firepower to implement is a non-issue in my opinion. That's what academics, policymakers and administrators get paid to think about and implement. At the end of the day, fully funded student athletes do not comprise THAT large of a population at a majority of institutions in NCAA Division 1 athletics. They really don't. The schools with student bodies south of 9999 are few.

Granted and you're right, the implications vary according to the size of the institution, whether it's public of private, and lately, nonprofit of for-profit, but college athletics is exploitation as it is and these moves are much needed in terms of pushing policy makers to reconcile the fact that education and athletics are awkward bedfellows.

My plan is and always has been to implement a graduate student funding model for scholarship athletes in NCAA member institutions according to the relative income that programs generate for their respective institutions. There should be a hard cap (let's say $15,000) and students should be able to supplement this stipend with funding generated from profiting off of their likeness and brand and/or other image-related opportunities. On the recruiting trail, schools can compete on the basis of their funding package and education/athletic product.

If schools lack the budget to do this, then they should not have athletic programs unless a uniform exception can be made to take these schools into consideration. The latter actually already exists if you take into consideration the fact that a degree from Prairie View A&M or Grand Canyon University is worthless compared to Cal, Michigan, Wake Forest, or Northwestern. Likewise, the Ivies have managed to buck the typical NCAA rhetorical turn of student-athlete scholarships with their classification of athletes as receiving grant-in-aid for matriculating students.

It's a horribly fucked up situation and for some students (though almost entirely in non-revenue sports), athletics does offer a clear path to academics. You don't have to tell me that twice. Yet, in revenue sports it's straight up exploitation, a situation that begs for a solution that includes a structured funding model as a means of compensating college athletes for the use of and profit from their images and talents. After all, with the exception of elite academic institutions, athletics contributes substantially to most of the most visible institutions of higher learning in this country.

Just my two cents, and thank you for engaging with my point (which I apologize came off as so aggressive/condescending).
 
FWIW, the players at Northwestern are saying their principal demands are (i) medical care covered for injuries incurred in playing for the school and (ii) guaranteed 4 year scholarships that can't be pulled by coaches without cause.

I think unionization is the wrong way to get to NCAA reform, but the players are not left with a lot of other choices. The NCAA is dead-set on the "amateurism" rules and showing no signs whatsoever of reigning in the most egregious abuses of players by schools - namely, the fact that if you are paralyzed playing college football, the school will wash its hands of you and you're on your own for lifetime medical care, and the practice of people like Nick Saban over-recruiting and pulling the schollies of "redundant" athletes.

If the NCAA, which allegedly is supposed to be watching out for student athletes, is instead going to actively work against them in collusion with the schools who are making money off them, what other avenue for reform do the players have?
 
I tend to agree with those who predict that the NLRB ruling will be reversed. If it isn't, then the tuition and fees they get would be part of their income so, as a general rule, private schools would have to pay less (assuming an NCAA-wide union) than state supported schools with low tuition. Example, if the union negotiates a $75,000 per year deal, Wake gets credit for nearly $60,000 of that in tuition and fees, while UNC has to come up with maybe $50-60,000 (I'm not sure what tuition there is and not sure whether the goat club gets an instate tuition break) per athlete. On the other hand, if the union negotiates a payment schedule in addition to tuition and fees, small private schools will be hit hard. In any event, the entire compensation package would, I think, be taxable to the athlete. Also to be considered, will the "union" include athletes from non-revenue or low-revenue producing sports and women's sports? Title IX makes it likely that women's sports would be included, but if ALL athletes are included, you will see the demise of sports like soccer, lacrosse, track and field, baseball, etc. and a reduction in the number of women's sports. Football, and to some extent, basketball, is driving this and they aren't thinking of their colleagues in other sports. For some reason, media talking/writing heads don't think much of the value of a college education and downplay the value of the scholarship (probably should call it grant). Most of them are obsessed with pro sports and think the college game (football and basketball - they don't care about the rest) should be more like the pros. Also, with whom does the union negotiate? The NCAA doesn't pay scholarships, and gets most of the money from the BB tourney, which is distributed to members, so negotiations might be school to school. What about lower divisions in football and some other sports? Are the football players at Mt. Union going to get what the kids at Bama get? If so, those programs are gone. Finally, what about a major school like Maryland with something like $50 million in debt and counting? Can they ante up to unionized athletes and continue to have intercollegiate sports? The Northwestern kids are undoubtedly smart, but I don't think they've thought this through.
 
I posted this on the first thread that was started about this:

Here's another fun little tax implication.

A player at Big State U – say the University of Texas - has to pay tax on tuition of under $5,000. The player would qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and actually get money back every April. They’d get more back if they had a child. [To answer Wild Bill's question, yes, the Goat Club only pays in-state tuition. In fact, the homers in the general assembly passes a law allowing the Goat Club to just pay in-state tuition even for out-of-state players, although I think that may have gone away in the last round of budget cutting.]

A player at Northwestern or Wake Forest, tuition $60,000+, would be in the 25% tax bracket and would have basically no deductions, so they’d be forking over $15,000 every April. Where are they going to get the cash? Is the NCAA going to let the colleges pay it or loan it to the players? I don't think so.

If what I just said is true, and I think it is, how in the hell do the privates recruit players?
 
Strickland33 said:
I have explained my stance on here a few times in the past. I went to college on a scholarship at a private liberal arts institution with need blind financial aid, took out loans for my masters at a private research university, and I am fully funded (with stipend) for my PhD at a large public university, so I feel like I understand the funding landscape in higher education pretty well.

Somehow, institutions are able to make scholarships (and fellowships) work for exceptional academic prospects at both undergraduate and graduate levels. I don't understand (outside of the obvious race and class implications) why it is so hard to translate what already works into a fairly small subset of students who produce a TON of value for their respective universities. That it's a difficult proposition and will involve a lot of policy firepower to implement is a non-issue in my opinion. That's what academics, policymakers and administrators get paid to think about and implement. At the end of the day, fully funded student athletes do not comprise THAT large of a population at a majority of institutions in NCAA Division 1 athletics. They really don't. The schools with student bodies south of 9999 are few.

Granted and you're right, the implications vary according to the size of the institution, whether it's public of private, and lately, nonprofit of for-profit, but college athletics is exploitation as it is and these moves are much needed in terms of pushing policy makers to reconcile the fact that education and athletics are awkward bedfellows.

My plan is and always has been to implement a graduate student funding model for scholarship athletes in NCAA member institutions according to the relative income that programs generate for their respective institutions. There should be a hard cap (let's say $15,000) and students should be able to supplement this stipend with funding generated from profiting off of their likeness and brand and/or other image-related opportunities. On the recruiting trail, schools can compete on the basis of their funding package and education/athletic product.

If schools lack the budget to do this, then they should not have athletic programs unless a uniform exception can be made to take these schools into consideration. The latter actually already exists if you take into consideration the fact that a degree from Prairie View A&M or Grand Canyon University is worthless compared to Cal, Michigan, Wake Forest, or Northwestern. Likewise, the Ivies have managed to buck the typical NCAA rhetorical turn of student-athlete scholarships with their classification of athletes as receiving grant-in-aid for matriculating students.

It's a horribly fucked up situation and for some students (though almost entirely in non-revenue sports), athletics does offer a clear path to academics. You don't have to tell me that twice. Yet, in revenue sports it's straight up exploitation, a situation that begs for a solution that includes a structured funding model as a means of compensating college athletes for the use of and profit from their images and talents. After all, with the exception of elite academic institutions, athletics contributes substantially to most of the most visible institutions of higher learning in this country.

Just my two cents, and thank you for engaging with my point (which I apologize came off as so aggressive/condescending).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reasoned response... I guess I just disagree on the exploitation aspect. I just value what these kids are getting greater and think it is a pretty fair bargain. Sure the schools are making many millions off of the two major sports but that money really just goes to support the rest of the athletic department, giving all those hundred of athletes playing the 'minor' sports the same opportunity at an education and at continuing their competitive activities.

There are a very small number of student athletes that might truly be able to say they are being exploited - the famous athletes at major programs who truly drive large portions of the revenue. For those kids I think you fix a lot of the problem if you simply let them profit off of their own name. One problem with that is that is likely creates a greater recruiting disparity and potential for abuse. Who is going to be able to profit off of their name and likeness more - a great player at Texas (with a huge fanbase) or an equally great player at Wake Forest? This would just gives kids another reason to favor the huge programs. And, once kids are free to profit from their name and likeness, what is to stop boosters at every school from paying kids $100 for their autograph?

Without knowing the details, the health insurance issue that the NW kids are apparently pushing seems fair to me. I assume athletes get free medical care while on scholarship so I am not sure what gap they are pushing to fill? Perhaps coverage for care needed after their scholarship runs out? And I wouldn't have a problem with making the scholarships 4-year scholarships - with the only outs being for the players if a coach leaves and for the school if the student flunks out or violates certain concrete behavioral standards...
 
Like NFL players, college kids get lifelong brain injuries from concussions. Unlike NFL players, they are on their own. HBO Real Sports did a segment on this last September, featuring a Harvard football player bedridden and mentally disabled due to multiple concussions. What good is his education to him now?
 
If Congress learned anything from its botched and completely unnecessary investigation of steroids in MLB, you may be right. I'm not that confident.

DEACS76 said:
I don't think congress wants to get anywhere near this. This will be appealed to the full board at NLRB. Remember that there is a on going lawsuit claimimg that Obama illegaly appointed the last three appointments to the NLRB, which would void their decisions. Is there anybody at ESPN who doesn't like the original ruling?
Click to expand...
 
923, I like your take on the state run universities. In california, the state income tax is near 10%, no tax in Texas. How about that angle on the recruiting trail. "Come to Texas and make money." At USC, they'll be crushed with taxes. Scooter, I could see players getting Worker's Comp coverage in the future for their injuries. Awaken, Did that player keep going back in the games against medical clearence. If not, a settlement should be arranged with the University. Did Junior Seau have brain damage because he was a football player or was it that he lead with his head for 20 years. If he quit after 10 season could he be alive today?
 
And, it should be noted, the only way the NFL players got the owners to do anything about the concussion issue and lifetime care was through the union collective bargaining process.

If the people with the power and money could be trusted to do the right thing, nobody would need unions (or courts or contracts). It is pretty apparent at this point that the NCAA and the member schools are going to fight doing the right thing tooth and nail. The "right thing" doesn't necessarily mean paying players but it does mean things like taking care of their sports-related injuries and not pulling their scholarships when a hotter prospect gets recruited. These problems have been simmering for years, if not decades, and the NCAA does nothing. Should not be surprised when the simmer becomes a boil and you get extreme reactions like unionization.
 
tagsfan said:
If Congress learned anything from its botched and completely unnecessary investigation of steroids in MLB, you may be right. I'm not that confident.
Click to expand...

Tags, That investigation was due to a congressman named Sweeney from upstate NY, whose son was being sold steriods in his HS. Then it rolled into MLB with Canseco's book. Donald Fear, MLBPA prez, having to go along with steroid testing. It only turned into a circus when Clemmons testified. I agree that Congress can only screw this up.
 
Wild bill said:
I tend to agree with those who predict that the NLRB ruling will be reversed. If it isn't, then the tuition and fees they get would be part of their income so, as a general rule, private schools would have to pay less (assuming an NCAA-wide union) than state supported schools with low tuition. Example, if the union negotiates a $75,000 per year deal, Wake gets credit for nearly $60,000 of that in tuition and fees, while UNC has to come up with maybe $50-60,000 (I'm not sure what tuition there is and not sure whether the goat club gets an instate tuition break) per athlete. On the other hand, if the union negotiates a payment schedule in addition to tuition and fees, small private schools will be hit hard. In any event, the entire compensation package would, I think, be taxable to the athlete. Also to be considered, will the "union" include athletes from non-revenue or low-revenue producing sports and women's sports? Title IX makes it likely that women's sports would be included, but if ALL athletes are included, you will see the demise of sports like soccer, lacrosse, track and field, baseball, etc. and a reduction in the number of women's sports. Football, and to some extent, basketball, is driving this and they aren't thinking of their colleagues in other sports. For some reason, media talking/writing heads don't think much of the value of a college education and downplay the value of the scholarship (probably should call it grant). Most of them are obsessed with pro sports and think the college game (football and basketball - they don't care about the rest) should be more like the pros. Also, with whom does the union negotiate? The NCAA doesn't pay scholarships, and gets most of the money from the BB tourney, which is distributed to members, so negotiations might be school to school. What about lower divisions in football and some other sports? Are the football players at Mt. Union going to get what the kids at Bama get? If so, those programs are gone. Finally, what about a major school like Maryland with something like $50 million in debt and counting? Can they ante up to unionized athletes and continue to have intercollegiate sports? The Northwestern kids are undoubtedly smart, but I don't think they've thought this through.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the bold is an issue. I paid my taxes on Friday and, on my 1098 it clearly separates scholarship/tuition remission from fellowship/stipend. The former was not taxed (which was good because out of state tuition in the UC system is EXPENSIVE); the latter (<$10k) was taxed. It would be one thing if we were talking about these issues on the terms that already exist for funding in undergraduate and graduate contexts, but we're not and that sucks.

Likewise, I don't understand why all the pushback against unionization. There are multiple unions operating already in universities (service workers, clerical staff, adjunct professors, graduate TA/RAs, etc.) and they have proven the only way to get anything done regarding getting universities to make more progressive decisions regarding labor in a time of relative austerity.
 
Deacon923 said:
I posted this on the first thread that was started about this:

Here's another fun little tax implication.

A player at Big State U – say the University of Texas - has to pay tax on tuition of under $5,000. The player would qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit and actually get money back every April. They’d get more back if they had a child. [To answer Wild Bill's question, yes, the Goat Club only pays in-state tuition. In fact, the homers in the general assembly passes a law allowing the Goat Club to just pay in-state tuition even for out-of-state players, although I think that may have gone away in the last round of budget cutting.]

A player at Northwestern or Wake Forest, tuition $60,000+, would be in the 25% tax bracket and would have basically no deductions, so they’d be forking over $15,000 every April. Where are they going to get the cash? Is the NCAA going to let the colleges pay it or loan it to the players? I don't think so.

If what I just said is true, and I think it is, how in the hell do the privates recruit players?
Click to expand...

Again - I don't understand why this is an issue. A graduate student's 1098 separates tuition remission from fellowship stipends for tax purposes. We are advised by the dean of the graduate school that our tax brackets won't change when I go from being an out of state ($45k tuition) to an in state ($15k tuition) student.
 
Strickland33 said:
Again - I don't understand why this is an issue. A graduate student's 1098 separates tuition remission from fellowship stipends for tax purposes. We are advised by the dean of the graduate school that our tax brackets won't change when I go from being an out of state ($45k tuition) to an in state ($15k tuition) student.
Click to expand...

Right now it is unclear whether it will be an issue or not. What we know right now is:
(i) this one NLRB panel made a finding that the athletes were employees providing services, and the consideration they are receiving for their services is their scholarship. as far as I know, the NLRB panel made no distinction between different parts of that scholarship.
(ii) As you are describing, existing law already provides that scholarships are not income, except for any part of that scholarship that is payment for services - which is exactly what you are describing above. Part of the schollie is for grad student teaching, writing, etc. services and that is taxable.
(iii) If the government determines that 100% of the athlete's scholarship is consideration for services, 100% will be taxable. It may or may not be possible to divvy it up as is done for grad students. We don't know that yet, it's very early in the process, all this could go away or it could be a big deal.

In other words, we're all speculating on a message board. :thumbsup:
 
Deacon923 said:
Right now it is unclear whether it will be an issue or not. What we know right now is:
(i) this one NLRB panel made a finding that the athletes were employees providing services, and the consideration they are receiving for their services is their scholarship. as far as I know, the NLRB panel made no distinction between different parts of that scholarship.
(ii) As you are describing, existing law already provides that scholarships are not income, except for any part of that scholarship that is payment for services - which is exactly what you are describing above. Part of the schollie is for grad student teaching, writing, etc. services and that is taxable.
(iii) If the government determines that 100% of the athlete's scholarship is consideration for services, 100% will be taxable. It may or may not be possible to divvy it up as is done for grad students. We don't know that yet, it's very early in the process, all this could go away or it could be a big deal.

In other words, we're all speculating on a message board. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I should also add that, like all qualified UC graduate students, I'm a proud member of the UAW and it hasn't affected my tax/ability to pay situation to the degree y'all are speculating it might.
 
Strickland33 said:
Again - I don't understand why this is an issue. A graduate student's 1098 separates tuition remission from fellowship stipends for tax purposes. We are advised by the dean of the graduate school that our tax brackets won't change when I go from being an out of state ($45k tuition) to an in state ($15k tuition) student.
Click to expand...

Unless the grad student's fellowship stipend is paid pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the grad students and the university, the the grad student is not an employee and the funds paid to him/her is not income. If what you receive is payment to an employee for services rendered, it is taxable compensation.
 
Strickland33 said:
Lots of stuff is going on here. I only quoted scooter's posts because holy shit is that misguided, patronizing bullshit. "Education" is a fucking sham in collegiate athletics. Hell, a decent chunk of four year athletes don't even graduate, instead staying eligible long enough to compete before they either don't have the credits or the grades to actually get the diploma. Also, the arms race in coaches' salaries only reinforces the remakrable hypocrisy at play. It's not a different issue. It's the other side of the coin.

I'll also ask you, scooter, to qualify or substantiate the bolded statement.

I don't know how this will play out, but I do hope that the NLRB holds up this decision because I am intrigued equally in seeing how this plays out and how much it shatters people like scooter84's ignorant worldviews.







The most important distinction, IMO, is that grant-in-aid (or tuition remission) is typically refers to scholarship money. I think y'all may be conflating grant-in-aid and fellowship/stipend funding. The former is non-taxable; the latter is taxable. Both "work" in institutions of higher learning and at both undergraduate and graduate levels. This is really not that controversial a concept.

How compatible this model is with a unionization model (see the UAW's latest work with NYU TAs) remains to be seen, but it's really not THAT much of a leap given what already happens in terms of funding in higher education. At the very least, though, this move may give the players'/student athletes' leverage that they need to get a "piece of the pie."
Click to expand...


Actually, after thinking about, you may just be right. However, I still think any compensation over and above tuition/fees, etc. would probably be taxable if it's negotiated as part of a CBA. If that is the case, small private schools may be at a real disadvantage. At Wake, the athletic "scholarships" are primarily funded by the Deacon Club. Some athletes qualify for other grants in addition. Fact is, most athletic departments across all divisions don't make money, they lose it. That's why Savannah State is willing to get their teeth knocked out by FSU every other year. My sense is that for some athletes, in the revenue sports, this is a good deal. For others it may not be because their programs may be eliminated if the school has to write a paycheck every month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top